Array Networks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

List of sources at the AfD:

From the closing admin's talk page:

The company has received substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. It received a detailed article in the financial magazine Forbes. It received a detailed article from the San Jose Mercury News, which has a circulation of over 500,000. It received a detailed article in the technology magazine InformationWeek, which has a circulation of 200,000. Regarding Taiwan's stock exchanges, Array Networks was "first foreign company to list in Taiwan", according to The Wall Street Journal.

The "delete" editors either failed to explain why reliable newspaper and magazine articles were press releases or made arguments that violated Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.

Admins routinely close AfDs as delete even when when there is a lopsided vote count in favor of retention by discounting non-policy-based "keep" votes. They should do likewise for non-policy-based "delete" votes. See for example the "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie (6–2 in support of retention), which was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 1#Phoenix Marie.

Cunard (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, I was actually going to DRV this myself, thanks for doing it. It's very simple here sources pass GNG, but more importantly this subject passes WP:LISTED on the TSE (not OTC). TSE is the 19th largest international exchange and is subject to similar regulations as the NASDAQ. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Consensus to delete found, straightforward close. The Great Wall of China-esque Text by one editor has no bearing. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There are other reasons for deletion besides lack of notability., such as being promotional. We are not limited at afd as we are at speedy to those articles to promotional to fix; we can, and do, and should, delete articles substantially contaminated with promotionalism. Even if they were to be rewritten, the prior material should be removed altogether. Normally, we do not do this for those subjects that are clearly and unquestionably notable, for there are often good uncontaminated edits in the article history, and the good work should not be lost. This however is an instance where there is marginal notability, and clear promotionalism. Whether to remove in such a case is up to the community, and afd is the place to decide it. Restoring articles like this would send a clear message to the sub-community of promotional editors: that they are very likely to get away with it even if detected. NASDAQ is not necessarily notable--some of the companies in it are, but not most of them. There's a long string of decisions to that effect.Or read the WSJ article or Forbes, both of which in essence said that knowing it couldn't meet the standards of NYSE, they needed an alternative. Ad Valorem said at the AfD: "I believe regulation is what gives the company notability ". I think that makes no sense whatsoever. (Just as in the other AfD mentioned here, where essentially the community had to decide if an award was sufficient to imply notability, and correctly decided it was not.)

I agree completely that article content does not determine notability--but it can determine whether we should have a particular article. Other factors are even more important: although I normally argue for a broad interpretation of notability , I must admit that neither a broader or stricter notability standard --both within reasons -- does not essentially harm WP. Promotionalism destroys it, by making us an advertising medium & in essence no more than a web directory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

• Endorse, could not logically have been closed any other way. The size of a comment does not necessarily bear proportion to quality or weight — I advise User:Cunard to be more concise, whether or not placing arguments in collapse boxes. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was overwhelming consensus at the AfD to delete. Several people presented what they felt were good sources to establish notability, but cogent arguments were made by multiple people on the other side why those sources were not up to snuff. I echo the sentiments of others above that writing pages and pages of comments is not useful, and is probably counter-productive. Nobody is going to wade through all that. The argument in this DRV is essentially, The AfD didn't go my way, so I'm going to reiterate my original arguments in another forum and hope I get the result I want this time. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And the people who are arguing to overturn have been around long enough to know that it doesn't work that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (but allow new version) There's no doubt that the original AfD close should be endorsed, in the sense that, given the material that existed, no other close made sense. The next question is whether the version presented here should be allowed to stand. That's really a question for AfD, but let's not stand on process too much. Certainly, some of the publications cited (Forbes, WSJ, SJ Merc News) rank as reliable sources. The problem is, I'm not convinced that coverage in those articles is anything more than routine coverage of financial news by industry publications which cover all such announcements. Still, I think this version would have a reasonable chance of surviving another AfD, so letting it stand seems reasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The consensus was clear and multiple editors commented after the sources were provided and did not regard them as establishing notability. As such there is no other way the closing admin could have closed the AFD. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse even supposing that the majority was wrong. Rather than argue here, far better create a worthwhile article with good references. Thincat (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thincat (talk · contribs), I have followed your advice and created a neutral, reliably sourced article about the subject. What are your thoughts about how I can improve the article?

  ((db-repost)) applies to:

  A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy).

  Based on the wording of ((db-repost)) it is clear that the new article is not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy".

  Cunard (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cunard:. I can't see what was there before your new draft but it highly likely demonstrates that articles can get deleted on notability grounds not because the topic lacks notability but because the article has been poorly written. I think this happens a lot. You know this, I know this and a lot of other people here do as well. However, pretending it doesn't happen is part of the game we play. I'm too old to be shocked. As it happens, in this case the "promotional" aspect has muddied the water. Thincat (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see what was there before your new draft but it highly likely demonstrates that articles can get deleted on notability grounds not because the topic lacks notability but because the article has been poorly written. – yes, I've seen this happen many times before.

  I expected the AfD participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Array Networks to review the sources I posted. Instead, several editors called these newspaper article press releases (diffs 1, 2, and 3) without substantiating their implausible claims. Two editors explicitly ignored the sources I posted and focused on the poorly written article, saying the article did not demonstrate notability or that it was spam (diffs 1 and 2).

  I expected the closing admin to discount these very weak "delete" votes and close as "no consensus" or "keep". I believed this despite the lopsided vote count because the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie discounted very weak "keep" votes and closed as "delete" despite the 6–2 vote in support of retention. I was wrong. I expected the DRV community to correct the admin's mistake. I was wrong again.

  Cunard (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thincat (talk · contribs), as an editor uninvolved in the AfD, would you review the new article and determine whether the article "establishes notability and appears neutral" (quoting from Valoem below) in your opinion? Cunard (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it on my watchlist so if it is sent to AFD again I'll see if I have an opinion worth giving. Thincat (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a point at which you need to realize, Cunard, that it's not everyone else who's wrong. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can an admin please restore the full history so we can compare the current version written by Cunard to the older versions? Cunard's version establishes notability and appears neutral. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done -- RoySmith (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article in the version nominated for deletion and the last version before deletion is very technical. But it does not read like promotion to me. My recreated article is neither technical nor promotional. Thoughts from other editors? Cunard (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- the discussion could not have been closed any other way. Allow recreation if the sources are sufficient, but I'm generally unconvinced by run-of-the-mill promotional churn. And please, please, please stop with the ginormous filibustering walls of text. You complain that people aren't giving your opinions the consideration you think they deserve. It's because you just don't express yourself succinctly. People see one of your many weirdly indented multi-page comments and just scroll to the bottom because they've learned from experience that reading them is a repetitive, mind-numbing ordeal. You have become white noise in these debates. Sorry if you think I'm being harsh, but people have told you they find your walls of text annoying many times in the past and you've taken no notice. Reyk _YO! 08:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• allow draft. I didn't look at the old article, but the new one seems to meet WP:N, though it's mostly about how the company and its relationship to the stock exchanges(s) and certainly isn't a great article (no offence, it's where the sources seem to go AFAICT).
• Endorse - Clear consensus to delete. The additional sources were presented in the AfD early on, and many of the delete opinions came afterwards, often describing the new sources as consisting of nothing more than press releases. Nothing that would qualify as 'significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject'. Also Cunard, can you please stop using <p> and <blockquote> so heavily in discussions? ― Padenton|✉   21:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Arnold (historian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor at University of London; 6 published academic books, including one from Oxford University Press.
Saying someone is a professor in a major university and ghas published books with reputable publishers are at the very least an indication of plausible importance, and should not have been deleted as A7. The admin who deleted it d--and deleted it single0handedly without a prior nomination-- has said he does not consider this a claim of notability..See [1] First, that is not the requirement for passing speedy, and any experienced admin should know that. According to [[WP:CSD, it is "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant,... This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. ... The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." (Furthermore not only is it a credible claim to importance, it almost certainly actually does meet the notability standard WP:PROF, under the basic criterion there of showing the individual is an authority in their subject, because the books together with the position show her an authority in her subject, as in fact proven by the fact that not one article on someone with equivalent credentials and publications has ever been deleted in AfD in the last 5 years at least. The place to discuss that if anyone disagrees will be AfD. And of course this shows the danger of single-handed deletions. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we bundle these? I hope it won't be necessary to have five separate discussions consisting mostly of copy/pasted votes. I also note that DGG and others have already put a great deal more effort into this than the original article creator ever did, and I wonder if it's really necessary to have a seven-day discussion ending in a restore and/or history undeletion. My preferred outcome would be speedy allow re-creation per WP:SNOW for all five, with a note of thanks to JzG for dealing promptly and decisively with the original problem.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It is a bit wonky of me, but I don't see where the deleting admin was asked to reconsider first, which would have saved all this faff. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The admin in question was asked to userfy the articles but declined. He subsequently said that he was "not interested" in the matter. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn -- At the WP:ANI discussion, the closing admin explained that they did not recognize WP:PROF because "notability is not inherited". They acknowledged that while there were high profile academic institutions that were supremely notable, but merely being employed there did not make an individual notable.

  Several of our specific notability guidelines, that supplement and over-ride GNG, recognize peer recognition as one of the criteria that makes an individual notability. Professors who receive high-profile fellowships, who are appointed to named professorships, or who become full professors at well-respected research Universities, are receiving these positions because they are highly regarded by other researchers in their field. It is another way we can recognize they are highly regarded in their field -- ie notable. This is very different than the deleting administrator's defense that they are merely individuals employed at the notable institution. Universities employ thousands of support workers: thousands of secretaries, janitors, maintenance workers, HR people, IT people; and, in the academic sphere, thousands of teaching assistants, research assistants, and junior lecturers. Anyone who has worked as a teaching assistant or research assistant knows the vast gulf between them and the holder of a named chair.

  I agree that, not only should these half dozen deletions be overturned, but the closing admin should be encouraged to recognize that the explicit or implied claim of notability sufficient to pass WP:CSD#A7 is different than, and lower than, the notability required to pass an AFD. Geo Swan (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the discussion at ANI, [2] my view is mostly aligned with the post of S Marshall above (hence I will not enter a copy-paste !vote on all of these entries, and trust the closing admin can do the math). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should they be restored, I hope somebody is going to flesh them out a bit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be done. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The speedies were a disgrace. I had stopped following the ANI thread before it had turned into a constructive discussion. When a short article is created it is the ideal time to add a paragraph of substance, even if policy and guidelines do not require it. I find myself defending such stubs but never creating them. (In other words I have nothing to add to what others have said). Thincat (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Feldman (historian) ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor at University of London; 7 published academic books, including one from Oxford University Press, one from Cambridge University Press, one from University of California Press, and one from Yale University Press. Director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism. .
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Harding (historian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Professor of history at University of London; 3 published academic books, including one from Cambridge University Press]
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Trentmann ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor of professor of history classics, and archeology at University of London; 17 published academic books, including two from Oxford University Press & one from Cambridge University Press.
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Rathbone ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor of ancient history at University of London; 2 published academic books, including one from Cambridge University Press. President of Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catharine Edwards (historian) ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor of professor of classics and ancient history at University of London; 2 published academic books, one from Oxford University Press, one from Yale University Press.
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]