- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brendon Coventry[edit]
- Brendon Coventry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete The article has had suspect and speculative content removed previously. I suggested to the editors on the talk page on May 08 2022 that the article be deleted. See talk page for: "This wiki was largely made up of material closely associated with the subject such as academic papers, reports and media releases and news articles written by the subject. I suggest the subject has been involved in this wiki as it reads like a profile page. It is also largely based on the immune cycle page material which seems to be closely related in terms of content. I have attempted to deal with the multiple issues involved. Worth considering this page for deletion." Progressing this matter by commencing discussion on deletion. Note that much of the previous content can be found at the subjects University of Adelaide "researcher profile" page (https://researchers.adelaide.edu.au/profile/brendon.coventry) and looks to have been copied directly from that page. LotFourteen (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if wiki-notability can be established, the current text is abysmally far from acceptable sourcing and would need to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch. I am also not convinced that wiki-notability can be established; the citation profile looks middle-of-the-road for a high-citation field, with lots of middle-coauthor entries. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per NPROF, primary and non-independent sources are permitted in biographies of scholars, where they generally comprise a large chunk of the source material. The fact that this bio also cites multiple independent news media reporting on his results/quoting him as an expert is actually unusual and welcome, although they don't seem to be enough to meet C7 and don't contain any SIGCOV for GNG. The biography is rather promotional and ill-formatted, and if it contains copyvio from his websites should be revdeled, but it's not as egregious as many examples here and he may have a claim to notability. That said, a glance at his Scopus profile doesn't suggest he would meet C1 in this high-citation field, but I could take a look at his 400+ coauthors to see how he compares if that would be useful. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Here are the Scopus profiles of all 222 of his coauthors who had 30+ papers:
- Total citations: average: 12590, median: 6080, Coventry: 5583.
- Total papers: 219, 147, 167.
- h-index: 44, 37, 27.
- Top 5 papers: 1st: 1333, 718, 1461; 2nd: 852, 401, 920; 3rd: 591, 283, 607; 4th: 471, 227, 213; 5th: 389, 197, 153.
- Given that none of his top five papers feature him as first or last author, and the fact that his h-index is so much lower than even the median, I'm going with a delete for this one. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.