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The result was Withdrawn. I didn't find that he was an AAAS fellow, which does confer notability. Natureium (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is not sufficient coverage available to write an article beyond a permastub. His academic tenure is average. WP:Prof#C1 is so vague as to be useless. Natureium (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 based on citations of his publications as shown in Google Scholar [1]. Wikipedia:Permastub is an essay and not a reason for deletion. Notability is established by meeting WP:PROF. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Straight-up pass of WP:PROF#C1 (which, contrary to the nomination, is not that vague at all in practical application). His h-index on Web of Science is 38, and on the more widely inclusive Google Scholar it is 43. This is well above anything I would consider a "gray area". XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. directly from NPROF. Also, NPROF is a guideline. You still need to be able to write an article, which is not possible when reliable sources have not written about this person. Natureium (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Limited usefulness" is not the same as uselessness. The results are comparable between two databases (and differ in an unsurprising way that is consistent with general trends). The subject's field of work is not one of the areas characterized by low citation counts overall (e.g., pure mathematics, law), or where other indicators have proven more meaningful (e.g., areas in the humanities where publication is more geared toward books and monographs than journal articles). The caveats simply don't come into play. And as for the concern that we still need to be able to write an article — the article exists. In all likelihood, it can't be made much larger than it is, but it doesn't have to be. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're arguing against yourself now. Not being a field characterized by low citation counts means that having a "high" h-index is not anything special. And we are not a directory. What is the purpose in having an article that only gives the information that one would find at the top of a CV? Natureium (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not being a field characterized by low citation counts means that having a high h-index is not anything special. No, it doesn't. It means that one would need an h-index of 35 or 40 to stand out, as opposed to one of 20. In some fields, citation counts and metrics derived from them are mostly meaningless, because pretty much everyone has low numbers, even notable people, but that doesn't apply here. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C1 and C3 (AAAS Fellow since 2010). Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons already articulated. I note that there is also some in-depth material about one of his discoveries at [2] and [3] (at least, I think these are both the same story); one is primary and the other only briefly mentions him specifically, so they don't contribute more to notability but they could probably be used to add more depth to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2018 (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.