- 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Raymond MacDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources are not WP:RS Jenyire2 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:SIGCOV, per nom. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I agree with CommanderWaterford, per WP:NPROF it is sufficient to use University resources as these are sometimes the only resources we have. So the question is does he pass SIGCOV or NPROF, to me it seems like he may potentially be noteable as an artist. --hroest 03:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (with the caveat that this is well outside STEM so Scopus analytics may be less accurate/informative/relevant, and my arbitrary cutoff of 10 papers may be inappropriate as a threshold for researchers in his field). Comparing MacDonald to his 30 coauthors with 10+ papers, plus 30 authors of the most recent articles in his field that cite him, he seems to be well above the median and around average in regards to citation metrics: Total citations: average: 2217, median: 902, MacDonald: 1894. Total papers: avg: 77, med: 51, M: 78. h-index: avg: 18, med: 15, M: 23. Highest citation: avg: 349, med: 126, M: 211. JoelleJay (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per David, and after going back over the professional positions of the most Scottish collection of names I have ever seen (his coauthors), I'll upgrade to keep as it seems he is indeed around the top tier for impact in his field. JoelleJay (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. You can pick out his scholarly works on Google Scholar by searching for author:raymond-ar-macdonald — I thought at first that this included false positives, but he really does seem to be highly cited both on musical identity and on pain sensitivity. His highest-cited work, Musical Identities, is actually an edited volume, so it should not count for as much. But he has another eight publications with triple-digit citations, I think easily enough for WP:PROF#C1. As well as multiple edited volumes, he is also coauthor of a new authored book, The Art of Becoming: How Group Improvisation Works; I didn't find reviews, so there's no second pass of notability through WP:AUTHOR, but that is easily explained by the book being too new for the reviews to have appeared. He may also pass WP:MUSICIAN; I'm not so familiar with that standard, so I'm not going to try to guess whether he does, but coverage of his performance can be found by web and news searches for "Raymond MacDonald" "saxophone", and [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] look like significant coverage, at least. Perhaps the nominator and first !voter were intimidated by all the search results for other Raymond MacDonalds, but some evidence of WP:BEFORE would have been helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The citations look solid for WP:NPROF C1. WP:NAUTHOR looks a little unlikely to me, but reviews sufficient for WP:NCREATIVE for his recording work appear to exist. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as he passes WP:NPROF criteria 1 as defined by very well cited works as shown by google scholar so he deserves to be included and have the article improved in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per David Eppstein. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2021 (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.