Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Moore (physicist)

: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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

=[[Greg Moore (physicist)]]=

:{{la|Greg Moore (physicist)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Moore (physicist)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Greg Moore (physicist)}})

Delete There is no evidence at all of satisfying either the general notability guideline or the guideleine for academics. The article gives no independent sources at all. (It gives a reference to Moore's own web site and an external link to a list of his publications, and nothing else.) I have searched, and found no substantial independent coverage. Apart from his own web page and Wikipedia, the first few hits were: a one-sentence directory listing; a stored copy of a Yahoo search for the name "Greg Moore" (most of the hits were other Greg Moores); a post by Moore to a google group; a list of speakers at a conference (Moore's name features amongst dozens of others); a brief "open letter" with 75 signatories, among them Moore; an article containing one passing mention of Moore. And so it went on. (The article was proposed for speedy deletion. The speedy delete tag was then replaced by a prod, which was removed with the edit summary "invalid speedies should not be replaced by a prod", which seems bizarre to me: if a speedy deletion tag is invalid but there are still valid reasons for deletion, of course it can be prodded.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep, highly-cited academic. [http://www-spires.fnal.gov/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+EA+MOORE%2C+GREGORY+W&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29 See here.] Several of his paper (2-3 authors) were cited over 250 times. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
keep Very notable in his field. Easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep. Stunning cites on Spires, even better on GS with search for "G W Moore". Inadequately researched nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC).
Keep. JoshuaZ is correct that Moore meets guideline. Hal peridol (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep per WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22%22G+W+Moore%22%22+physics+string&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 13,000 hits] on google scholar. About a dozen articles ha has co-auothored have been cited more than a hundred times.¨¨ victor falk 07:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

:: If you search for 'author:"G W Moore" ' you will get only 757 hits on GS. There is another GW Moore, a medical biologist. Nonetheless our subject still gets plenty of cites, more than sufficient for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

: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.