Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Niermann

: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. henrik•talk 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

=[[Kenneth Niermann]]=

:{{la|Kenneth Niermann}} ([{{fullurl:Kenneth Niermann|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Niermann}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Prod and prod-2 removed without comment by IP address. Prod 1 stated "Does not meet any criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Several papers in a very specific area of medicine; has not made a greater impact in his field than your average academic physician. Less than 10 relevant Google hits. Probably a vanity page, as well." Prod-2 stated "still only a resident." Delete. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete Requires significant third party coverage to establish notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete Just a resident, with a small number of papers. DGG (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete Let's see again in 5 or 10 years. --Crusio (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:PS: prod and prod2 were removed by an IP tracing back to Vanderbilt University. --Crusio (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete - he is not the lead author in any of the papers listed in the bibliography. Additionally, name of article creator suggests a link with subject of article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:*really?, his name is listed first for 3 of the papers, does this not match with the actual publications? Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

::The usual convention is that the lead author is the last in the list. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Hmmm, in my experience the Principal Investigator typically goes last, while the lead author goes first (I've noticed some disciplines that the communicating author has a much larger importance than in mine, and is often neither first nor last). Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:N and WP:RS. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
delete ISI h-index = 6, most cited papers have 20, 12 & 10 citations... no evidence presented to show the subject passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per DGG and Pete Hurd. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2008 (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.