Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Turner (scientist)

: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. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

=[[Stephen Turner (scientist)]]=

:{{la|Stephen Turner (scientist)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Turner_(scientist) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Stephen Turner (scientist)}})

Declined speedy. My original rationale for CSD is that the article does not assert significance. Seems to be a fairly normal assistant professor, Fails the tests of WP:PROF. Is published, but simply having "published numerous peer-reviewed articles" is not an indication of notability. h-index of [http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-wkHYzMAAAAJ&hl=en 8]. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • As the de-speedier, I do think this is the right venue for a deletion discussion. I should point out that in addition to his ass. professorship, he is also "director of the Bioinformatics Core at the University of Virginia School of Medicine," whatever weight we are to assign to that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. Can't find sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC).
  • Delete. [http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-wkHYzMAAAAJ&hl=en Too few citations] for WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Compared to sportspeople who get away with a single listing on their home team website, I'm generally sympathetic towards academics, but I do think we need something more substantial in the way of refs here to meet WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF#C1. I've looked, but I can't find anything.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just so I understand, he has published work that has been cited. WP:PROF#C1's section on "citation metrics" refers to the "h index" but doesn't offer benchmarks (from what I saw). So how high an h index should it be? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

::*There are no benchmarks, because citation rates are field-dependent. Mathematics, for example, is a low-citation-density field. 1000 citations and an h of 15 or so would be excellent. Boinformatics, genomics, etc are high-citation density fields and the same figures would be borderline there. Takes some experience to interpret those figures. Also, low values should not be taken as proof of non-notability (how can you prove that anyway, there's always the chance that there are somewhere some good sources that you didn't find), but high values an be taken as proof of having considerable impact on ones field. Hope this helps a bit. --Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

::::::There has been much discussion of this matter in Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) and its archives. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC).

:::*It does, thank you. Well, based on what I see here, I suppose to editors who work a lot with academic bio articles this was at first blush an A7, though it didn't appear that way to me. Perhaps what I might do in the future in a case like this is despeedy but immediately PROD, in cases where I still don't believe it's sufficiently blatantly non-notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

::::*I think you were correct in de-speedying this, as the article does contain what can be construed as claims for notability ("director of a core service", "numerous" publications, etc). A7 is only appropriate if there's no claim for notability at all. --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2013 (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.