Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Nelson

:{{la|Zachary Nelson}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Nelson Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Zachary Nelson}})

No notability. Only primary sources used in article. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems to be a GNG fail. Highly doubtful that this passes the SCHOLAR special notability guideline either but I leave that question for others. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. With a h-index of 4 (filtering out the other Zachary Nelsons who are in different fields) he fails WP:PROF too. -- 120.17.62.90 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Being an independent scholar instead of a professor somewhere (as he seems to be, judging from the affiliations on his papers) doesn't automatically mean failing WP:PROF. But with a low h-index and no books, what evidence do we have for scholarly impact? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2015 (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.