Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew S.I.D. Lang


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Andrew S.I.D. Lang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hugely drummed-up biography of an obscure professor at Oral Roberts University. The article has an impressive-looking list of no less than 18 sources. Upon closer examination, most of them are articles written by the subject himself, a wiki website on Open Notebook Science that he maintains, dead links (that didn't amount to much independent coverage judging from the text they are supposed to source), and a few sources on the honors this person received: giving a keynote address at Oklahoma State University and a talk given at the White House. There's also an award from a "DaVinci Institute" and a fellowship from ProjectNExT (100 awarded each year). None of this seems to indicate any notability. As for his research, the article cites his GScholar profile (in the references and in the ELs). Despite the fact that GS often overcounts citations, Lang's papers garner a paltry 246 citations for an h-index of 9. This is far removed from what we usually take as indicating notability under WP:ACADEMIC. In short, this biography seems to miss all criteria given in WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. A GS h-index of 9 does not pass WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete, basically per nom. Note that the "DaVinci Institute" Fellowship is actually just a small grant ($1000) for which the person applies himself/herself (see ), rather than an award/prize in the sense this term is usually understood. I am not seeing enough evidence here to pass either WP:PROF or WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Story is pretty-much the same from WoS: h-index 5, with highest paper having 25 citations. Archetypical TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC).
 * SNOW Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, article never insinuates anything else actually convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  04:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think WP:TOOSOON is the right description of this case — with a Ph.D. 18 years ago, if he were going to accomplish something noteworthy in his research, I think we'd have seen it by now. Unlike pure mathematics, mathematical physics is not a particularly low-citation subject, and neither is open science, the topic of some of his more recent works. Regardless, he doesn't pass WP:PROF and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My WP:Too soon characterization was made in a spirit of optimism and charity. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Fair enough, and admirable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2016 (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.