Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hill (chemist)


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Hill (chemist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nomination withdrawn - see below There is no evidence of notability. The account in the article is consistent with his being a fairly ordinary academic, and no independent sources are cited. Searching is difficult, since "Anthony" and "Hill" are both quite common names, but I have made some efforts and found no evidence of substantial independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * " Keep " The sources should be fine considering they are reliable...being the Australian National University, as such it can be accepted though it is a primary . The subject would be of interest due to his publications and contributions to his field. Judicatus (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no problem at all with the reliability of the sources, but they are all either from the institution he comes from or his own publications, so they are not independent of him. He has an impressive number of publications, but so do many academics who have been around for some years, and simple number of publications is no guarantee of notability. How important his contributions are within their field is the essential issue, and it is not clear from the evidence available so far how important they are. However, the existence of a book, rather than just papers, is encouraging, so I may yet be persuaded. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * RE: His contributions in that field seem established, but I do yield on the issue of how important they are. Any suggestions on figuring out that aspect? Judicatus (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Delete" Reviewed WP:PROF, doesn't meet criteria, changed support to deletion. Judicatus (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "...fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry" is sufficient to meet inclusion criteria at Notability (academics).  Other biographic material in the intro alone provides additional indication of sufficient notability.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think FRSC is sufficient for notability, but his editorship of Advances in Organometallic Chemistry passes it for me: an influential review journal (although published in book form). [COI disclaimer: he once refused a paper of mine; I published it in Chemical Reviews instead... YAH BOO SUCKS!] Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that FRSC is not sufficient for notability. The number of people that are FRSC is very large and includes me. However, I think his publications and being editor of an important review is notable enough. ANU Research School of Chemistry is a very important department also. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  19:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've been trying to tell you you're notable for years now. But I won't make a POINT of it by pushing an article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep. His citation counts on Google Scholar don't look particularly impressive to me, considering he's been an academic since 1988. However, according to Journal Citation Reports, Adv Organomet Chem is ranked 3rd for Article Influence Score in both the 'Chemistry, Organic' and 'Chemistry, Inorganic and Nuclear' categories, and as he's been one of the two editors since 1995, that seems to pass WP:ACADEMIC criterion 8 "an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area". —Qwfp (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Unmistakable clear keep as ed. in chief of one of the most important review publications. And as author or 181 publications in Scopus  (much more reliable than Google Scholar for mainstream academic science if the career goes back before 2000 or so), with citation counts for the highest of 121, 112, 62, 61; h = 25.    very few academics no matter how long they have been around get anywhere that number of papers, or anywhere near that many citations to them. The citations prove the importance. A higher    standard for notability of academics seems to correspond with what most of us would call famous.     DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right—just checked Web of Science (using its 'author finder' to distinguish from other AF Hills), which gave him an h-index of 28 with highest counts 130, 121, 99, 72. Changing my 'weak keep' to 'keep' above. Qwfp (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The biopage does not link to any wikipedia article that cites one of his publications. As far as wikipedia is concerned Hill's contributions are irrelevant (in other words if the work is relevant there should be an article on it). The author of the biopage should have considered writing an article on a topic relevant to Hill's work first and then create a biopage. Too many biopages on chemists exist that are effectively orphaned.  Examples Stuart Warren and Mark S. Workentin should also be deleted unless some relevant context is presented. Also a good way to attract the professionals to contribute content. V8rik (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the view that notability of a person consists of being cited in an article on the topic is not our standard--and a very good thing too. It is the WP:Walled Garden approach--magnify the importance of a person by creating separate articles for everything they did and everything they wrote, and justify each of the articles by their links to the others.  DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, FRSC, an editor-in-chief of an important journal, fairly impressive citability data. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Since I made the nomination a good deal of evidence of notability has been unearthed, both noted above and listed in the article, and I now have no doubt at all that the article should be kept. Thanks to those who have found this evidence. As for the one remaining "delete" argument (from V8rik), I agree completely with DGG's answer to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 2 June 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.