Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian R. Murphy


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Brian R. Murphy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not WP:Notable Passing mentions in sources A lot of information based on C.V. and other primary sources. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The GS citation counts for the publications listed in the article are 302, 312, 494, 840 and 429. This is a good sign for passing WP:PROF. "Passing mentions in sources" and "A lot of information based on C.V." are typical for brief academic biographies. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Meets WP:PROF. The publications listed in the article are the most cited articles with Murphy as senior author according to SCOPUS. Citation counts like that are typically considered evidence a scientist's work has had significant impact on their discipline. (Note: I created the article so I may be too close to this to see it clearly). Ajpolino (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you look at all his publications in Google Scholar (factoring out the other highly cited Brians Murphy) the numbers look even more impressive, but of course the credit to Murphy from those as non-first author is less. Either way I think he passes WP:PROF. The Robert M. Chanock award (lifetime achievement in the study of the virus that causes the majority of infant bronchitis and pneumonia cases) might be enough of a national-level award for #C2. And co-chief of an NIH lab is also significant even though I'm not convinced that it fits any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Citability is pretty good (especially considering that most of his publications are from the pre-internet era), and together with the Chanock award and a journal editorship, I think there is sufficient evidence here for satisfying WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:PROF per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2019 (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.