Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Hellaby


 * 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. The article's subject is found to be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 07:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Charles Hellaby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 21:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 21:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 21:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Presumably you mean WP:PROF. - htonl (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Corrected typo. Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * delete no notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just passes WP:Prof with a GS h-index of 23 in a well-cited field. Did the nominator consider the well-over 1000 citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Should also have put that this is an unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be BLP:PRODED for that reason since it needs to both pass notability (I agree with Xxanthippe that it does) and have citations. So Keep here, and then BLP-Delete if it doesn't get a citation before the AfD is done . -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment So far people have suggested it is notable, but no one has verified this with sources. Without that, it doesn't meet guidelines. It's not eligible for a blp prod as it was created before 2010. Boleyn (talk)
 * Did the nominator consider the well-over 1000 citations on GS and the 378 on GB? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
 * , if you want to ask me a question, it'd be best to ping me, as I follow a lot of AfDs, and as you didn't mention the username of the person you were addressing, I missed these. Yes, I was aware he had many citations. Do you have sources you can add that verify notability or were you unable to find any? Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are over 1378 sources that you can find by clicking the consolidating links considerately given above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
 * I certzinly can't find 1378 sources confirming his notability, if you can, great. Can you name any? Do you have even one as evidence, ? Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you tried clicking on the links on this page above that are provided for the convenience of you and other editors? If you have not then do so. If you have, then tell us what you find. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
 * , of course I have. I'm not trying to be difficult - and I'm happy to change my vote if evidence is put forward - but so far you've spent a lot of time on here saying he's notable, but that means nothing without verification. What reliable sources do you think establish this, so we can add them to the article and prove notability? This has been tagged for notability for six years, it would be wonderful to get it fully resolved, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator is directed to the succinct summary of WP:Prof by DGG below. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how this person meets WP:PROF. Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient highly cited work to show him an expert in his field, which is the basic WP:PROF criterion, and is normally shown, in the case of scientists, by citations: The counts of the highest papers  (from Google Scholar) are 180, 165, 147.71, 54, 61 -- all in the most important journals of the field, 29 papers with 29 or more citations, but it';'s the most highly cited ones that count. (there is no fixed value of the h index--it is different in different fields--astronomy and related sciences have a much lower citation density than the biomedical sciences, but 3 papers with over 100 citations each would be enough in any field at all.) There is no need for sources other than the citations to pass WP:PROF.  DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this seems convincing for a notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  02:48, 31 January 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.