Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer


 * 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The result was   keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete, unclear notabiltity and appears to be promotional. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I've just removed a long copy & paste of copyrighted text (see edit history for URL), so it's a lot shorter now. MuffledThud (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and move the article to the correct name minus the title. Now the promotional stuff has been removed this should stay. This is JD Weidenhamer who absolutely romps WP:PROF on citations. Polargeo (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have not made up my mind one way or the other yet, but the case does not appear to be such a shoe-in for passing WP:PROF. The citation data in GScholar is OK but not all that outstanding. Top citation hits are 125, 96, 92, 90, 53, 35,... with an h-index of about 15. That's good, but for an active experimental area like Chemistry, with 20+ years of research career, this does not strike me as a particularly outstanding record. He holds the rank of Distinguished Professor, so one could argue for WP:PROF#5. However, his university offers almost no graduate degrees, and no M.Sc. or PhD degrees in Chemistry or related fields, so it is not clear if Criterion 5 of WP:PROF is applicable here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. He is a distinguished professor with a personal chair (PROF5) just because his institute has less of these should not exclude it. The Web of Knowledge backs up google scholar but showing citations his articles have recieved in academic journals 105,89,88,76,63,51,37,37,36... (he is first or second author on most of these). So because we can make a good case for passing not one but two of the counts of PROF I think it is a fairly safe keep. Polargeo (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On web of science (also counting one paper under JW not JDW) gives an h-factor of 16. However, I feel uncomfortable with h-factor as a rating (especially as mine is only 4) and I think it is better to just look at the spread of citation numbers and journals. Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was actually agreeing with Polar we should keep it. When I nominated it it was a jumble and hardly in context. It has been significant;y pared down and a policy pointed out. in good faith I withdraw this nom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:21, 12 January 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.