Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene O'Riordan


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Eugene O'Riordan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP fails WP:ACADEMIC notability guidelines czar   &middot;   &middot;  22:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete current sources do not show notability and good faith search did not produce any others. Also comment this article was mentioned among others at Articles_for_deletion/Gillian_McMahon, where at the conclusion of the discussion, the author included it in a list they said was "a bit obscure and could be removed immediately." This was back in 2006, it does not seem much has progressed since. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. GS cites of 755, 482, 83, 64, 48... and h-index of 18 in a poorly cited field gives a pass of WP:Prof. Please will nominator state why he ignored this issue? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC).
 * What issue? And your link doesn't show your stats to give it a C1 pass (see WP:Prof). czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The stats can be seen by clicking on the word "scholar" in the searches automatically provided by the AfD nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had already Scholar-searched it before the nom. I meant that the mentioned GS and h-index stats aren't determinant towards C1. czar   &middot;   &middot;  10:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Did you calculate the h-index on your own or am I missing something on the GS search page? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I counted it on my fingers (with one carry ten). Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A paper with 756 citations does not need calculation of h-index to prove notability.  Arguably, that on its own meets Prof#C1.  I cannot agree with Czar that h-index is not determinant to C1.  The h-index pretty much enumerates what C1 is all about - "widely cited" means notable.  It is true that Prof#Citation_metrics cautions about Google Scholar, but only to say that Scholar does not have access to everything.  The true picture can only be even more notable if anything.  Spinning  Spark  01:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * and your reasons based on policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Doesn't meet Criteria 1 of WP:ACADEMIC ie "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I see no evidence of a significant impact on the discipline. Mountain Herb (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A common objective measure of impact is the number of citations by others of the subjects works. Citations are evidence of significance.  Spinning  Spark  00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The citation counts give a convincing pass of WP:PROF and the published reviews of his books provide adequate though not great reliable secondary sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, basically echoing David Eppstein. Prrof/C1.  --j⚛e deckertalk 06:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Just about notable. --Shorthate (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2012 (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.