Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Griffiths (scientist)


 * 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. SNOW: No significant probability this will close delete at this point. joe deckertalk to me 00:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Howard Griffiths (scientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:ACADEMIC guideline for scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars. Prod was removed by IP without comment. Onthegogo (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep has a named chair at a famous university. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:PROF because the subject is the chair and a fellow at an Oxbridge college. While not a "named" chair, that's fairly prestigious.  He also has over 100 Ghits on Google scholar and has published in many major scholarly journals. He is also the author of at least one major text. I think that's enough for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a university department chair. Carrite (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Departmental chair does not give notability according to WP:Prof but an h index of 24 on Google Scholar does. Will the nominator please explain why he ignored this information? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Snow Keep. Adding to Xxan's findings, this subject has a WoS h-index of 28 (query = "Author=(Griffiths H*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(PLANT SCIENCES) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI") – a conclusive pass of WP:PROF #1. I should think this would have been obvious to the nom (who tried PROD previously) had s/he simply bothered to check. No need to claim a pass because of his position as a chair. This is a clear policy-based "keep". Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC).
 * A example where WoS gives a higher h index than GS. There are others too. It is not generally the case that GS always gives higher cites, as sometimes supposed. We await comment from the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep per high h-index. Nergaal (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2011 (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.