Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Loveday


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

John Loveday

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Is see no clear indication that this person satisfies WP:N. As far as I can tell, he is an averagely successful physicist. However, the fact that he is not even a full professor raises a red flag. (Together with some of the very un-encyclopedic remarks in the article regarding his beard.) TR 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the clearly unencyclopedic sentence. I haven't had a chance to research claims & sourcing so at the moment I have no comment on the overall notability question.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Using JS Loveday in Google Scholar seems to indicate to me he is perhaps well enough cited (H-index 30 ish) to meet WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Thank you for figuring out what name to search for. (My earlier attempts were foiled by the existence of another John Loveday who is a member of the Sloan digital sky survey team (which has a lot of very highly cited publications). However, I am still worried that I can find no reliable secondary sources for any biographical data concerning this person. As a consequence, even if he meets WP:PROF there still may be nothing we can write about him satisfying WP:V. It may turn out that his research is notable, but he is not.TR 22:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof with a GS h-index of 32. Nominator is advised to consult WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC).
 * How about you actually read WP:PROF yourself. Pay particular attention to the first bullet point under "general notes".TR 06:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that his H-index is not that high for his field. (Most of his coauthors have H-indices that are much higher according to GS. Scores of 80+ occur within this group.) It seems you are the one that should actually do you research.TR 06:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. H-index of 27 (WoS query: "Author=(Loveday J*) Refined by: Organizations-Enhanced=(UNIV EDINBURGH OR UNIV BRISTOL) AND Authors=(LOVEDAY JS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI Lemmatization=On") is satisfactory, even though there are undoubtedly others with higher impact. It's OK to leave the art as a stub for now if there aren't passable biographical sources about him, but his work renders him notable. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 5 September 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.