Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mordacq


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

John Mordacq

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * delete per nomination. This looks like any random person holding a profession. This guy happens to be a professor. Does that make you notable? Stijndon (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- looks like he's cited pretty frequently on Google Scholar.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the Google Scholar citations, it is safe to say that he meets the first inclusion criteria of Notability (academics). --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. While the citation impact suggested by this search (which replicates SarekOfVulcan's) is a solid one, it seems to fall a bit short of meeting WP:PROF criterion #1. There is only one well cited pub, with 81 citations. Also, I could not find a full web page for him at Northwestern; is he a tenured full professor there?--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Google scholar just list scholarly pubs, I believe. All professors have them.  We either need to document highly cited important work or awards.  I do not see that here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Just short of what is needed to qualify as notable under WP:PROF, as I noted in my comment above. Seems to be in a non-tenured lecturer appointment at Northwestern; may be affiliated with a research center there. Only one news entry in Google News, which makes it hard to justify inclusion under WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. Subject's position of Distinguished Senior Lecturer at Northwestern might legitimately meet WP:PROF #5. Google Scholar references satisfying WP:PROF #1 is debatable: one (moderately?) referenced paper (81 citations over 20 years), a dozen or so other papers with under 15 references.  Web of Knowledge public search comes up blank though.  Can't find evidence of other criteria.  I would only vote keep if consensus is to keep based on both WP:PROF #1 and #5; otherwise delete.  If kept, this should be flagged for an expert in molecular biology to confirm notability and sift through the research: the current lack of detail is very troubling.  chuuumus  ( talk ) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't read much into the title without knowing the department. The senior lecturers I know of were more or less adjuncts who had stayed at the same school for more than ten years without pursuing tenure.  They were definitely not notable. Jvr725 (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I can't tell from this article whether there is any particular subject within molecular biology in which he would be considered an expert. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (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.