Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Andrew Walsh


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth Andrew Walsh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Only source provided is self published. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Tagged for speedy deletion. Unremarkable person.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 20:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: speedy declined. Head of department and 200 published papers is enough to pass the low bar of WP:CSD. More references are needed to decide whether he meets WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly an authority in his field. h=78, with 56 papers having more than 100 citation each. This is a very notable record even in the highly cited biomedical sciences. The article of course needs considerable expansion, but that's not a reason for deletion. (For that matter, I challenge anyone to find a full professor at the University of Washington in the last 50 years who will not be found to meet WP:PROF. Being a full professor at a major university is not a formal standard, but it might as well be, for there are remarkably few exceptions. Almost none have ever been deleted here in the last 5 or 6 years, unless there is some prejudice against the particular field as having low standards, or the specific individual as being controversial in a way that's not popular here.)  DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject may be a prodigious author on certain subjects, but research indicates that he is not yet notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. He is not just a prolific author: the high citation counts indicate that his papers were important and influential. JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Admittedly, I've been off Wikipedia for a few years so I may be rusty. Don't we require the subject be covered in multiple, reliable, third-party sources to satisfy WP:N? Although he appears to have published quite a bit, those are all primary sources. Is there anything third-party covering him and/or his research? (I can't find anything but I may just be missing it). Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure whether the Edman award (for which I added a non-primary source) is enough for WP:PROF but the citation record is clearly enough for #C1. As for the arguments that we need third-party sourcing: 56 papers x 100 citations each = 5600 sources about Walsh's work. Most of them are probably not sufficiently in-depth but one doesn't need a very high fraction of them to have non-trivial coverage in order to get enough sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep with stunning cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2014 (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.