Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loran Nordgren


 * 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Loran Nordgren

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article was created by a new account whose sole edits are on this page. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. All the sources cited are of faculty pages, lists, minor prizes, or articles that quote the person but do not revolve around it. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Illinois. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite the nominator's WP:VAGUEWAVE, the citation record makes this look like an easy pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I would say the citation record actually shows that they aren't highly cited. A h-index of 26 is rather low. There are post-doctorates with similar numbers or higher. Notable professors are often in the 80+ range, though h-index is not always the best measure it is still often used. As a small counter to my point there are several papers that Loran Nordgren is the first author and highly cited on. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To add on to your first point, his top three most-cited papers were published in 2006, which was when he was a PhD student according to his website. A lot of his highly-cited work was done pre-2007 (when he got his PhD) and in collaboration with other researchers as second or third author. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I look more at most highly cited works than at h-index when considering notability.  I see two works that are highly cited, even in a high citation field.  Notability gets some support from some limited progress towards NAUTHOR, with at least one review (or at least review-type article) of the The Human Element. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology,  and Minnesota. TJMSmith (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete I can see both sides of the argument, but this individual doesn't quite meet notability guidelines; it's close but not there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd keep that. In an encyclopaedia that allows articles on the list of Crayola colours, individual episodes of TV shows, and that article on the precognitive octopus, it would be perverse to delete the biography of a serious scholar, and any notability guideline that says otherwise needs rethinking.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 1 January 2023 (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.