Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Neal Guentzel


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

M. Neal Guentzel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No good sources since 2007 Cutlass Ciera  20:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not temporary Dudhhr (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. While notability is not temporary, there is nothing (even in the previous CV-dump versions of the article) to suggest that WP:GNG or a specific notability criterion such as WP:ACADEMIC is met. -- Kinu t/c 22:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * weak delete his GS profile is borderline and there are 4 papers with 100+ citations and he has an h-index of 29. However, given that even his most "impactful" publications garner about 10 citations per year I just feel the case is too weak here for WP:NPROF. --hroest 04:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. His impact is pretty standard for the median researcher publishing in his field (including techs, students, junior faculty, etc). Here are the Scopus metrics for Dr. Guentzel, his 75 coauthors*, and the ~85 most recent coauthors* of his 6 most frequent collaborators (*who have >15 papers):
 * Total citations: avg: 4910, median: 1884, Guentzel: 1495.
 * Total papers: avg: 101, med: 51, G: 76.
 * h-index: avg: 27, med: 21, G: 22.
 * Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 411, med: 223, G: 92. 2nd: avg: 240, med: 150, G: 90. 3rd: avg: 185, med: 111, G: 80. 4th: avg: 157, med: 94, G: 67. 5th: avg: 131, med: 80, G: 61.
 * Barring notability through other NPROF criteria, keeping this would suggest we need to write articles on between 45 and 55% of everyone publishing for more than 5 years in this field. JoelleJay (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2021 (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.