Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chignell


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark Chignell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Subject fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme ( talk ) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. While he is the co-author of several books, I couldn't find anything that satisfies Notability (academics). I'm not very familiar with h index and don't have the time to go into it right now, so I'm going to say neutral. --Fang Aili talk 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references, including one from the Toronto Star. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. The Toronto Star article appears to be a trivial mention. XLerate (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS cites give h index = 21. A clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep with a passing H Index for WP:PROF. RFerreira (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. WoS shows h-index of only 8, but the total number of journal-based citations to his work is around 200, which when taken with the Star article suggests a pass. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2010 (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.