Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hale


 * 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. v/r - TP 14:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Hale

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SCHOLAR, links to lists of his books and articles do not support his notability, and there are no reliable sources to support notability.  PK T (alk)  14:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — PK  T (alk)  14:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  PK  T (alk)  14:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

keep &mdash; has h-index of 14 per this google scholar search. this may be a little low for these discussions, but two of the items are books, one with blackwell and the other with oup. each has over 40 cites, even though they are only 4 and 3 years old, respectively. other articles of his have around a hundred cites or more and they are in the absolute top journals in the field. this seems to me to satisfy WP:PROF. no question but that the article needs work. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would submit that this statistical analysis of h-index could provide indication of the possibility of notability, but it would be much better to find an independent reference that says "Prof. Hale is influential".  PK  T (alk)  16:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as it fails WP:PROF. This fellow hasn't satisfied it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS cites start 137, 131, 98... with h-index of around 15 in low cited field. Fair pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Keep In addition to the GS citations and H-score, the content of the reviews of the books, which are now in cited in a little section on selected publications, seems to me sufficient to establish that Hale is a notable scholar in his field. The reviews of the books indicate that might well pass, in addition to WP:Prof, WP:Author #3 (he.. has created ... a significant ... work ... that has been the subject of  ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I guess you're referring to Melchert as Author #3 - is there any way to get a citeable reference to which the Mark Hale article can refer so that the significance of Hale's work can be supported?  PK T (alk)  18:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear (too often I am not!). I meant that his work as an author (WP:Author) seems to me WP notable because his works have been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews (THES, Melchert, Kramer and de Lacy).  (Msrasnw (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2011 (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.