Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew M. Hill


 * 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. Glass  Cobra  15:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthew M. Hill

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There doesn't seem to be an indication of notability. The article says that Matthew M. Hill has a Ph.D., has worked on mapping the genome of one species, and has published several scientific papers, but these facts do not seem to distinguish him from other researchers in his field. (Please note, however, that I am not at all acquainted with this field, so perhaps there is some especially notable achievement of Dr. Hill.) The external links point to two copies of one of his papers. On the talk page, a user by the name of Mhill76 claims to be Matthew M. Hill, states that he does not meet the requirements for notability, and requests the deletion of this article. —Bkell (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep Delete. I respectfully disagree with Dr. Hill. Web of Science lists 38 publications, which have been cited 964 times in total. His h-index is 12. Three papers have been cited more than 100 times (max: 173). This all points to notability. On the other hand, he has been publishing since 1989, so these figures are relatively modest. Hence I !voted "weak keep". If consensus wouldbe that we should give more weight to his own wishes, I could change to "delete". The article could be beefed up a bit and a disambiguation page seems to be in order, too. --Crusio (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Crusio's WoS results are a case of mistaken identity. GoogleScholar gives substantial results for "M.M.Hill" but on closer inspection they appear to be mostly false positives (the top hits are actually for "Michelle M. Hill"). A Googlescholar search for "Matthew M. Hill" produces rather modest results . My impression is that the pubmed results and the WoS results cited by Crusio actually aggregate all the "M.M.Hill"s together (for example, for pubmed a number of articles from 1960s are listed there and they are highly unlikely to be written by the subject of the article). WoS only allows searches for initials and rather than first and middle names and the high citation hits that Crusio found there actually refer to another person. I also did a WoS search for "M M Hill" and the paper with 173 citations listed there is actually this one:, where the author is "Michelle M. Hill". Another paper, with 128 citations in WoS is this: (also "Michelle M. Hill"). And so on.  In the absence of conclusive evidence of notability under WP:PROF (in terms of high citability, awards, honors, etc) and since the subject of the article apparently requests deletion, I would certainly go with delete. Nsk92 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, should have realized that Hill is a common name, just thought that with two initials, the risk was small... --Crusio (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete per Nsk92, Bkell & Mhill76. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete isn't distinguished enough in his field to warrant an article. --Banime (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the results of the fairly helpful gophering above. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I added that mention of 42 articles, and I see that I too was wrong. A paper on the basic genome of a species can sometimes be highly cited, so I accepted the counts, but I should have checked further. DGG (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (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.