Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stuart (statistician)


 * 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. JForget 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Stuart (statistician)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Statistics lecturer who has not attracted significant attention in the world of reliable sources, perhaps as evidenced by the lack of references in the article since it was created in 2006. Has published one book ( 2003) and a few papers in journals, all quite normal for an academic. Has attracted no news articles, writing in books or other third-party interest that I can see. does not meet the requirements of Notability (academics). Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, article doesn't seem notable enough, nor does the article's subject. Alan  -  talk  05:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. MathSciNet only lists two articles by him, with no citations. GoogleScholar also shows little in terms of citability. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WoS lists 5 articles, 1 letter, and 1 abstract (using "Author=(stuart m*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV DUBLIN TRINITY COLL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" – not sure if he has other pubs, but this list goes back to 1980) and an overall h-index of 2. Very little impact over roughly 30 years. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete on basis of clear evidence above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Doubt. Just to note that MS's home page indicates a non-science publication by him (in a law journal) that would not be included in the counts above, so that indicates at least some influence outside his immediate field. Melcombe (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It may be the case that the "Dublin University Law Journal" is not indexed by the major indexing services (doesn't appear to be in WoS). The article doesn't seem show up on a GS search of his name either. This suggests that the article may not have been widely disseminated nor that it has had much impact. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2009 (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.