Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Frost (anthropologist)


 * 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. The "keep" here points out that Frost has been covered in some sourcing, but while the argument has some merit it is not sufficient to overcome the otherwise clear consensus here since users such as Lankiveil and Stfg make a solid case as well. Being cited is the norm after a few years for academics who have published research, so it is not a particularily distinguishing feature. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Frost (anthropologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn’t appear to be notable and seems to mostly be a promotion of a relatively unknown individual including many citations to primary sources written by the subject of the article. Google book search reveals a book written by Frost from a likely vanity publisher and Google news doesn't reveal anything obvious. Pengortm (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. Even his own web site, cited as ref [1], doesn't give any reason to believe he meets it. The article seems mainly to be a soapbox for his hypothesis about hair, eye and skin colour -- a fringe theory, I believe. --Stfg (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep . Searching on GS for "P Frost" skin" I get some very high cites. Would the nominator like to discuss? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
 * , please see 's replies to you lower down. Have you filtered Phillip Frost out of your search? --Stfg (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * so there's a Peter Frost and a Phillip Frost (which GS won't distinguish) working in the same field. I bow out. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC).
 * It's not quite the same field, and they can pretty easily be distinguished by publication year (seen Peter Frost's CV?) at the least. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As long as the article provides absolutely zero biographical information (which, of course, would need to be verified by independent sources), I see little sense in discussing the notability issues. However, concerning the "very high cites": Via GS/PoP, I find four papers of at least 88 cites each and then some of 39 21 or below, respectively, which sums up to probably something around 600 cites and an h-index of 10 11 [see below]. In this highly cited research field (only one of his papers is among the respective journals' top 50, another one in the top 100 - yes, I generally do credit him for publishing in renowned journals, but that's what I'd expect from a would-be notable academic anyways), it's not quite enough for me. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't have a problem with notability, per se, but rather with the poor shape of the article; it's entirely about his novel research, and not about him. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and it isn't even presented as research. It's full of words like "hypothesis", "theory", "suggests" "believes". I don't see evidence there. --Stfg (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Stgf's arguments are convincing. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep while most of the citations in the article are to his own publications, there is a core of coverage about his ideas that seems to meet WP:GNG even if it might not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Bejnar (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ? With a GS h-index of somewhere around 30 and several papers with over 100 cites (Searching on GS for "P Frost" skin"), he zooms past WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Most of the articles you're referring to are by Phillip Frost, though. As I said, Peter Frost's h-index is 10, apparently. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just realized that his 1990 paper and the 2005 self-published book which share the same title probably are two distinct publications (I had the latter assumed to be a reprint). So that would raise the h-index number to 11. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on what coverage you are seeing which you think constitutes "a core of coverage about his ideas that seems to meet WP:GNG"? Thanks. --Pengortm (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * H-Index - Note that there has been considerable discussion on the use of h-index to establish notability (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Is_a_high_h-index_good_enough.3F and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)/Archive_6). My reading is that h-index can help to bolster a case to keep, but other sources and biographical information needs to be available from reliable wiki sources. --Pengortm (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your reading is incorrect. WP:Prof can be passed on the basis of contribution to scholarship (WP:Prof). Purely biographical information can be obtained from non-independent sources like university and research institute sites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC).
 * I agree that I was incorrect in that WP:Prof is indeed sufficient for scholars. However, the links I provide and WP:Prof do get at the point that interpreting h-index to derive notability is not straightforward. Reading over WP:Prof I also note that Frost might not qualify because his expertise may be in an "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories". I also agree with the other editors that the lack of biographical information is a concern. None of us seem to have been able to dig up any biographical information from reliable sources.--Pengortm (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, obviously an active academic in the field, and no reason to believe that his work isn't of a very high standard, but I'm not seeing any significant coverage of him or his work. There are a few cites, but generally less than I'd expect to see from a genuinely notable researcher.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:09, 23 July 2014 (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.