Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Desrochers


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Desrochers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable academic. Article was deleted by my prod on Jul 23, and recreated this morning with similar if not the same content.-- Syrthiss (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Web of Science lists over 70 publications, but many are by different people with the same name. After weeding out publications in botany, chemistry, and meteorology, I find a total of 90 citations with an h-index of 5. Of course, this only concerns journal articles and in this field book publications are more important, so I also ran a "cited reference search". This rendered a few more hits, all with citation rates in the single digits. Google Scholar is more generous, but I have not much faith in its precision. (For example, the first citation listed to "Research universities and local economic development: lessons from the history of the Johns Hopkins University" is an article on "Silica-based mesoporous organic-inorganic hybrid materials", which I find kind of unlikely; others are to "unpublished manuscript", which should not really count, etc) . In addition, there are no other sources discussing this person. Therefore, does not seem to meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads like a resume. Can be recreated if he receives substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can see no evidence he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. He appears to be skilled and successful at public engagement, but having your research quoted in reliable sources is not the same as being the subject of secondary source material as required by WP:BIO. Qwfp (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple national-level news stories specifically about his research is enough, I think, for a pass of WP:PROF. The article is overly promotional and otherwise not in good shape, but AfD is not cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 6 August 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.