Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Carter


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Rich Carter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:PROF guidelines: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. In terms of citation counts, his most cited paper has 124 citations according to Google Scholar, his h-index is 33, these are good but not exceptional statistics. I can't see any sign that he has had an exceptional impact in the field of total synthesis. He doesn't pass the "Average Professor Test" on these grounds.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The awards on his CV do not seem to fit this definition of highly prestigious - most were obtained as an undergraduate, graduate or postdoc, or are internal to OSU (e.g. Sugihara young faculty award)

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE). There is no evidence for this.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Again, no sign of this.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. Although he was the Chair of the Chemistry Department at OSU from 2012 to 2017, this is an administrative role and not an endowed Chair.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. No, unless Chair of the Chemistry Department counts - I think the bar is higher than that though.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. He has founded a company, but so have lots of other people. I found a few local news items about Valliscor on Google News, but nothing particularly noteworthy.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. No.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. No.

In summary, while he seems like a good scientist, there is no evidence that he meets the WP:PROF notability criteria. Polyharrisson (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG.  For example, see Portland Business Journal. Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Four papers with over 100 cites is borderline but above threshold to me. I thought this was going to be one of those rare cases where the only verifiable thing we could say about him was the existence of a few highly-cited publications, so that he would pass WP:PROF but fail WP:V, and I was prepared to head for a weak delete on that basis, but Andrew D.'s link has proved me wrong. It's too local to add much to notability, however. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * comment Do these help? They're about impact of projects he's been involved in, and he is named as primary collaborator in one and "a national leader in this field and co-inventor of the new catalyst" in the other:
 * University of Bristol, "The Early Bits of Life"
 * Phys.org "New organic catalyst should enhance drug research and development" Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the first article is a different Rich Carter (mathematician based in Bristol, UK), the second is a press release from his employer (Oregon State University). Polyharrisson (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're right, I didn't read them closely enough. Schazjmd (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep passes WP:GNG per Andrew D .  Lubbad85   (☎) 17:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Portland Business Journa articlel meets WP:GNG and over 2.7K cited as per Google Scholar citation passes NACADEMIC #1. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment just to put the citations/h-index in a bit of context - there are nearly 3000 scientists with an h-index of >= 100 . 547 living chemists have an h-index >= 55 . I couldn't find numbers for h>30, but there must be thousands of chemists who would qualify. Polyharrisson (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * keep per David Eppstein, and CASSIOPEIA. — usernamekiran (talk)  12:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The research description read like a copyvio, so I tried checking it out. Some of it appears lifted from his lab website, but weirdly, the sentence His work includes investigations on selective catalysis, including the design, discovery, and study of systems that mediate fundamentally interesting and useful organic reactions seems to be taken from a writeup about somebody else. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (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.