Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard G Smith


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard G Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I and another admin disagree about whether it passes speedy A7, but it does seem clear that, even if it does, actual notability as an academic is somewhat doubtful. It seems to me that it would depend on the importance of the editorships, about which I presently have no opinion.  DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no internal evidence of notability in the article and no references, and the fact that it has been repeatedly re-created by the editor or his puppets without any significant changes indicates that there's an underlying agenda that has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Fails WP:RS and WP:PROF andy (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a geographer R G Smith with cites on GS of 542, 229, 61, 52. If this is the same Smith he could be heading for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Enough highly-cited publications to meet #1, with an h-index of 15-20. Easy to get false positives, but enough actual hits if one looks carefully. Most widely cited pub with over 500 citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In that case passes WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep as per Eric Yurken. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This Google scholar search gives four papers with over 100 cites each (including the 500-cite one mentioned by Xxanthippe and Eric) and three more with over 50. It gets messy below that point, and the search is probably too specific to find all of Smith's work, but it's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wos search using "Author=(Smith RG) Refined by: Subject Areas=(GEOGRAPHY) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" probably eliminates false-positives. H-index is only 7, but the citation list is 90, 35, 32... with roughly 250 collective citations. This would seem to be a solid pass, given that geography is not a field associated with terribly high citation counts. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep - while we have no bright line test, under WP:PROF, he would pass due to the sheer number of citations. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Thats lots of cites for an obscure field VASterling (talk) 20:21, 13 September 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.