Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Green


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert C. Green
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability guidelines Factface (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Factface (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 21.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  02:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article makes claims that seem to satisfy wp:academics, like having made key contributions in his field. Is your argument that those claims aren't justified/backed by fact? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete - I have two issues with the page: 1) The subject is an active researcher, but I could not identify major contributions to the field of genetics. 2) The page is exclusively written by the subject's staff, and has not been updated.Factface (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Factface (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote". &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete He doesn't seem to clearly meet any of the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. He is quite well-cited on Google Scholar, but a lot of those papers have several authors, and he's in a field where having a lot of citations is common. Claims that he's innovative or important in his field aren't properly supported by evidence. I don't see in depth press coverage. And he doesn't have a full professorship, professional position, awards, or fellowships such as would justify notability. If there was clearer evidence about the importance of his contribution to science, or greater coverage of his work (e.g. in mainstream media articles), I would reconsider, but he seems a run of the mill researcher. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Gscholar h-index of 42, which is very high, regardless of high-citation level of field. If we restrict to articles where he is first author, that is still a h-index of 20 or so, which I think is a very good argument for passing WP:PROF. Otherwise, the fact that he is cited as a key researcher in New York Times articles in explaining various facets of Alzheimer's research contributes strongly to a pass of WP:PROF, given the importance of Alzheimer's disease to the population at large. Ray  Talk 04:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete A first author h-index of 20 is pretty common, especially for an established academic of 21 years. Almost all HMS faculty have at least that h-index, and it does not make them notable. I also think the claims in the article are unsubstantiated by the citations. The article reads as a puff bio by a colleague or employee (whose username is from his institution, BWH.) If it is not deleted it should be restructured. Medicine72 (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Others have already noted his highly cited research (only looking at papers where he is first author, I'm still seeing some with hundreds of citations). But also, several research results on which he was lead researcher have been reported in newspapers: higher risk of Alzheimer's for African-Americans in the Boston Herald and Washington Post; plans for large drug studies in the Salt Lake Tribune and Boston Herald; psychological consequences of genetic testing for Alzheimer's susceptibility in the Chicago Tribune; beneficial effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs on Alzheimer's in the Chicago Tribune. So I think he passes WP:PROF, #C7, and WP:GNG for the nontrivial coverage of his research in multiple newspapers. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The only significant problem I see is that the article reads like a vanity piece written by a single purpose account, and as such needs a cleanup.  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 07:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. High cites on GS passes WP:Prof easily. Editors are at liberty to clean-up. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete I fundamentally disagree with the notion that an academic with an h-index of 12, or a well-cited paper should be listed on Wikipedia. Almost all academics at research universities meet these criteria, so they cannot be exclusively used to meet the threshold for notability, even when interpreted broadly. We need encyclopedic content, not vanity pieces or a catalog of faculty.Dfcigen (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment BLPs of researchers are determined according to the WP:Prof guidelines. If you disagree with them the best place to argue that is on those pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment I completely agree with the use of citations and h-indices as academic notability metrics. However, my point is that if one were to look through the faculty list at even moderate research universities, most faculty meet this individual's h-index (12), and as such, this h-index is not notable in this context. Dfcigen (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There are three possible bases to support notability for academics: WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and the GNG. He seems clearly to meet the GNG. I think he meets WP:PROF also as an expert in his field. The use of h index as the sole determinant of notability is inappropriate, of course, because it fails to take account of papers with very high citations . h=42 could mean 42 papers with 42 citations each, or 41 papers with 400 each and 1 with 42, and the implications are very different. In his case, the key factor is that there are 4 or 5  papers with very high citations of over 200,   The  the use of citations to determine academic notability is how the profession does it.   It is false that all academics at research universities meet a  standards of notability based on citations: it is very rare that   Assistant Professors do, for if they had done sufficient work for that, they would have been promoted. It is extremely rare that a full professor does not, for at a major university nobody is admitted to that rank without being a leader in their subject, as judged by their peers. (Associate professor is an intermediary rank; I think the determination that someone is worthy of that rank, the rank that carries tenure, indicates that their colleagues think them a leader in their subject, but some others here working on these articles think it indicates merely the promise that they will become and remain so.)   DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 12 February 2013 (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.