Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Matthew Liao


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

S. Matthew Liao

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Junior academic, seems to have contributed own autobiography. Reads like a CV. Article is an orphan. Not notable 4er6ty8ui (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. A GS h-index of 7 in pop philosophy. Probably not quite enough to pass WP:Prof. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep based on the extremely impressive list of publication on worldcat. h index is field-sensistive. This would be trivial for a biomedical scientist, but not in the humanities. The list of publication includes almost all of important journals in the subject. That so many first rate journals think his work important shows notability. If necessary, Ill meet GNG by showing that some of the citations to the articles discuss his work in substantial detail. I don't like to argue this way, because I think GNG is a little silly in this context, but as long as we have the rule, it's no worse than blind use of h index without considering whether it's applicable.   DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not dismissing your argument, but it's worth pointing out that at least 3/4 of the articles referenced in that worldcat search belong to other authors. Regarding the h-index, if nobody is citing his work it's almost irrelevant whether his work is in a high-quality journal or not.4er6ty8ui (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. He appears to be on a successful career track at a good university, so I would bet in favor of his eventually passing WP:PROF, but I don't see evidence of it yet. The publication his article says he is most notable for, on the right of children to be loved, has only 14 citations in Google scholar, not enough to convince me of its impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't yet pass WP:PROF. --Slashme (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete He may one day be notable but he isn't notable right now. If/when he becomes notable the article can be recreated. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * 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.