Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Minnich


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Scott Minnich

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Associate professor failing WP:NPROF, who got his "15 minutes of fame" for his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. All cited sources are primary sources (his own testimony) or trivial mentions. Being a "Fellow" at the Discovery Institute (an organization promoting pseudoscience version of creationism) and signing a public statement from the Discovery Institute are facts that have no relevance to the field of microbiology and don't constitute a credible claim of notability. Coverage of Minnich seems to be all about the Kizmiller trial, not biographical, and the Kitzmiller trial already has its own article, as is appropriate for WP:1EVENT. He does publish scholarly papers that are cited as would be expected of a professor in his position; nothing out of the ordinary. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nomination and the discussion from a few months ago here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per points summed up by Anachronist and per my own research which rendered the same conclusion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per others and my comment on the linked thread regarding his Scopus citations. JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are the Scopus metrics for Minnich and his 58 coauthors with 10+ papers:
 * Total citations: average: 3287, median: 1738, Minnich: 1194. Total papers: avg: 70, med: 40, M: 40. h-index: avg: 25, med: 20, M: 21. Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 427, med: 249, M: 103. 2nd: avg: 253, med: 165, M: 81. 3rd: avg: 157, med: 109, M: 81. 4th: avg: 134, med: 94, M: 79. 5th: avg: 117, med: 81, M: 65.
 * I'm still not convinced his citation record is beyond that of a typical microbio professor. JoelleJay (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I couldn't find any additional coverage of this individual, and (as Anachronist has convincingly argued) nothing in the current article meets either WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Generalrelative (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but stub down. He has a borderline case for WP:PROF through his seven publications with over 100 citations each, two of which are in PNAS (also, he appears to be full professor now, not associate professor, and in a different department; our coverage of his academic affiliations was seven years out of date). I agree that the Kitzmiller and Iraq Survey activities do not add to his notability; I removed them from the article as I felt the sourcing was too primary for WP:BLP. If we cover him at all, it should be for where there is a case for notability, as a working academic in his specialty, not for his side activities with the Discovery Institute. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Rather Weak keep  but I am not sure that the case for WP:Prof is all that strong as he has a large number of coauthors on his papers in a high citation field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC).
 * Delete The citations show the type of ordinary production from a person working in their field, not some-one who's making a "significant impact on their scholarly discipline". The nomination is correct in describing his involvement in the Discovery Institute as not notable on WP:1E grounds. There is not other evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 14:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - not substantial enough to bother to retain or create a redirect; just another testimony in a notable lawsuit. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:13, 9 October 2021 (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.