Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Shalet


 * 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) Natg 19 (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Shalet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't think this person meets our notability guidelines. I have tried to performa a google search but can't find any clear evidence of notability. I am not completely familiar with guidelines but propose this article for deletion for this reason - looking forward to hearing what other editors think. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is badly written in a way that makes him look non-notable, but Google Scholar is showing an h-index in the 90s, an easy pass of WP:PROF. FRCP could well be enough for #C3 as well. The Jewish Telegraph calls him "Europe's most prominent hormone specialist", and there's an in-depth interview with him in The Endocrinologist which looks like it could be used to expand the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Utterly stunning citation record on GS. How could the nominator have ignored this? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Nice to meet you Xxanthippe. As you can see above I tried quite hard to put up a good faith nomination and make it clear I'm not an AfD regular. I performed a google search but not a google scholar search as I figured the papers on google scholar would not be independent of the subject. Anyhow, now I'm somewhat wiser about the GNG. Happy to withdraw this nomination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, . AfD can be a strange place, and the regulars (like me) tend to throw around a lot of jargon, so it can take a little while to get the hang of what's going on. If you'd like to understand how deletion debates for scientists, professors, and people like that usually work, I'd recommend reading the "academics and educators" notability guideline and skimming the archive of them. In case you weren't familiar with Google Scholar, it's an imperfect-but-useful tool for finding academic papers and seeing who has cited them. People can create profiles on Google Scholar that list their publications; for example, here is the profile for, who commented above. Note that it lists the number of citations that each of his papers have received (2160, 918, 515, etc.). His papers are obviously not independent sources about him, since he wrote or co-wrote them, but the citation counts are evidence that his work has been influential. That's one way to be notable by "WP:PROF", as we say. Unfortunately, it looks like Prof. Shalet hasn't made himself a Google Scholar profile, but the search still finds papers by him, and we can evaluate his record. Cheers, XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Large number of highly cited papers, including plenty with the subject as first/last author, is an unambiguous pass of WP:NPROF C1.  There's an indepth interview with him in the Endocrinologist  that could be used to expand the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, easy NSCHOLAR C1 pass with the citation count.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:06, 12 October 2020 (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.