Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart M. Brooks


 * 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)  Ya  sh  !   00:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Stuart M. Brooks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created by SPA who appears to be related (he changed his username: ). Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Article does claim he discovered a somewhat obscure syndrome known as RADS, but it is cited to his own website. Even if this is true, I've found no coverage of him with which to create an article, and I'm not sure that would qualify him as notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti  Talk  19:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti  Talk  19:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Tentative keep. The paper to which the article sources the subject's discovery of Reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (and of which he is the lead author) shows up with nearly 700 citations on the standard GScholar search - overall, GScholar shows the subject's h-index as a bit over 30. In many academic fields, the h-index would be quite enough to assume notability under WP:ACADEMIC#1. In fields like medicine, with heavily multiply-authored articles, it probably isn't quite enough by itself, but I am regard that heavily-cited article (and, to a lesser extent, a number of others with three-figure citations) as enough for notability. Pinging User:David Eppstein, as having rather more expertise with this kind of evidence than I have. PWilkinson (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not much of an expert on medical notability, but with 8 papers having over 100 citations each in Google scholar including nearly 700 for the RADS paper I think this is a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 13:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Yossiea (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2015 (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.