Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Bamidele Davies


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Trevor Bamidele Davies

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? The specific list of things to warrant an article for the academics notability guidelines does not apply to Davies.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 08:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 08:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sign of the citation impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF C1 (FWIW, Google Scholar profile is here ), nor of the other NPROF criteria, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 19:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The almost-unsourced claims of research impact at the end of the "Career and research" section are the only indication of importance saving this from an A7 speedy deletion, but they turn out to be based on nothing. The Google Scholar profile linked above lists five publications, three uncited, and two with 12 and 4 citations respectively. Of these, 4 and 3 of the citations are actually self-citations by CHT Wang. This falls far short of WP:PROF in what is a high-citation field. There is no evidence of any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do not think there is evidence of the level of notability that would justify an article, and agree with the comments above. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: the subject of the article clearly fails WP:GNG and all criteria in WP:NPROF; there is no significant citation impact. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 09:37, 7 July 2023 (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.