Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Dewitte


 * 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. v/r - TP 21:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter Dewitte

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an unsourced BLP and I have been unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to add to article even though it is likely accurate based on the results of this Google Scholar search. My main concern is notability, does his requirement warrent a standone article? I don't think so. J04n(talk page) 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notable mentions. I went through two pages of Google and Yahoo searches and I never saw anything notable mentioning him. SwisterTwister   talk  21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete What I can find are either false hits or trivial mentions. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking my !vote based on Xxanthippe. Dewitte has clearly had an impact in the field. OTOH, there appear to be no sources about the man himself, which would lead to this being a permanent stub. Edward321 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof with GS cites of 334, 228, 224, 88, 76... h index = 18. Nominator should read, mark, learn and inwardly digest WP:Prof before making further nominations of academics. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Weak delete. I think this is one of those cases where relying only on h-index is not a good idea. Dewitte works in a field with fairly high publication speeds and citation rates. For such a field the h-index of 18 is pretty good but is not yet, IMO, in the region establishing unquestionable notability. Most of his papers with high citations in GoogleScholar are papers with a significant number of co-authors. The one exception appears to be this paper with James Murray, who according to the article's text, was his supervisor at Cambridge (the article says "He carried out this work at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom under the guidance of Professor Jim Murray"). In such cases I try to look for some secondary indicators of notability - such as giving plenary talks at important conferences, getting substantial grants, awards, journal editorships etc. I just could not find any of that here, not even significant evidence of giving invited hour talks. His position at Cardiff as "Senior Research Associate" appears to be a non-permanent position to me, presumably funded by some-one's grant. I could not find his CV or information about his educational background (e.g. when and where he received his PhD). Under such circumstances I do not think that the citability data in googlescholar carries enough weight to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even though he appears to pass WP:PROF, the criterion also states that it has to be "substantiated through reliable sources", meaning more than one independent reference. Also the Citation metrics section states that "Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution". Hence I am a bit reluctant to agree on a clear pass based sololy on one not entirely reliable source, and also there are no further significant claims of anything notable, eg awards, invited conference papers, prestigious grants etc. It would help if his high citation index can be referenced in the article and clearly stating the resulting impact of it not just in number terms. As the article stands now, it needs more sources, as it fails WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references. --Michaela den (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2011 (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.