Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew C. Levy

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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew C. Levy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced that this person meets the notability criteria for academics. His H-index on Google Scholar is just 11 ... and I originally thought this article would be a shoe-in because he was a Fellow of the Royal Society, but no, he was a Newton International Fellow, which I see is not enough to claim notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tana Joseph. Graham87 06:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Article author) The Newton Fellow is less prestigious than an FRS certainly, however this person was the first American physicist in history to win. That is notable enough. On top of that, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tana Joseph, there is in this case significant 3rd party coverage. His entrepreneurship and invention work appears to add on top of that because it received significant investment. In one individual these meet "worthy of notice" criterion enough Wikipedia:Notability_(people) User:Lasers001 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Laser001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Entrepreneurship notability and source that he raised more than $8.6 million. User:Lasers001 04:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Laser001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Business additions; this portion of the article may be better considered in this discussion and expanded. User:Lasers001 06:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC) — Laser001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Comment: Ref 2 is his former university, so not a WP:3rd party source. Ref 3 is a personal website, so not a WP:reliable source. Qwfp (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 isn't third-party either, since it says "Provided by: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory" at the end. I don't think that being the first physicist from a Western developed country known for its strong university system to get a fellowship from a competition open to all students outside the UK is particularly noteworthy, in this context. Graham87 03:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not yet attained: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Uncertain Rather than just go by the summary h index, looking atthe citations shows two highly cited articles, (140, 106). This would notrmally be quite sufficient, as we judge notability by someone's most important work, not by the number of unimportant works--except that these are papers where he is part of a fairly large group ( 21 in one case ,26 in the other) so his indidual role is uncertain. The Newton Fellowship is a post-doctoral award only, and therefore nto a major award that indicates notability , DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline but the PROMO aspect of the final part tips it for me (and why this fully referenced article was probably written by WP:SPA Laser001, who only has 11 Wikipedia edits to their name under this username, including the edits at this AfD, which means we probably have a WP:COI and possibly WP:UDP aspect too). Britishfinance (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.