Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Linford

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. Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Linford

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

The article reads like a resume and is very poorly referenced. He has written may articles but that's what an academic is supposed to do - I doubt he'd pass WP:PROF. Plus, the fact that this is an orphan article would imply that he's not really that notable. (Please note that this page was recently de-PRODed with the request that it be taken though Afd instead, I assume this waves the normal limitation about taking de-PRODed pages straight to Afd). Project Osprey (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - this is a bad Promo article of an Associate Prof. that uses primary sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. The patents I found and the contribution to a 1996 Cambridge University paper (here) could be promising if there was an expert who could discern if the subject has made some kind of unique discovery or impact but those alone aren't enough. EBY (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I noticed that the subject was named a Fellow of AVS. It seems like a decently selective distinction, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know whether AVS is considered a major scholarly organization like ACS or IEEE for purposes of meeting WP:PROF. It was easy to de-orphan the entry by a WP search; Linford's company developed a technology called M-DISC. I've started cutting down the promotional/resume-like tone, though that is an issue separate from notability. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GScholar seems to give an h-index of about 28, which might well not be enough in itself to meet WP:PROF#1 in this field. However, one of his papers has over 1000 citations and another over 600. Perhaps someone with a bit more expertise on citation counts could take a look? PWilkinson (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The high citation counts for his papers on Google scholar look like a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PROF C1 is still mystifying in a lot of ways, but Linford is at an h-index of 29, and primary author on his top two papers, one cited over 1k. No one has called this unexceptional for the chemistry field. I also found another paper that refers to this top paper as "pioneering":Looks like it passes PROF considering this citation count to be high, and with noted impact on the field. czar ♔ 14:40, 23 November 2014 (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.