Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cowen

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. ✗plicit 23:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cowen

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Created by a new account who is apparently an WP:UPE (calls the subject Alan in edit summaries). Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has one highly cited paper, but this is what I understand to be an extremely high citation field. I'm not seeing it as meeting WP:NPROF C1; indeed, it would be unusual if a 2019 PhD met NPROF. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Here is the subject's Google Scholar profile. The figures are not enough to give a pass of WP:PROF#C1 in these highly cited fields, and in particular I note that the article in Nature, which was cited in support of notability, has only attracted 15 citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: Could you please clarify your remarks by "Comment", "Keep", or "Delete"?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I believe that this is not a vote, and putting "Comment" before a comment is simply condescending in the extreme. Everything said here is obviously a comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way to early in his career to meet academic notability under almost any circumstances, and he has not published some work that was so groundbreaking it gave him permannent notability all on its own, so he is not yet notable. Maybe in a few decades, but not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way TOOSOON. I looked at his 17 coauthors and the 32 most recent coauthors of his 2 most frequent collaborators (cutoff of 5+ papers).

Total citations: avg: 5318, median: 2322, Cowen: 373.

Total papers: avg: 84, med: 63, C: 17.

h-index: avg: 26, med: 22, C: 10.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 722, med: 378, C: 136. 2nd: avg: 372, med: 210, C: 59. 3rd: avg: 280, med: 157, C: 43. 4th: avg: 218, med: 133, C: 24. 5th: avg: 199, med: 114, C: 21.

Top first-author: avg: 511, med: 225, C: 136.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 16:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree this is UPE, and have blocked the author for it. This is not a good faith effort at writing an encyclopedia article. MER-C 13:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of whether this is UPE, we don't have enough evidence for WP:PROF or other forms of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2021 (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.