Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Pfeifer

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Pfeifer

[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)

WP:BEFORE source searches are not providing significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. The subject has been a co-author of some academic work that has been cited, but the citation rate is rather low at 55 for one paper, and more impressive at 489 for another; the subject has an H-index of 2 (link). Overall, it does not appear that WP:NACADEMIC is met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not first or last author, so even those citations don't really count. Probably family memorial page. Definitely fails academic criteria. PainProf (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with PainProf that middle author on a paper with moderately high citations (but without much other paper output) is not a pass of WP:NPROF. He's also a coauthor of The Evolution of Modern Vascular Surgery, which has at least one review [1]. One book is not generally a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. The combined case still seems to me to be a ways away from being sufficient to keep. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:CLERGY. Based on what's discussed above, he just hasn't' had an impact in the literature. He also hasn't held a named chair at a major research university. Co-writing a single text book is not sufficient unless it's been used and reviewed widely. Finally, being "President" of a "stake" is not a high clerical position in the LDS; it's roughly equivalent to a being Dean or Monsignor in liturgical Christian churches. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2020 (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.