Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell Smith

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Smith

[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 might be missing something here but unable to identify how said subject passes WP:NPROF. Surely having one publication with over 2000+ citations and the rest 80< is not indicative of an automatic pass of WP:NPROF. Cannot see any appointments that would qualify either. No WP:GNG pass either. nearlyevil 665 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I notice this was passed out of AFC by Ts12rAc (who has a lot more passes than fails, which I also find strange and worrisome) but to keep it short, I was about to do the same thing as the nom, for the same reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the person who reverted out the autobiography template (Francisfycollins, an spa) claims to be the author but not the subject, even though the history says otherwise (Asphodel76 also spa), and I've left a note explaining WP:scrutiny on their talk page. Not sure what is going on there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again also, Francisfycollins deleted talk page question about the notability here [1], even tho it wasn't their own comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one highly-cited paper, in which they are in a middle position among 10 authors, is definitely not enough by itself for WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. Assistant professors are usually not yet notable and I think this bears out the rule. I didn't consider the odd behavior discussed above in reaching this conclusion, but it also seems worthy of additional investigation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I flagged this as a likely autobiographical draft and was surprised to see it moved to mainspace. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur that WP:PROF#C1 is not met, and that there doesn't appear to be any other grounds for a keep. The editing history is ... peculiar. The single-purpose account who claims to have written the article is not the single-purpose account that did create it; the two accounts edited within a few minutes of each other on the evening of the 28th: 20:07, 20:10, 20:12, 20:17. XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article is promotional and the subject likely fails WP:NPROF with a modest h-index of 20 and less than 1000 citations when we disregard the one COVID 19 article. --hroest 00:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2022 (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.