Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Nering

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. JForget 02:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nering[edit]

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

This is an article for a non-notable person, with no secondary sources and only a few obscure primary sources written by themself. This page has been tagged for notability since 2008, and has still not been provided any evidence. I added a prod tag, but it was continually removed by someone - I assume the article's subject - with no reason, no discussion, and still no evidence for notability. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the notability is being positioned as a researcher. This person meets none of the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics).Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to provide references, other than some publications (GS cites for the publications given are 27, 23, 40, ??). Fails WP:PROF and WP:BLP. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability for satisfying WP:ACADEMIC. GS gives a few papers in the 20-40 cites range, with h-index of about 7. Not enough for satisfying criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. As the article is written, the claim depends largely on two of his papers, "The Distribution of Person Fit Using True and Estimated Person Parameters" (1995) and "A comparison of the person response function and the l(z) person-fit statistic" (1998), but these papers have been cited only 18 and 15 times, respectively, over their publication lifetimes of >10 years. WoS shows his h-index is only 5 with cumulative citations to all his research work of roughly 90. His books are listed, though not emphasized, but it's not clear whether they've had significant impact. I'm glad to change positions here if someone can show that they have. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'm from the area, and the impact is minimal. The 2005 book is volume 144 in a long series of what are essentially monographs. The 2010 book has been out for 11 days, so there is of course no impact. Moreover, Nehring only served as editor. If you click on that link, you'll see that all the content was written by other people.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Despite the books, I don't see a lot of evidence for passing WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE (nor WP:PROF, but I'm not convinced this criterion is so relevant since he seems not to be an academic). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2010 (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.