Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Gerfen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 18:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chip Gerfen[edit]
- Chip Gerfen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:PROF, publications do not rise to level required in criteria #1 or #4 and other criteria are not implicated. MBisanz talk 03:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found 36 scholarly articles authored or co-authored by "C. Gerfen" or "H. Gerfen" (his full name is apparently Henry James (Chip) Gerfen), most of which are cited 0-30 times. This is not clear evidence of significant impact on the field, though there may be other evidence out there. Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without evidence he satisfies WP:PROF (see my comment above), deletion seems appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, as Cnilep already said. The citation record isn't strong enough to convince me of criterion C1, his administrative position as chair is definitely not enough for #C6, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2012 (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.