Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Hooley (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hooley[edit]

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

Subject of article fails WP:PROF. Highest cited paper has 43 (not first or last author though). Then 37, 29, 27, 8, 8, 6, 4, 3, 1, 1, 0, 0. This is an h-index of 6. Subject has done some community outreach. The first AfD for this article was initiated on Dec 31 2006, which may explain why it was not deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, citability level is fairly low for physics, nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF. Too little coverage of his community activism to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. I note that this WP:BLP was not prodded before being taken to AfD. It might have saved some time if it had been. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Prod is not allowed for articles that have had a previous AfD. Speedy was tried, but declined. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks for that info. Grumble withdrawn.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. After removing dead links, there was only one remaining source, so the article fails WP:BLP too. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation numbers are just not good enough to support a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 6 August 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.