Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colm McDonald

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 keep. Daniel (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colm McDonald[edit]

[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)

The article doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His Google Scholar profile shows an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. And copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes NPROF-1 with an h-index of 66 (google scholar).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although many of the highly cited papers are also highly coauthored, I'm seeing enough first/last authored papers that are highly cited that I think it passes WP:NPROF C1. I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching them for AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything stated above. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 18:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep not a as clear cut as it seems on the first glance. While there are many co-authored publications, there are also a sufficient number of first author pubs with high citation count. Still, this is within a high citation field and most of his papers are with 20-50 authors, making it hard to identify individual contributions. --hroest 14:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I looked at the 151 coauthors with ≥25 papers from the 73 papers with ≤25 authors out of his most recent 125 papers (whew!). He is well above the average in Scopus citation metrics:

Total citations: average: 10003, median: 2958, McDonald: 17453. Total papers: avg: 160, med: 91, M: 245. h-index: avg: 38, med: 26, M: 57. Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 1082, med: 420, M: 4062. 2nd: avg: 523, med: 248, M: 1262. 3rd: avg: 389, med: 215, M: 592. 4th: avg: 313, med: 156, M: 464. 5th: avg: 271, med: 131, M: 449.

The coauthor values do skew low due to the paper cutoff and publication recency likely catching a lot of postdocs and students; however, I think his profile is robust enough to maintain exception over his peers even if I did a true "average professor" test. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2021 (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.