Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Smith Broadbent

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H. Smith Broadbent[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF criteria or WP:GNG, though he is clearly a successful academic. Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 09:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 13 does not quite make it in average cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Normally, I'd agree with that - but have you allowed for the fact that most of the subject's papers seem to be from before 1970, even though there are a small number of far more recent ones? So far as I can see, the usual sources we use for counting citations are far better for the last 20 years than they are from before that, so a significant proportion of any citations from the years immediately after when he published those papers are going to have been missed. PWilkinson (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a source for this view? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Very week keep. He appears to meet the bare minimum of sourceability (two local references), academic impact (he appears to have been a top expert on rhenium compounds, especially taking into account the fact that such old papers tend not to gather so many citations), and BIO1E (munitions disposal as well as purer chemistry). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears not to meet the general notability guideline. There is a source here and he published an article in the Journal of Organic Chemistry and he was probably an authority on Rhenium. Still, not sure it adds up to notability, but I can change my mind if other sources are presented.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2014 (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.