Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Ayers

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Ayers[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)

Does not pass NPROF, and the sources are a paper he authored himself, his own website, and an NIH biosketch (that you have to write up and submit when you apply for funding).

Scopus gives him an h-index of 16, because some people seem to think that's relevant. Natureium (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article leaves much to be desired, but according to Google Scholar[1] he has 2126 citations (and an h-index of 29), which is fairly respectable. --Tataral (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus gives him an h-index of 16 and 1196 citations, which per the NPROF guidelines is more reliable than google scholar for h-index. ("GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources.") Natureium (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Scopus and Google Scholar have their flaws, so the figures should only be taken as rough indications. Google Scholar may be somewhat non-selective, but Scopus is very incomplete. --Tataral (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be helpful if whoever said that his research was featured in all those high-profile media sources would provide actual links to them, but a news search finds several items in that vein: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] (leaving out those that had autoplaying video). XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His citation counts (three pubs with over 100 each in his Google scholar profile) gives him a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1. If that were all I might only give this a weak keep. But the media search above by XOR, even after filtering out half of the results as being low-quality press-release reprinters, gives enough media attention giving in-depth coverage to his research to give a good case for #C7 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's a narrow pass of WP:PROF#C1 and a respectable case for WP:PROF#C7. The topics he has chosen to research are natural fodder for churnalism and clickbait (my list above really only winnowed the worst of a standard "news" search), but a decent fraction of what I turned up was acceptably in-depth. I think it's at the point where we should say something about him, and we can do the reading public a service by writing something that's better than what the churnalism serves up. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2019 (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.