Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Kull

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. Sandstein 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kull[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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO - requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Dartmouth College is a primary source and therefore not independent. Dan arndt (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACADEMIC #5, and possibly #1. Kull holds the Rodgers Professorship at Dartmouth College, an endowed faculty chair ([1]). Scopus shows a h-index of 22, and Google scholar shows about a dozen papers with more than 100 citations, with the top three all published in Nature and having counts of 440, 457, and 859. Note that WP:NACADEMIC is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline, so in this case, significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources is not required to meet inclusion criteria. Jfire (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Biology, California, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His university page falls into the category of "reliable though not independent", i.e. can be used as a source but does not contribute to WP:GNG, though that is besides the point, as WP:NPROF is the more applicable notability guideline here rather than GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPROF C5, plausible C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both PROF#C1 [2] and #C5 as above. Bad nomination, fails to consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is not based on independent sources (or, if you will, media hype). Nominator has participated in many past deletion discussions on academics and should know better. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2024 (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.