Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Daly (scientist)

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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 13:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Daly (scientist)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, only source provided lacks independence from the subject, no substantive coverage in suitable sources to verify notability. KDS4444 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daly led the team that developed Haploview. He was also heavily involved with Genehunter software development. His research in genetics is widely cited. Because his name is so common, a very careful search is required to separate the wheat from the chaff. This stub should be expanded rather than being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haploview— looks borderline notable; Genehunter has (as yet) no Wikipedia article at all. While I recognize the difficulty in identifying the specific "Mark Daly" who is the subject of this article, claiming that "sources must exist" is one of the arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion, yes? Is there wheat? Where is it? KDS4444 (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Whether or not a specific one of his research projects has a Wikipedia article is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not this scientist is notable. The sources that confirm his notability under WP:ACADEMIC do exist, and you would have seen them if you had searched for them as recommended by WP:BEFORE. Why don't you report back to us how often this scientist's published research is cited by other scientists? Once you do that, I predict that you will withdraw your nomination. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a failure of WP:BEFORE. A few seconds on Google scholar turns up >40 papers authored by Mark Daly (yes, this one specifically) with greater than 1000 citations. In total, his publications have been cited 189,806 times. This individual has clearly had a significant impact in his field of study. Deli nk (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While personally, I agree with Cullen and Deli nk's views (and this Afd could probably be closed as a keep), I am giving it one re-list just to be sure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citations are always a gray zone for WP:ACADEMIC, and I tend to be a deletionist in cases that focus mainly on that, but I would say this case qualifies at least for a stub. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2017 (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.