Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Z. Chinn

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. While I do agree that having an Erdős number of 1 is a nice claim to fame, the general consensus here is that it is not enough to meet the notability threshold in itself. This individual has, otherwise, had a fairly small and poorly-cited publication history, and hence is insufficiently notable for an article. ~ mazca ^talk 10:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P. Z. Chinn[edit]

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

No papers with high citations except a survey article,...Erdos number should not play DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We ought to have an explicit "Erdős rule". Anyone with an Erdős number of one should have an article! Fleshing article would be nice too, but the underlying notability is sufficient for this alone. LotLE×talk 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree. It is likely that many of the people who have EN=1 are independently notable, but notability is not inherited. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS cites give an h index of 6 which is not so hot. Info from other databases would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Subject does not appear to meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS gives similar results, 6 papers with citations: 140, 4, 4, 1, 0, 0 (h-index = 3). I think the highly cited paper would possibly give an overall pass were it to be original research, but this is a review paper "The Bandwidth problem for graphs and matrics – A survey", so it's mostly an exposition of others' work and thus tends to get cited disproportionately (see h-index). The remainder seems to have had little impact. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. There is no reason to talk down the highest cited paper because it is a review. Being selected to write a review paper or having a review paper accepted is a good thing. But the h-index's job is to weigh a scholar's work in total, and it works. Having said that... Abductive (reasoning) 11:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, few papers, most with low or no citations. Abductive (reasoning) 11:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does one find those statistics? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

View history, click "Page view statistics". This AfD has been viewed 105 times in the last four days. Abductive (reasoning) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2010 (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.