Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert T. Clubb

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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Clubb[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 meet WP:NACADEMIC Natureium (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 9 papers cited over 100x passes WP:Prof#C1. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this listed somewhere? According to Web of Science, he has one paper that has been cited more than 100 times (Sortase enzymes in Gram-positive bacteria, Molecular Microbiology). There also is no definition of "highly cited" so that's debatable, but a requirement for articles in general is that there must be coverage of them. You'll need to show that there are sources available that can be used to write an article. Natureium (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am using Google Scholar [1]. I agree that what is termed "highly cited" is subjective and may vary based on the field. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While subjective, I think his citation count passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of GNG with nothing anywhere even close to a 3rd party source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACADEMIC is a separate guideline from GNG. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think he does actually pass WP:PROF#C1. But the article is relentlessly picayune (do we really need to know his mother's home town and the name of the guy who showed him how to use an NMR machine?) and I searched but did not find secondary sourcing that could provide more substantive content for the article, like major breakthroughs he might have been part of or even a general flavor of his research specialty. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2018 (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.