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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I understand it, he received his PhD in 2008 and is a first-year Assistant Professor. Academics at that career stage are rarely notable. In this case there is no apparent evidence of high citability of his publications; GoogleScholar returns very little[1]. No significant academic awards mentioned either. Fails WP:PROF for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing several published papers. Article could be cleaned up quite a bit, though.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply having several (or even a large number of) published works is insufficient for establishing academic notability, per WP:PROF. One needs to demonstrate that these works made a significant impact in a particular area of research as evidenced, for example, by high citability, reviews, etc.
Delete. Nothing to indicate any greater claim to notability than the thousands of students and academics who publish papers as part of their work. Crucially, I could find no significant coverage of McCulloh.--Michig (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this first-year assistant professor has not yet attained notability as established by WP:PROF guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar search does not inspire confidence in the notability of his research. (WSEAS must be more legit than it used to be if they are being indexed by ACM, but regardless, he has far too few cites, in an area that I would expect Google scholar to index well.) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see him passing WP:PROF. Part of a walled garden written by many SPAs. I find the topic really interesting, but find it hard to trust articles within the walled garden (e.g. Network Probability Matrix due to these issues of puffery and poor sourcing. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (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.