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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Roantree[edit]

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

Previously included, among many others, in the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gillian_McMahon. As the discussion closed, the author included it in a list they said was "a bit obscure and could be removed immediately." This was back in 2006. ~~Since 2007,~~ The subject's h-index is 11 ~~has dropped from 11 to 8,~~ as seen on his Google Scholar profile. Seems to lack enough notability to warrant an article. Has carried a notability tag since 2008. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It shouldn't be possible for the h-index to drop, except possibly for corrections to bad data in the original database from which it was calculated. And I still see it as 11 in his profile, so that comment in the nomination seems inaccurate. That said, 11 or 8, the numbers are still too low (in a high-citation subject) to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and there doesn't seem to be anything else to pin notability on. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I misunderstood - there were two columns in the table on his profile, one said All, and h-index was 11, and one said "Since 2007" and h-index was 8. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so that's ignoring all citations to his work earlier than 2007 and counting only how many recent papers cite his. I don't think this number is very useful here; see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No you're right, I wasn't thinking of it that way. I was thinking that in 2006 the author called him obscure and "deletable" and since 2007 he had even less citations than he had at the point the author said that. But it doesn't matter since as you said, even 11 is low. I'm striking out the mention of 8. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:31, 19 November 2012 (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.