Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Moffat (2nd nomination)

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.

Anthony Moffat

Anthony Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

May fail Wikipedia's guidelines for

• Keep Meets
  WP:BEFORE: you are supposed to establish whether the person is notable (in your opinion) before nominating, not just post "may fail" without checking. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment No opinion yet on the "fellow" thing (which does look sufficient to meet PROF), but PROF#5 is most certainly not met by being "professeur titulaire". That way, any US full professor would also be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a full professor is normally considered sufficient. See

WP:PROF which say "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments". Criteria #5 does not specify the exact rank for academics in Canadian universities, but it refers to the highest rank of professors in any country. Montreal was ranked 84th in the world by THE[3] and therefore qualifies as a "a major institution of higher education and research". Based on Google Scholar, he also has an h-index of at least 50 which easily meets WP:PROF #1, but someone with access to a better database may be able to get a more accurate figure. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Such a huge h-index is way beyond what we usually take as indicating notability. Just for the record, though, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of PROF. Being full professor is not the equivalent of a named chair or a "distinguished professorship". As for that precedents essay, I'm impressed that you even found that. If you look at the history, you'll see that it's pretty old and mostly refers to outcomes in 2005-2006. Since then, PROF has evolved a lot. Several of the examples given there (s lot of publications, chairing a conference discussion, for example) will not be enough for a "keep" nowadays.

• Keep GScholar lists several articles with very high citation rates. Web of Science lists 436 articles that have been cited over 9200 times with an h-index of 47. Highest citation counts 259, 177, and 153 (9 articles with more than 100 citations). Clear pass of PROF#1. The Fellowship most likely would be enough, too, but they have several classes of Fellows and I did not check which class Moffat is in an whether all classes qualify for notability. --Randykitty (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of the fellowship of the RSCan.Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Further note this is the first nomination of Anthony Moffat the astronomer; the previous article was about some unknown. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Colapeninsula and Randykitty. This is a very clear keep, and the nom deserves a
  WP:BEFORE check and so wasting everyone's time. -- 101.119.14.157 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2013 (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.