Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Mayer

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 keep. ✗plicit 11:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Mayer

Kenneth Mayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or SNG. Tagged by others for paid editing. Editor was an expert at creating promotional articles by their edit #3 North8000 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All sources are self-published. Article here is little more than a CV. non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link two inches above and you will find some 80,000 independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Stunning pass of
  WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 132. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete. No secondary sources, no
  WP:SIGCOV, and in a very high citation field, a h-index of 132 is not all that spectacular.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment: Ari T. Benchaim Could you please elaborate your statement "not all that spectacular," because all standard metrics would put an h-index of 132 within the top 1% (even within clinical medicine). Thanks Gooseberry487 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Is this some kind of weird prank, or are editors really this ignorant of NPROF? Like, aside from meeting C1 with an h-index of 102 (on Scopus) and ~54000 citations, he apparently also may meet C8 for being an editor-in-chief of the Journal of the International AIDS Society according to this article. in a very high citation field, a h-index of 132 is not all that spectacular. I have no words for this. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Like, just to emphasize how outstandingly misguided this AfD is, out of Mayer's 3,738 co-authors he has the fourth-highest h-index. That puts him in the top 0.1% of researchers in his field. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Meets

WP:Prof by virtue of citations, WP:Prof#C1, and yes, and h-index of 132 (despite a high citation field like clinical medicine) is very impressive. It roughly puts a researcher among the 1,500 most cited researchers in the world.^[1] Gooseberry487 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Obvious keep, and this is my area of expertise. His top citations are 8029,5110,1357,1048,910 and there are more than 60 papers over 200 citations. This is a very long way above average even in this field; for example, the HIV/AIDS researcher Douglas Richman, whose article I started when he was one of the highest-cited across all biomedical fields, has a highest-cited paper of 4493. In addition Journal of the International AIDS Society is a respectable journal that might confer notability under WP:PROF alone. This should be withdrawn. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If independent sources are needed, then five seconds in WL located Pamela Das (2013). "Kenneth Mayer: global leader in HIV prevention."

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62278-3 which is even open access. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]