Deletion of Charles Edward Lincoln III

Comment: I really don't think that ''any'' safe conclusions about notablility can be drawn, based on GS counts, raw h-index calcs, or other bibliometric methods alone. There are very many well-known and evident deficiencies in each of these approaches (documented even in our wiki articles on them). At ''best'', uncalibrated search counts & citation metrics like these are rough indications to be used as a starting point, not a final determination on their own. Like Harzing's Publish or Perish website doco says (paraphrasing), "low" citation metrics do not necessarily indicate lack of impact or notability in a field, as there are numerous other factors that skew the results.For example, GS does not do a good job of finding citations in books or contributed book chapters. The great majority of hits in http://www.google.com/books?lr=&num=20&as_brr=0&q=lincoln+chichen+-nebraska+-abraham+-Satterthwaite+-memorial+-avenue&btnG=Search+Books&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1978&as_maxm_is=10&as_maxy_is=2009 this targeted GoogleBooks search are mentions that discuss or reference his work on Chichen Itza; allowing for false positives and duplicates there'd easily be 400+. And if you skim through the two-line extracts given, you'll see a lot are actively discussing his work, more than just trivial or passing mentions. but Citation metric searches are also quite sensitive on the search terms/methodology used. For eg, even if a GS/PoP search on "Charles E Lincoln" turns up only 62 citations total, if instead you search on the title of what PoP says is his most-cited work (the contributed chapter "Chronology of Chichen Itza: a review of the literature") PoP finds 49 mentions for this work alone. Similarly a search for the title of his dissertation "ethnicity and social organization at chichen itza" pulls in 43 mentions.Harzing's other caveats apply here too&mdash;'small' field size (there are only so many publs. per year on Mesoamerican archaeology, and even fewer on specific sites); under-representation of non-english sources (a great deal of mesoam. archaeology is written in spanish, as are about half of Lincoln's works); publishing mainly in books not journals (half of his publs.)Really, the better approach is to investigate and read up on the content and assess context in the literature sources that discuss the scholar and his works. That's what I had tried to do in my earlier 'keep' comment, above. In that I identify three particular contributions to significant and ongoing questions in the research field, that Lincoln has made and which have been reasonably widely discussed and commented upon in the literature. To be more specific, I would suggest that these satisfy  criterion 1, and also note 2 ("person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea"). Consider this selection of excerpts from the relevant literature:"as early as 1980...archaeological work had begun to revise our understanding of the Toltecs and their role in Mesoamerica. The work at Tula and Chichen Itza (Lincoln), has enhanced our ability to make such a revision.." --Society for Latin American Anthropology (1983)"At once the most thoroughgoing and radical discussant of this problem, Charles Lincoln challenges the conventional assessment of Chichen's chronology.." --Lindsay Jones, ''Twin City Tales'' (1995)"The work of Charles Lincoln (1986, 1990), however, challenged the traditional sequential view of Chichen Itza..." --Jessica Christie, ''Maya Palaces and Elite Residences'' (2003)"Por una parte, nos parece interesante la teoría de la contemporaneidad de los vestigios "mayas" y "toltecas" que sostiene el arqueólogo Ch. E. Lincoln..." Piedad Peniche Rivero, '' Sacerdotes y comerciantes'' (1990)Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Lincoln was a giant of the field by any strech of the imagination, but neither were his contributions merely workaday ones. His work and proposals did attract a fair amount of interest, commentary and debate, & he's been much more widely cited and mentioned than those H-index scores & GS data indicate. The more I've looked into it the more I can find multiple notable RS's devoting some decent space to his ideas, that could be used to construct a reasonable & informative article. The current text would need to be scrapped in the process, and written afresh. But I think as a wikipedia article's subject,  threshhold would be satisfied
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Does not seem to pass notability requirements under  or . Fairly limited coverage on GNews; not enough for . As for , an HPoP citation analysis using "Charles E Lincoln" suggests a grant total of 62 citations, a low h-index of 4, and the most widely cited publication with only 20 citations. WorldCat gives a low 17 holdings for most widely held book
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: not notable and autobiography ( contravention removed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Notability is questionable. Possibly COI, per  and autobiography per  as author's username (CEALIV) greatly looks like '''C'''harles '''E'''dward '''LI'''ncoln III
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:YOURSELF)