Deletion of Jeff Edmonds

Comment: Yes, writing one's autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly frowned upon. But the content itself is rather dry and standard &mdash; if someone ''else'' had written it, we wouldn't regard it as promotionally toned. An https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AjD7zfgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao h-index of 22 with 2,300+ citations is also a decent argument for #C1. Sure, what counts as "highly cited" varies from field to field, but I can't recall an instance where anyone with an h-index above 20 actually ''failed'' #C1 in the final consensus. So, yes, a stern warning to the page's creator, and an admonition to read |our Conflict of Interest guideline, but let's not be |bitey about it, either
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:COI||WP:BITE)

Comment: per #C1 based on citations in Google scholar. The page is not promotional. The profile on the university website isn't what qualifies Edmonds for an article, it's the impact of his work (as measured by citations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: admitted . Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTOBIO)

Comment: Yes, technically one can make a plausible case here for passing #C1 based on citations. However, I am not seeing much else in the record to indicate satisfying  (e.g. thinks like journal editorships, awards, being an elected fellow of a scholarly society, giving particularly prestigious lectures/lecture series, etc). Citability is pretty good, but for the kind of computer science and discrete math that the subject is doing, an h-index of 22 is not particularly special. Since notability under  appears to be weak-ish, the fact that this is a  case pushes it firmly into the delete column for me. We can't just say that  does not prohibit autobiographies. If  means anything at substantive all, it is that in the absence of strong and clear-cut evidence of notability, autobiographies should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:AUTO||WP:AUTO||WP:AUTO)

Comment: per , although acknowledging the weak sources for biographical information (note XOR&#39;easter's comment about an offline news article). H-index on the low side (especially for PhD in early 90s) but acceptable. Being an autobiography is not a valid criterion for deletion on its own
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: GS Citations rather marginal for a very highly cited field. Does not yet meet rof
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Autobiographies aren't prohibited, seems to meet , and be otherwise notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: without prejudice against recreation if somebody without a conflict of interest can do a better job of writing something with some actual substance and citing some actual evidence of |reliable (i.e. non-|primary) sourcing to support it. University professors don't automatically get Wikipedia articles just because they have faculty profiles on the university's own website; they still need some form of reliable sourcing independent of their own employer. I'm willing to reconsider this if it sees the necessary improvement before this discussion closes, but absent that I favour the |blow it up and start over approach
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:TNT)