Deletion of Allan Boardman

Comment: What are the criteria here, and why? From near- 101.117.57.51, we get that anything with the same initials should be counted, regardless of whether it is the same person, no question asked please. From
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: impressive though the fellowships look, if one digs, it turns out the ones mentioned in the article are as part of U.K. associations, not the international type that would more likely meet #C1. The SPIE recognition is as plain "Fellow member", which is the lowest rank and covers a good thousand people (http://spie.org/x38.xml see here). Likewise there is no reliable claim to major editorship; the subject no longer features on the board linked in the article http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josab/journal/josab/about.cfm#board and here, and the wording of the link implies that what this was for plain membership on the editorial board, not editorship-in-chief. The citation record is too weak to otherwise pass , and the actual "faculty page" http://www.salford.ac.uk/computing-science-engineering/cse-academics/allan-boardman here is all but empty, signifying an insignificant career in the absence of evidence of a stronger track record during previous employment. Finally, there is no coverage to assert . This is typical of BLPs that look impressive based on big words and fancy-sounding honors, and deflate into non-Wikiworthiness once probed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: I did a (rather conservative) search for "Boardman AD"  on the Web of Science and checked the most cited articles for whether they were by this Boardman or perhaps another one. Note that WoS always gives much lower citation rates than GS, because it is much more selective in its sources (GS strives to have everything, WoS only covers the most influential journals). I got a total of 212 publications (I didn't check them all, as that would be a lot of work, but I didn't see any that were not by him in checking the highest-cited ones, so even if there are a few, it won't influence the results very much), that have been cited 3800 times (highest ones: 748, 286, 144, 139, and 96), with an h-index of 28. The arguments above that better-cited persons don't have an article is a kind of inverted  argument. Whether the nom likes it or not, this kind of citation figures is way beyond what we usually take as indicating that a subject has significantly influenced her/his field (PROF#1). Perhaps these contributions pale in comparison to some other muminaries in this field, but everybody pales when compared to, say, Newton, Darwin, or Einstein. WP's coverage is larger than those shining stars. As 101 says above, if there are people with better citation records than Boardman that don't have an article, the solution is to create articles for those people and not waste time here trying to get this scientist bio deleted. (PS: as an aside, I should say that personally I find a WoS cutoff of h=30 -GS h=34 or so- much more discriminating between "run-of-the-mill" and "above average", but the reality is that consensus in AfD debates has accepted a GS index of 20 as sufficient for high citation-density fields like this one, and indexes of around 10 or sometimes even lower for humanities or mathematics, for example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: Searching for "AD Boardman" on Google Scholar finds a h-index of 32, which also passes #C1 (quite easily). -- Special:Contributions/101.117.57.51|101.117.57.51
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Clear pass of #C1 (e.g. seven publications listed by Google scholar with over 100 cites, with the top one having 776 cites, in a search for "author:ad-boardman"). The society fellowships are also suggestive of the same conclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I am not familiar with the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications or the Institute of Physics, but he is apparently a fellow in both of those societies, and a fellow of the SPIE. If any of these are prestigious, then he'd be notable per criterion 3 of . There are also suggestions that he was the director of some institutes and the "UK Voice" of some kind of international collaboration? I don't have enough knowledge of this area to judge how significant these are, but my intuition would be that he's probably going to be a borderline keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Maybe. Then again, even if one follows the h-index fallacy, searching for his actual name in various combinations finds a GS h-index of no more than 16, which does not pass #C1 for this (very) highly cited field
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Being a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and the Institute of Physics passes #C3. A clear failure of  by the nom. -- Special:Contributions/101.117.56.81|101.117.56.81
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BEFORE)