Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (4th nomination)
His citation profile doesn't look that great for a string theorist, honestly. That's a field which can rack up the counts and the h-indices (Ed Witten is the record-holder, after all). Comparing Motl to, say, Barton Zwiebach, the latter has 41 publications that break into the triple-digit range on Google Scholar. Motl has 8. Clifford V. Johnson has 19. Tom Banks (physicist)|Tom Banks has 46. Matthew Kleban and Marika Taylor both have an h-index of 27, versus Motl's 18. (Hossenfelder, mentioned above, works on generally less-cited approaches to quantum gravity that are not string theory and also has an h-index of 27.) Remember, the point of  is not to judge whether someone is a respectable academic doing competent work, but to judge whether they ''stand out from the average.'' So, while there may well be a #C7|#C7 pass here, I'm hesitant to say that there is a #C1|#C1. It would help if the various controversies Motl has thrown himself into were documented in reliable sources, not just https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/23/shakin-the-nuts/ blogs and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl wikis
— User:XOR, 16:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)