Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Boardman
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
— User:Randykitty, 15:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)