Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher E. Mason
per the first criterion of , with sympathy to the nom's point of view. I admit the first criterion of NPROF is problematic. Our threshold is "author of ''highly cited'' academic work", but citation indices only give us numbers of citations. "Highly cited" differs from field to field, and so we rely upon past AfDs (circular reasoning, as nom points out above), calls to authority (I work in or am familiar with insert field so I know what highly cited looks like), and arbitrary rules of thumb to decide where the line is. I'll apply my circular logic and arbitrary rule of thumb here to say: we usually seem to keep pages for profs in biomedicine that have been the senior author on several papers with over 100 citations. According to SCOPUS, the most cited work with the subject as senior author are https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23034086/ (456 citations), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23113984/ (172 citations, but it's a review so my opinion is it doesn't really count), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27322744/ (129 citations), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26594662/ (125 citations), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24898039/ (125 citations; another review), and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25150835/ (112 citations). So I would call that a narrow pass through NPROF. If we want to discuss tweaking NPROF to hammer down some more usable boundaries, I'm all for that (to the nom's point above, I've never seen a reliable source say "several papers with 100 citations is quite highly cited in biomedicine" and I'm not sure how we've assumed this habit). Based on the way that draft looked, this could very well be a case of Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free|WP:BOGO. But besides cleaning up the page to make it less awful, I'm not sure what we should really do about that
— User:Ajpolino, 22:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NPROF (Wikipedia:Notability)