Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew M. Hill
Crusio's WoS results are a case of mistaken identity. GoogleScholar gives substantial results for "M.M.Hill"http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22M.+M.+Hill%22&btnG=Search but on closer inspection they appear to be mostly false positives (the top hits are actually for "Michelle M. Hill"). A Googlescholar search for "Matthew M. Hill" produces rather modest results http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Matthew%20M.%20Hill%22&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws. My impression  is that the pubmed results and the WoS results cited by Crusio actually aggregate all the "M.M.Hill"s together (for example, for pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Hill%20MM%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus a number of articles from 1960s are listed there and they are highly unlikely to be written by the subject of the article). WoS only allows searches for initials and rather than first and middle names and the high citation hits that Crusio found there actually refer to another person. I also did a WoS search for "M M Hill" and the paper with 173 citations listed there is actually this one:http://mcb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/11/7771, where the author is "Michelle M. Hill". Another paper, with 128 citations in WoS is this:http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/abstract/140/5/1211 (also "Michelle M. Hill"). And so on.  In the absence of conclusive evidence of notability under  (in terms of high citability, awards, honors, etc) and since the subject of the article apparently requests deletion, I would certainly go with delete
— User:Nsk92, 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)