Gerardo J. Meléndez-Torres: The sources cited are either primary or press-releases.  The two scholarships mentioned in the text are similar to other postgrad scholarship like Fulbright scholarship or Chevening Scholarships , and they are not notable FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : [36] 8,000 citations, h-index of 40.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] just to avoid assuming this number of citations is significant in his field or me trying to indicate that this is normal in that field by asking you to click on the labels on his google scholar account (e.g., [37] with 375k citations), just to avoid this; per WP:NPROF : The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources .  .  As with any other BLP, significant coverage from independent and reliable sources is key FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 21:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FuzzyMagma : please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#General_notes and its relationship to WP policy before commenting on discussions about academics.  Here, Google Scholar is the reliable and independent source that would indicate whether the subject passes WP:NPROF#1 or not.  Also a quick analysis on GS shows that he is one of the top 50 most-cited scholars in his field which would clearly argue in favor of NPROF#1.  -- hroest 20:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would appreciate a link for the GS on being top 50 in “his field “ that you mentioned. And I am familiar with the policy you cited. Nothing their support your claim about citations or notability FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 20:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you go to your link and scroll through the next couple of pages you find the subject on page 4 , within the top 50 people in his field. Granted, the field is relatively narrow but I wanted to add that fact as context to your point about the 375k citations, since they fall of pretty rapidly and reach 8k and the level of this subject at around rank 50. To your second point The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources . this can be satisfied by a research profile in GS if sufficient citations are found. And decidedly no , this is not like  any other BLP  and significant coverage from independent and reliable sources is not key. Key is whether he passes NPROF. Again, please read WP:NPROF in detail. -- hroest 14:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think anyone who has played with changing these keywords knows that their rankings are easy to game, either deliberately or by happenstance, by (1) choosing a narrow subfield, (2) using a less-common variant of the name of the subfield, or (3) working in two fields with different levels of citation, having many citations in the higher-citation field, and listing the lower-citation field as another of your keywords.  I don't think they mean much.  That said, appearing on page 4 rather than page 1 is evidence that they were not trying to game the system.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine , England ,  and Pennsylvania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  A very large number of co-authors in a well cited and popular field.  Not one single-author publication.  Despite the large number of cites I am not sure that an outstanding reputation is established yet.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 05:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Comment , leaning Keep .  Agree it's a high citation field, and that all the publications are co-authored, but the GS profile still looks pretty healthy to me -- top citations 1012,643,299,296,294, plus four more >200 and ten more >100.  Holds a personal chair.  Also various fellowships listed here [38] might merit assessment.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 11:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I did a spot check for all of the refs, only 1 checks out and another that is primary.  The fellowships listed in his own website: Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing: there is approximately 2,900 fellow and the fellowship is awarded per application and paid fees.  Not sure if I would call it highly selective fellowships ( WP:NPROF ) Fellow of the Faculty of Public Health: this is the UK equivalent from the previous fellowship.  Same fees and application cycle and for what is worth I could not verify any of the fellowships so I stopped.  Not to reiterate my previous point by I could not find any coverage about this person beyond what he wrote himself which I could not verify FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 18:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : Overall very healthy citation record with 19 papers with 100+ citations, especially for such a junior researcher.  I dont see an argument for NPROF per fellowship / awards as these are all early career or not very selective but I see an argument per WP:NPROF #1 based on the publication record.   I agree with the overall assessment that many of these are collaborative but it is not up to Wikipedia to decide what merits being listed as a co-author and what his exact contribution was to each paper.  -- hroest 20:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I dont see an argument for NPROF per fellowship / awards as these are all early career .  Since we are talking about early career awards and fellowships in the UK, there are the Royal Society University Research Fellowship and Future Leaders Fellowships.  These are actually prestigious and competitive fellowships.  The NHS also awards different prestigious prizes.  And if he is earlier carer and not yet well established then this is WP:TOOSOON I’m truly baffled by the current discussion where editors are basing their opinion on citations which are very low for this discipline (norm is in 100k), and fellows/awards that are only found in primary sources contradicting WP:BLPPRIMARY and self published sources FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you clarify where you got your statement norm is in 100k from (with regards for your expectation of the number of citation).  While its a highly cited field I dont see any indication that this is the "norm".  My point with regards to the awards is early career awards generally dont count towards NPROF  even if they are highly selective.  We are looking for awards that would be highly selective for fully established researchers.  Finally, which editor based their vote in fellows/awards that are only found in primary sources - I cannot find a single one in the list of votes here?  -- hroest 14:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There are so many coauthors on his papers that I do not see evidence that the subject has made a significant contribution to the field by himself and he has not yet demonstrated independent achievement.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Strong Keep : And improve.  His Department CV is far more impactful than this page, with two society fellow awards.  I do not understand some of the comments about h-factors etc: His h-factor at 40 is very high and shows a major upwards trend, and a number of 38 since 2018 is notable.  The number of co-authors is not relevant except for the 100 author groups.  These comments are not appropriate IMHO.  He was elected FAAN in 2020, one of 4 in the UK.  This is notable, it is an American organization and getting elected internationally is way harder than within a country.  He is a chaired Professor Ldm1954 ( talk ) 19:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the above editors' analyses of his publishing history.  Not quite notable - TOOSOON.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - not sure what the argument is here.  He's a full professor at the University of Exeter - which is in the Russell Group of the top research institutions in the UK.  That alone appears to satisfy point 5 of NPROF.  Add in the research impact, awards and membership of selective academic orgs, I think there is no doubt that NPROF is met.  If he is not considered notable, the problem is with NPROF and not with whether he meets the criteria.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just being a professor, not even at Harvard, has never satisfied WP:Prof#C5 by itself.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Again, then, the problem is with NPROF which states clearly "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" JMWt ( talk ) 09:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just being a professor is not one of the following conditions.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Criteria 5 says "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."  This describes exactly the position of Full Professor at the University of Exeter.  He's a named chair appointed Professor.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A minor clarification -- Professor in the US and UK are different.  In the US the ranks are Assistant, Associate, Professor, Chaired Professor.  In the UK a Professor is equivalent to a US Chaired Professor.  In his CV it states "personal Chair", which means that it has no specific name, but is a distinguished chair so does meet Criteria 5.  (In the US Chairs always have names.)  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 15:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sure you know, but in case anyone else is in any doubt, here is the link to the academic pathway for the University of Exeter [39] .  Professor is the highest rank and is only given to those who meet the criteria of leadership and research quality.  Which will be high for a UK Russell Group institution.  JMWt ( talk ) 17:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  The cases for WP:PROF #C1 and #C5 have been much debated above, and are suggestive but to me not definitive.  The society fellowships discussed above also do not appear to be enough for #C3.  I think the UK Young Academy [40] (junior branch of Royal Society) is borderline for #C3 but much stronger than those two fellowships.  It, together with the citation evidence (but not the dubious claims that full professorships at top UK universities are somehow better than full professorships at top US universities) pushes me to the keep side of the fence.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus