Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles D. Bell

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles D. Bell

Seems to be a classic case of failing WP:PROF. Currently an assistant professor, he got his PhD in 2003, no books, and an h-index of 13-ish. His field is well supported by WoK indexing. No non-academic sources that I could find. Abductive (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It seems likely given his publication record that he will eventually pass WP:PROF. He has papers with good although not yet spectacular citations. The issue for me is less the citation record and more that it's hard to disentangle his work from that of his more notable supervisors — for instance on his most well-cited papers he's in middle position showing that he contributed but is not main author. Time will fix that problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROF 龗 (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Deducing information from the order of authors on a paper is fraught with difficulty as conventions vary so widely (alphabetical order, reverse alphabetical order, seniority, contribution to paper, include the whole research group on any of its papers, being the boss, honorary publication, student-goes-first (even though the student may have done no more than plod through the steps of a recipe written by the supervisor and guided every step of the way, etc. etc. etc.). Reliable sources are needed for claims about author order but I doubt if they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2009 (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.