Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Brodbeck

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Brodbeck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:PROF.

I see little extensive coverage in independent, reliable sources. The ones I can find include:

DailyDot: No extensive direct coverage
The Western Star: No extensive direct coverage
Google scholar and Google results were proposed a year ago for sourcing, but skimming through them I see a lot of primary sources by the subject. There may be something in there I missed, but the article subject doesn't seem to think so.

User:Dbrodbeck can probably answer any questions. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is about me, I think it was created by an ex student of mine, back a few years ago, 08 I think. Anyway, if any questions arise I am happy to assist. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of only 7 in a highly cited field does not pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Only coverage in local press. No indication that he's more notable than your average academic (which is the basic principle behind WP:PROF). Note that there's another academic with the same name, a musicologist at UC Irvine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He probably deserves an article actually. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell us why? --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't; it's irrelevant to this discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I interpret the above as a "keep" argument and would like to know the reasoning behind it. That this is the subject himself is irrelevant. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There's another academic with the same name" is an observation of no possible pertinence to whether this article should be deleted or not. Dbrodbeck seems to have mentioned it as an irrelevant aside. I am simply trying to keep discussion on topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misread, you're right. Sorry about that, ran out of coffee yesterday... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The UCI one has a named chair (WP:PROF#C5). Not that it has any bearing on the present discussion... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WoS also shows h-index 7, but the citation list is: 194, 136, 66, 37, 28, 18, ... mostly on single-author or small author list papers. Agricola44 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2014 (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.