Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran McNulty

Kieran McNulty

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[1] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [2][3]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 149 publications in google scholar seems to be a significant number, and his citation count is high for a low citation field. I think this would probably meet criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be around the average professor in this area. Here are the Scopus stats for McNulty and his 80 coauthors with ≥15 papers:

Total citations: average: 3110, median: 1975, McNulty: 1121.

Total papers: 70, 53, 46.

h-index: 26, 23, 19.

Top 5 papers: 1st: 399, 245, 142. 2nd: 258, 197, 85. 3rd: 186, 144, 68. 4th: 150, 121, 62. 5th: 128, 100, 58.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got a little press for his analysis (not discovery) of Homo floresiensis but he's not even cited in that article (unlike his coauthor on the analysis Karen Baab). I don't think this is enough for WP:PROF#C1 and if we're going to try to claim WP:GNG-based notability based on this then I think it falls short of passing WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]