Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Buchanan (computer scientist)

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. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Buchanan (computer scientist)

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

Article does not show notability of subject, and as it stands seems to be purely promotional. Nageh (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a possible WP:COI concern considering an account called "Billatnapier" edited the article. Also, I want to give a heads up that searching for "Bill Buchanan" will result in a string of results for a "24" character. Searching for "Bill Buchanan" + "Napier" -24 results in a few thousand hits, but they all seem like replicates of the other. Click to see for yourself. Feedback ^☎ 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search in GS for "W J Buchanan" gives an h-index of 9 (please correct if wrong). In a highly cited field this is far too low to pass WP:Prof#C1. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I get the same numbers, showing that the case for WP:PROF#C1 isn't there. The article mentions some awards, but without sources, leaving me at a loss for whether they're of any significance; even if they are, the awards are not to the subject, but to something else called "Cloudhealth", and I was not able to find through Google any connection between Cloudhealth and Buchanan. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- a long list of professional publications suggests notability. Nevertheless it is a horrid article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Practically every university science professor has multiple publications in journals. The only reason all these are listed here is because the subject in question added them himself to the article. Utilizing the number of publications as an assertion of notability is like taking in account the number of blog posts for a blogger to be notable. Feedback ^☎ 15:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxan and David above. Ray^Talk 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Xxan mentioned the h-index is definitely too low. The entire article reads almost like a press release or what you would see as an "about" page from a company website. David mentioned not finding any reference or connection on Cloudhealth. After reading carefully it looks like it was an error in the article, it's [Cloud4healthhttp://cloud4health.com/team.html]. On that site it does list him as a team member but still does not provide clear notability to this article. Karverstudio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- My reasons are pretty much stated above. Feedback ^☎ 18:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (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.