Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William L. Anderson

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. Courcelles 23:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Anderson

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

Totally lacks notability per WP:PROF, and the general WP criteria for notability. He has virtually no mainstream academic publications, and he's rarely cited by independent, mainstream sources of any sort; his mentions are largely confined to fringe, ideological sites (LewRockwell.com, Mises.org) with which he is affiliated. Steeletrap (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources no citations, and seems to dwell almost exclusively within the Mises Institute circle and publications. We need to see multiple contributions, interactions, or recognition outside of his colleagues and affiliates. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to his Google scholar profile he wrote an article in 1986 that has 168 citations, his total number of citations is 307 and he has an h-index of 7. I don't think this qualifies him as a highly cited/influential scholar per WP:PROF #1. Nor does he seem to qualify per the other Prof criterias (named chair, editor of important journal, received prestigious award etc) or to have received wide coverage that would make him notable per WP:GNG. Iselilja (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Iselilja: can you explain the h-index please? Something like a link or an explanation of what are good v. bad numbers? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got the question at my talk page too, so I answered there. Iselilja (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 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.