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 no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 15:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Carl Marci

Carl Marci (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Despite numerous biographies from associated organizations, there is no indication that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. That the article reads like his PR person wrote it doesn't help. Previous AFD was no consensus. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: Google Scholar citation numbers and Google Books hits may suggest meeting WP:NACADEMIC #1, depending on the numbers one uses as a standard. No doubt, this guy has put a lot of effort into self-promotion, but it seems like he's been successful at it, and we're not in a position to judge whether the attention he's received is deserved. The article still has major NPOV problems, but I'm not sure we can delete on that basis. — swpb ^T 15:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Clearly and unambiguously meets WP:PROF. In fields where journal articles are the primary means of communication, the influence of an individual as recognized by their peers is shown by citations. He had citations counts of 265, 182, 162, 145, 135, 123, 68, ... That's 6papers with over 100 citations each. Even in the most citation-heavy biomedical sciences, that's an excellent record. I don't think we've ever held that someone with two or more papers with over 100 citations each did not meet WP:PROF, The nom sees no indication of meeting WP:PROF, but I think that is due to the tone of the article. If we want to delete for promotionalism, that would be another matter, but in this case it is easily fixable and I'm doing that right now. (I do not think we should pay attention to claims of "easily fixed" unless the person making the claims or someone else interested is actually prepared to fix them.;) DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 15 February 2017 (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.