Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Adams (physicist)

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. Michig (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Adams (physicist)

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

Fails WP:PROF. His notability is not supported by any refs and the two refs in the article are unreliable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is a middling co-author (or alphabetically first author in an alphabetized list) on some well-cited papers with huge numbers of co-authors ("The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC", "CMS physics technical design report, volume II: Physics performance", "Nuclear dependence of dimuon production at 800 GeV", "Proton and deuteron structure functions in muon scattering at 470 GeV", "Combined results of searches for the standard model Higgs boson", "Nuclear dependence of the production of Υ resonances at 800 GeV", "Dimuon production in proton-copper collisions at √s=38.8 GeV", all with over 200 citations, and many more with over 100). If he were the primary author on a few of these papers then I think he would pass WP:PROF#C1, but he seems not to be, so I don't see any way to judge the significance of his work by this sort of measure. And I can't find evidence of passing any of the other criteria, such as being elected a fellow of a major society. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. No evidence of passing PROF#C1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While experimental particle physicists often get a raw deal on credit because of large alphabetical author lists, I agree with David Eppstein that there is little evidence for notability in the publication record. I think the The Journal of the Illinois Science Teachers Association publication is a valid first authorship, but perhaps the only one. I could not find any interviews with him or news stories about him. Mark viking (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He publishes under the name M R Adams. GS cites start at 1307, 629, 377, 355, 331, 326..... These are very large numbers but the number of co-authors is very large too. No evidence that he stands out from the crowd. This is a case where citation numbers have to be interpreted in context. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2012 (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.