Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Luttrell

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. ✗plicit 04:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Luttrell

[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)

No evidence Luttrell meets either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. h-index of 18 is pretty low, and there's nothing else I can find to indicate warranting an article. PianoDan (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not h index that matters, but whether he does notable work that has influence .His has two papers with over 100 citations, which is considered enough everywhere except for biomedicine, . h 18 could mean 25, 24, 23, 22 ,,,,18 which shows no work that influenced the field & is not notable, or 400, 390, 300, 275, 250, ,,,, 20,18 which shows papers than did, and then he is or even 2000, 1950, 1900, 1800,.....19, 18 which is not just notable, but famous. DGG 18:07, 20 January 2022‎
Delete. I am not finding much to indicate he made an outsize impact on his field. <500 citations on Scopus in 30+ years is not in line with the citations expected from NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On the one hand, Luttrell's paper 'A Bayesian analysis of self-organizing maps' was credited as providing a similar model to the highly cited The Helmholtz Machine (Sem Scholar), which is a very influential work in statistics-informed approaches to machine learning. On the other hand, the bio is poor quality, lacking in genuinely useful information and with a certain amount of puffery. I'll note that I don't attach much importance to h-index in this case: Luttrell did all of his most highly cited work after leaving academia as an independent researcher, writing few papers in this period that generally were well received. An atypical case gives atypical results. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Limited impact on the field in question. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have some more input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Luttrell has done interesting work in an area of pre-deep-learning AI that continues to be interesting now, the content we have on him isn't good, there's no SIGCOV, and there aren't prospects to flesh the article out to something worth having. I plan to add a pointer to his work to our article Helmholtz machine but the case for a stand-alone bio is too weak. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be working more in machine learning than in physics. This is a very high-citation area and Luttrell's citation record doesn't stand out. With no other evidence of notability, it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2022 (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.