Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tibbetts

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 00:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tibbetts

[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)

I'm not seeing anything here that amounts to an NPROF pass. Once you filter out a few unrelated people – an ophthalmologist and an astrophysicist – the citation results for this individual (Michael F. Tibbetts) aren't too impressive, particularly since he's not the lead author on most of these articles and since biochemistry is a fairly high-citation field. Tibbetts doesn't appear to pass the GNG or any other NPROF criteria (no named chair; no noteworthy awards; etc.), so he does not seem to be notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a poorly-written CV. And Wikipedia is not a resume. KidAd • SPEAK 20:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only complaint were that this reads like a cv, I would point to WP:DINC. But his citation record on Google Scholar is too weak for WP:PROF#C1 (following nominator's advice to use the middle initial to disambiguate from the somewhat better cited Michael D. Tibbetts) and I see nothing beyond that to point to any other form of academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of both scientific citations and significant independent coverage make me believe he fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no mention of this scholar or his supposed research in my AP Bio textbook. I'm literally wrapping up today the unit in genetics, evolution, and development, and I've never heard of this person or the PTM1 gene. I found a single image on Research Gate. He is an associate professor. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any evidence of a WP:NPROF pass from what I can find. My search for sources similarly turns off a fail for WP:NBASIC, so I don't think that this individual is notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 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.