Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Pickford

Martin Pickford

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

I actually think this article would normally warrant a prod/csd as there are no provided sources which are actually on Martin Pickford, however I decided to err on the side of conservative deletion/more discussion. So, my claim is this BLP is not sufficiently notable and is currently not verifiable. There are three external links, one is an aggregation of Martin's papers and the other two concern his discovery of Orrorin tugenensis, however none of these articles are actually about him. They're all about his discovery of tugenensis (which certainly meets notability and verifiability requirements - which is probably why it has its own article) and though very interesting, in its current state, I don't think it meets Wikipedia's standard for notability/verifiability. --Carbon Rodney 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a GS h-index of 27 in an average cited field passes WP:Prof#C1 by miles. I find it hard to understand the rationale for this nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's an interesting metric, how well does it apply to non-physicists? --Carbon Rodney 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very well known paleontologist. Needs improved referencing but no reason to delete.There seem sources available in the google news, books and scholar links above. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]