Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert N Moles

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 keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N Moles

[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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. References do not constitute in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Scholarly publications written by the subject do not appear to be highly cited, nothing above 50 on Google scholar. Rosguill^talk 07:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Law is a very low citation field. The average law professor has an h-index of 2, so Moles actually has a level of citation that is at least four times average for his field, with a h-index of at least 8: [1]. (It is difficult to determine the exact index because many of his papers are listed several times). James500 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that this is enough to satisfy the guideline at WP:ACADEMIC: either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.? Having a citation rate four times above the average is likely extremely high, but given your uncertainty of the actual index score I want to confirm. Rosguill^talk 17:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. James500 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Searching Google News for "Bob Moles" doesn't find a lot of secondary sources about Moles, but it does find a lot in which he is quoted as an expert, plausibly enough for WP:PROF#C7. I also added four published reviews of two of his (five) books to the article, enough for a weak case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. "Definition and Rule in Legal Theory" [2], for example, has reviews in the New Law Journal [3], British Book News [4], Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly [5], Choice [6] [7], Journal of Applied Psychology [8], Cambridge Law Journal [9], Current Publications in Legal and Related Fields [10], and Modern Law Review [11], in particular, amongst other commentary. I could go on, but I think I will stop there. There are more than eight hundred library holdings of his books: [12]. And I think the level of citations does actually satisfy PROF for his field. (When I said I was having difficulty determining his h-index, I meant that I thought it might possibly be higher than 8, but not lower). James500 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR with sources already present in the article and offered at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and at least two of his books are held by dozens of libraries. Aoziwe (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable legal scholar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2018 (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.