459:: Miller seems to be a useful expert on unusual crops for small farmers (see the link to permaculture interview) altho he clearly is in it for the consulting money, and he may possibly be useful to people interested in mysticism, biodynamics, psychedelics, etc. But he is a total kook in his garbled comments on science (such as audible holographic effects from the genetic sequences on chromosomes). He is most definitely NOT a biophysicist, and I am removing that category from the page.
337:: I think H-indices and other bibliometrics shouldn't by themselves should not be indicators of notability or the "worth" of anyone who publishes; ideally, literature should be weighed, not merely counted, as expressed by some ad hoc ratio or other number. In the event that H-indices are at all considered, they should be taken for what they're worth as well as with a grain of salt. Hopefully, this makes some sense; I know this is a poorly written comment. --
548:(the article portrays him as an academic but gives no evidence that he actually is one) but appears to fall far short of that bar too. Finally, more as a comment: I'm a little surprised that this was relisted. Three delete opinions (over that of the nominator) with some discussion but no dissent seems pretty clear to me. —
197:
The subject of the article is not notable as, after considerable effort to find something, there is essentially limited to no coverage of the subject. Of the few sources that do exist, even fewer, if not all, are in some manner unreliable, if not completely non-useful resources (given the lack of
394:: Thanks for explaining the H-index in the context of Knowledge. I mightn't have formulated my thoughts too clearly, haha; but, as one who works with literature and research, now and then, even high H-indices aren't necessarily good evidence of notability. --
370:
of non-notability. So if I translate
Xxanthippe's comment correctly (and note that it wasn't a !vote), it says that the citation record for Miller does not provide evidence that he satisfies PROF#1. Nothing more. After all, he might simply meet
166:
260:
198:
impartiality and (excessive) bias). The existence of this may be for a promotional (or some such) purpose(s), and the page history may suggest potential editorial bias as well.
160:
375:. Of course, up till now, we have no evidence of notability (and logically speaking, we cannot have evidence of non-notability...). Hope this doesn't obfuscate even more. --
121:
411:: I like the basic idea behind the H-index, but my feeling is that it overweights numbers of papers relative to citation numbers. Someone with even one paper : -->
282:
238:
216:
I found some books on Amazon, but nothing via Google scholar. Nothing in EBSCO either. Not notable enough due to lack of independent secondary sources to pass
430:
of non-notability. In you hypothetical example, someone with an h-indew of 1 can still be notable. But it doesn't work the other way around: a high index
126:
94:
89:
98:
81:
181:
148:
17:
480:: Thanks. I was rather baffled as to why he was categorised as a biophysicist unless the term is used incredibly loosely. --
142:
540:
overview of their contributions, and no good sources are visible here such as (if they existed) would let him pass
557:
520:
489:
468:
443:
421:
403:
384:
345:
328:
296:
274:
252:
229:
207:
63:
576:
40:
138:
553:
57:
85:
536:
researchers such as he appears to be need high-quality mainstream sourcing in order to provide an adequately
485:
439:
399:
380:
342:
225:
203:
188:
77:
69:
572:
516:
435:
376:
36:
324:
549:
174:
53:
481:
395:
338:
221:
199:
154:
292:
270:
248:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
571:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
533:
512:
501:
464:
417:
320:
220:. Also, you are right, lot's of editing done to promote subject, didn't help notability.
545:
537:
316:
308:
541:
372:
217:
288:
266:
244:
115:
426:
Every number has to be taken in its context. As I said above, a low index is not
460:
413:
504:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
354:
We use citation counts and h-indexes the other way around: if they are
312:
565:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
358:, then that constitutes good evidence of notability. I they are
261:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
544:. I'm not convinced that he should even be evaluated by
111:
107:
103:
173:
511:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
579:). No further edits should be made to this page.
315:of 4 but, of course, this is nowhere enough for
412:1000 citations is probably guaranteed notable.
187:
8:
283:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
281:Note: This debate has been included in the
259:Note: This debate has been included in the
239:list of Science-related deletion discussions
237:Note: This debate has been included in the
280:
258:
236:
7:
24:
366:of evidence for notability, not
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
558:06:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
64:02:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
596:
521:20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
490:19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
469:19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
444:19:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
422:19:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
404:19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
385:14:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
346:13:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
329:01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
297:00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
275:00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
253:00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
230:00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
307:. I could finds cites on
208:19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
568:Please do not modify it.
362:, however, that is only
32:Please do not modify it.
434:proof of notability. --
78:Richard Alan Miller
70:Richard Alan Miller
48:The result was
523:
299:
286:
277:
264:
255:
242:
587:
570:
510:
506:
287:
265:
243:
192:
191:
177:
129:
119:
101:
60:
34:
595:
594:
590:
589:
588:
586:
585:
584:
583:
577:deletion review
566:
499:
134:
125:
92:
76:
73:
62:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
593:
591:
582:
581:
561:
560:
550:David Eppstein
526:
525:
524:
508:
507:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
472:
471:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
388:
387:
349:
348:
332:
309:Google scholar
301:
300:
278:
256:
233:
232:
195:
194:
131:
72:
67:
56:
54:The Bushranger
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
592:
580:
578:
574:
569:
563:
562:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
527:
522:
518:
514:
509:
505:
503:
498:
497:
491:
487:
483:
482:Qwerty Binary
479:
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
455:
454:
445:
441:
437:
436:Guillaume2303
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
410:
407:
406:
405:
401:
397:
396:Qwerty Binary
393:
390:
389:
386:
382:
378:
377:Guillaume2303
374:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
350:
347:
344:
340:
339:Qwerty Binary
336:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
302:
298:
294:
290:
284:
279:
276:
272:
268:
262:
257:
254:
250:
246:
240:
235:
234:
231:
227:
223:
222:Jimsteele9999
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
200:Qwerty Binary
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
59:One ping only
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
567:
564:
529:
500:
477:
456:
431:
427:
408:
391:
367:
363:
359:
355:
334:
304:
213:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
49:
47:
31:
28:
513:Mark Arsten
311:to give an
161:free images
321:Xxanthippe
317:WP:Prof#C1
573:talk page
289:• Gene93k
267:• Gene93k
245:• Gene93k
37:talk page
575:or in a
502:Relisted
122:View log
39:or in a
546:WP:PROF
538:neutral
478:Comment
409:Comment
392:Comment
364:absence
335:Comment
313:h-index
167:WP refs
155:scholar
95:protect
90:history
542:WP:GNG
534:Fringe
530:Delete
461:Dcrjsr
457:Delete
414:Dcrjsr
373:WP:GNG
305:Delete
218:WP:GNG
214:Delete
139:Google
99:delete
50:delete
428:proof
368:proof
343:talk)
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
554:talk
517:talk
486:talk
465:talk
440:talk
418:talk
400:talk
381:talk
356:high
325:talk
293:talk
271:talk
249:talk
226:talk
204:talk
175:FENS
149:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
360:low
189:TWL
124:•
120:– (
556:)
532:.
519:)
488:)
467:)
442:)
432:is
420:)
402:)
383:)
327:)
319:.
295:)
285:.
273:)
263:.
251:)
241:.
228:)
206:)
169:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
52:.
552:(
515:(
484:(
463:(
438:(
416:(
398:(
379:(
341:(
331:.
323:(
291:(
269:(
247:(
224:(
202:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.