Talk:Ross Flom

Wikipedia new page reviewer notes

I did a first review of this page as a part of Wikipedia new page review process. IMO the article does not establish compliance of the topic with either WP:Notability ot Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and it appears that the topic may not meet those. I did not mark it for deletion, nor as reviewed.

• He passes WP:Prof due to having well cited works, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:PROF

@Atlantic306:. WRT the above, can you clarify which of the criterion you believe apply, and if:

1. [His] research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. [He] has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. [He] has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
4. [His] academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. [He] has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. [He] has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. [He] has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. [He] has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
   Many thanks. ——SN54129 15:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Criteria 1 as per WP:NACADEMICS#Specific criteria notes which explains that the criteria can be determined most clearly by having well cited works which in this case is shown to be the case by google scholar, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Atlantic306: Unfortunately it's not up to our personal views; as criterion #1 explains, it must be demonstrated by independent reliable sources. This is not GScholar, but his peers who have commented, independently, on how his research has impacted the scholarship, through book reviews, etc. Regarding GScholar hits, please see WP:LOTSOFGHITS (a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia) and WP:INVALIDBIO (avoid criteria based on search engine statistics [which] for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches). Cheers, ——SN54129 16:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Its not the google hits its the number of cites for each of his papers, at AFD the citation numbers are a key part of the discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
        • @Atlantic306: Indeed. What is that number, in your view? ——SN54129 20:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Going by AFDs it needs some papers to be at least 100 cites and preferably over 200, the higher the better, but it differs by discipline with some specialtys needing more cites than others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
            • No, I meant, how many GScholar citations does Flom have, in your view? (In my view, can you please indent!) ——SN54129 20:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)