Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Hammond (physicist)

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hammond (physicist)

[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 satisfy either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Not a full professor. According to Web of Science, the h-index is 12 which is not enough for NPROF. The book has not received much notice either. No sources to build an article on, I could not even find him on the university website. The link at [1] is dead. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Science, and North Carolina. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The INSPIRE-HEP record gives an h-index of only 10, comparable to Web of Science and too low to stand out from the field. I could not find book reviews other than the one already included, apart from a couple webpages with no editorial practices that I could discern that can't be called WP:RS. So, neither WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR is satisfied. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is also some press about research on invisibility cloaks from 2008, but not enough to convince me of notability that way. Searching is made very difficult by that other more famous Richard Hammond, though, so maybe I missed something. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find nothing to suggest that he is notable, either as physicist or as an author. Athel cb (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting work but WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for inclusion. Failed WP:NACADEMIC. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:48, 11 December 2023 (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.