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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Edward Campbell[edit]

James Edward Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria or WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage in independent sources. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Citations on Google scholar for author:James-E-Campbell (omitting unrelated hits from the more notable political scientist with the same name) are 560 (An approach to sensitivity analysis I), 202 (An approach to sensitivity analysis II), 34+30+15+14 (Risk methodology for geologic disposal, four hits), 11 (Distributed velocity method of solving the convective-dispersion equation), etc. The first two numbers are good but the very rapid tail-off makes it hard to justify a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I'm having difficulty finding anything in-depth about him even from his employer, even to justify the claim of being a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff. As for the claim to having developed Latin hypercube sampling, our article on that topic lists two other publications as having first proposed the technique, with Campbell being one of three authors who "further elaborated" it. I don't think that's enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2019 (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.