202:
establishes those papers as evidence of N--it serves the purpose that book reviews or reviews of films serve in other areas of interest. An appointment as senior scientist at a lab like NIST is essentially equivalent to full professor at a research university. To get there, they pass stringent reviews by peers, including particularly peers from other institutions. This establishes notability much more strictly and reliably than we could here. The profession establishes notability; WP just records the fact.
207:
In general, nobody writes magazine articles on researchers, and they don't get a biography as such until they retire or die. Therefore, since notability in each field is judged by the standard of the field, and notability in this field is established by publications and positions, their publications
201:
Notability for researchers is typically established by their publications. People become notable scientists by writing notable research papers. That the papers are notable is established by their being published in peer-reviewed journals. The review by two or more specialists in such peer review
173:
his name in a list of people involved with some journal. In fact, it is the same exact list in each of the five sources. That most certainly is not enough to satisfy my concerns. The fact that he is
338:
This is one of those articles which is under a person's name but is really about the person's career rather than about the person. It isn't a biography, but it merits existence as an article.
114:
122:
177:
is insufficent-- indeed, your Google
Scholar search has convinced me that there is no real information about him anywhere on the internet. —
300:, I don't see any sourced evidence that meets any of the conditions set forth in that guideline. My main point is that you can't just take
87:
82:
342:
326:
225:
191:
164:
143:
91:
56:
17:
74:
320:
185:
137:
274:
253:
242:
357:
36:
268:
356:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
157:
230:
First of all, I'm not contesting his notability; I'm contesting his verifiability. The following is from
267:
and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is
161:
78:
317:
182:
134:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
297:
293:
231:
209:
219:
published papers is far more than the average researcher which is one per year at the most.
129:. I cannot find a single good biographical source on him. Therefore, the article must go. —
285:
70:
62:
339:
305:
301:
289:
126:
313:
178:
130:
108:
160:
may be helpful, and I think a database of scientific literature would have more.
296:. How would you go about improving and/or referencing his article? Looking at
208:
and positions are always considered sufficient, as is explained more fully in
221:
49:
261:
notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they
350:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
239:
104:
100:
96:
121:
While Mr. Collé may be notable (as established by the
215:
The standard there is more notable than the average.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
360:). No further edits should be made to this page.
312:to examine if an article is inclusion-worthy. —
8:
212:., and consistently maintained at AfD.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
288:passes the guidelines set forth in
246:If an academic/professor meets any
156:source, but these five articles on
24:
284:Let's assume for a second that
1:
250:of the following conditions,
169:All of those sources merely
377:
343:06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
327:06:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
226:05:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
192:02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
165:02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
144:21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
57:20:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
252:as substantiated through
353:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
308:; you have to use them
152:I haven't looked for a
125:), he ultimately fails
234:, some emphasis added:
265:still be notable,
279:
278:
368:
355:
254:reliable sources
240:
112:
94:
54:
34:
376:
375:
371:
370:
369:
367:
366:
365:
364:
358:deletion review
351:
323:
188:
140:
85:
69:
66:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
374:
372:
363:
362:
346:
345:
332:
331:
330:
329:
321:
277:
276:
273:
244:
238:
237:
236:
235:
213:
204:
203:
196:
195:
194:
186:
158:Google scholar
138:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
373:
361:
359:
354:
348:
347:
344:
341:
337:
334:
333:
328:
324:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
281:
280:
271:
270:
264:
260:
256:
255:
249:
245:
241:
233:
229:
228:
227:
224:
223:
218:
214:
211:
206:
205:
200:
197:
193:
189:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
167:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
147:
146:
145:
141:
135:
132:
128:
124:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
352:
349:
335:
309:
286:Ronald Collé
266:
262:
258:
251:
247:
220:
216:
198:
174:
170:
154:biographical
153:
149:
120:
71:Ronald Collé
63:Ronald Collé
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
304:and ignore
257:, they are
269:verifiable
259:definitely
162:YechielMan
175:mentioned
123:first AfD
340:Kla'quot
322:contribs
314:Disavian
187:contribs
179:Disavian
139:contribs
131:Disavian
115:View log
298:WP:PROF
294:WP:PROF
232:WP:PROF
210:WP:PROF
171:mention
88:protect
83:history
52:Anthony
217:Ninety
92:delete
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
336:Keep
310:both
306:WP:V
302:WP:N
292:and
290:WP:N
199:Keep
150:Keep
127:WP:V
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:Keep
263:may
248:one
222:DGG
113:– (
325:)
275:”
272:.
243:“
190:)
142:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:~
319:/
316:(
184:/
181:(
136:/
133:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.