486:
part one, N: Notability for researchers is typically established by their publications. People become notable scientists by writing notable research papers. He has ninety published papers, far more than the average researcher which is one per year at the most. The few linked above are just ones from
388:
In this case, two sets of
Wikipedians have looked at the subject and concluded this subject is valuable and the articles content was not disputed. It now has two different RS, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that many more are available, and they will find their way onto the article in the
442:
First, if it's such an easy task then why has it not been done? The previous two AfDs were concluded in March 2006 and April 2007. It's been tagged since
December. For whatever reason, many are fans of this article but have zero interest in making it acceptable. It doesn't meet the criteria to pass
404:
31 hits to published articles he's written. Journals relative to his field. Past that, he's passed two previous AfDs but each specified that there needed to be additional references. Nothing has been done to that article in months. The references are the same now as they were before the first AfD.
588:
Concerning my inaccurate comments of the previous AfDs noting the need for sources, I looked back over them and recalled that I was totally blown away that it wasn't mentioned in either one, which made me question if the keep voters had even bothered to read it before giving their opinions.
560:
not many are interested in fixing it. It has been tagged for MONTHS. I left a message on the talk page a few days ago warning that if improvements weren't made I would renominate AfD. And it's not like it was an impossible request. I've helped bring articles up to GA standards in less
764:: Is this how AfD works? If someone doesn't get an outcome they like, the article can be nominated again two weeks later? It seems to me that the most important reason to keep is to ensure that the debate just two weeks ago gets at least some sort of respect. --
443:
AfD yet there is a rally to keep it. I don't get it. Second, even if I had any interest in working on this article, I've looked... there's nothing to reference. All these statements in the article can't be backed up. Hence the fact that it fails WP:V, WP:OR,
662:. Since the distinction between Type A and Type B uncertainty is clearly notable, so are its authors. However, it bothers me that I could not find any source beside Knowledge (XXG) mirrors substantiating the assertion that Collè is in fact its co-author.
543:
I didn't see this article until a week ago. I failed an article nominated for GA based largely on lack of reliable sources. The main editor to that article mentioned that the this article exists with practically none, so I read it. It fails
511:
part two: RS. The publication of the papers which is the basis of N already has extremely RS--the indexing entries for the journal articles. This is really sufficient for everything but the bio details, and the 3 key points have RS
376:
Actually, a lack of sources is a much worse problem than perceived lack of notability. Not to mention there's a simple question to answer: Why bother creating an article if we're just mirroring or rewording a single source?
693:
They published a couple of papers as joint authors, one of them with Ku, where they may have set forth the distinction. However, I did not find any source confirming that the Type A-Type B distinction originates there.
356:
574:
If so many people want to keep this article, it shouldn't take long to collaborate to fix it. As it is now, it's a pimple on the face of
Knowledge (XXG), so to speak. It doesn't look good for an encyclopedic
249:
323:
321:
319:
317:
315:
313:
311:
309:
355:
has many results so notability isnt a problem, however RS is. However, the facts in the article are not outrageous, and can be sourced as I have done with one source. Also, the
532:
AfDs inevitably give the appearance of relying on repeating until by chance the deletes outnumber the keeps. Given normal variability, that is bound to happen sooner or later.
364:
712:
684:
hints towards them being closely involved in the development of this subject. If we cant confirm this, the statement needs to be tagged and removed from both articles.
133:
525:
In AfD2, only one ed. wanted further refs., and it wasn't mentioned in AGK's closing. in AfD1. nobody even said anything about it in the discussion or the closing.
528:
With respect to repeated noms, If one were really waiting for refs, I think that perhaps one would wait longer than a week after the immediately prev AfD.
522:
The doctorate is verified by DissAbs--(citation to be added.) I see a fact tag for the BS degree, which is pushing things a little for someone with a PhD
519:
The bylines of the papers cited by David E, together with the masthead from the J of
Research NBS added by John V., give verification of his position
307:
106:
101:
768:
756:
722:
698:
688:
666:
652:
630:
612:
538:
470:
437:
428:
397:
381:
371:
342:
329:
293:
270:
258:
237:
214:
187:
166:
110:
74:
56:
496:(hits mentioned by LL above just from GS. Look at his dates: most of his work will be pre 1999, & thats why he has no web page.
487:
the biomedical index Pubmed, and he was a radiochemist. using
Science Citation Index, The papers were published in such journals as
17:
433:
Sure, it needed additional references. Luckily that is an easy problem to fix (as the people in the last two afd's concluded).
93:
749:
646:
605:
463:
421:
306:. Too little sourcing to make a real article. Via Google scholar I was able to find some information about his publications (
287:
231:
159:
781:
36:
279:
That one link was the only thing I could find from Google about him. Sad, isn't it? At least we know he exists now. —
780:
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
386:
Because an article with one source is always only one edit away from being an article with two sources.
97:
63:
677:
339:
326:
695:
663:
746:
643:
602:
460:
418:
284:
228:
156:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
180:
681:
545:
390:
352:
176:
765:
266:
I see no claim of notability, the "NIST profile" link is simply his NIST phonebook entry.
206:
549:
140:
89:
81:
267:
255:
553:
734:
639:
590:
448:
406:
280:
224:
144:
71:
53:
627:
127:
719:
685:
434:
394:
378:
368:
184:
196:
502:
Journal of
Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
534:
325:) but no indication that any of these pubs are of any significance. —
338:
now that this third AfD has led to proper sourcing and expansion. —
774:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
556:. It's passed 2 previous AfDs with multiple votes for keep but
143:
that cannot be referenced. Tagged for months with no progress.
66:
the concern was expressed that the outcome would be rather
733:: Although debatable, notability is not the issue here. --
223:
fails WP:V and therefore all of our other guidelines. —
123:
119:
115:
49:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
250:list of Academics and educators-related deletions
784:). No further edits should be made to this page.
175:No indepedant non trivial sources so can't pass
638:Notability is not the issue in question here. —
70:. Without arguing, the article still stays. `'
504:probably the most important metrology journal
8:
222:per above. No references for months --: -->
680:(I've left a note on that talk page), and
711:: This debate has been included in the
248:: This debate has been included in the
389:years to come. Knowledge (XXG) is a
359:Afd was only just recently closed as
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
713:list of Science-related deletions
489:(in process--server down tonight)
682:Google Scholar: Eisenhart Collé
367:before that was also a keep.
1:
676:: A similar claim is made on
500:He was Associate editor of
801:
777:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
769:15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
757:13:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
723:11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
699:11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
689:11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
667:10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
653:16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
631:18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
613:05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
539:05:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
471:14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
438:05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
429:04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
398:05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
382:04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
372:04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
343:18:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
330:23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
294:08:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
271:22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
259:13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
238:06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
215:05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
188:05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
167:05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
75:22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
57:19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
52:to address problems. `'
50:significantly rewritten
678:Churchill Eisenhart
626:clearly notable. --
725:
716:
253:
64:Talk:Ronald Collé
792:
779:
762:Keep and Comment
754:
744:
739:
717:
707:
610:
600:
595:
530:Closely repeated
468:
458:
453:
426:
416:
411:
391:work in progress
244:
211:
209:blah, blah, blah
203:
164:
154:
149:
131:
113:
34:
800:
799:
795:
794:
793:
791:
790:
789:
788:
782:deletion review
775:
753:
750:
740:
735:
720:John Vandenberg
686:John Vandenberg
649:
609:
606:
596:
591:
467:
464:
454:
449:
435:John Vandenberg
425:
422:
412:
407:
395:John Vandenberg
369:John Vandenberg
290:
234:
213:
207:
197:
163:
160:
150:
145:
104:
88:
85:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
798:
796:
787:
786:
771:
759:
751:
727:
726:
704:
703:
702:
701:
670:
669:
657:
656:
655:
647:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
607:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
523:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
506:
505:
494:
493:
492:
491:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
465:
423:
402:
401:
400:
387:
347:
346:
345:
340:David Eppstein
327:David Eppstein
299:
298:
297:
296:
288:
274:
273:
261:
241:
240:
232:
217:
205:
190:
161:
138:
137:
84:
79:
78:
77:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
797:
785:
783:
778:
772:
770:
767:
766:Myke Cuthbert
763:
760:
758:
755:
747:
745:
743:
738:
732:
729:
728:
724:
721:
714:
710:
706:
705:
700:
697:
692:
691:
690:
687:
683:
679:
675:
672:
671:
668:
665:
661:
658:
654:
650:
644:
641:
637:
634:
633:
632:
629:
625:
622:
621:
614:
611:
603:
601:
599:
594:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
559:
555:
551:
547:
542:
541:
540:
537:
536:
531:
527:
526:
524:
521:
518:
517:
510:
509:
508:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
490:
485:
484:
483:
480:
472:
469:
461:
459:
457:
452:
446:
441:
440:
439:
436:
432:
431:
430:
427:
419:
417:
415:
410:
403:
399:
396:
392:
385:
384:
383:
380:
375:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
348:
344:
341:
337:
334:
333:
332:
331:
328:
324:
322:
320:
318:
316:
314:
312:
310:
308:
305:
301:
300:
295:
291:
285:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
272:
269:
265:
262:
260:
257:
251:
247:
243:
242:
239:
235:
229:
226:
221:
218:
216:
212:
210:
204:
202:
201:
195:per Dacium ~
194:
191:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
170:
169:
168:
165:
157:
155:
153:
148:
142:
135:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
65:
61:
60:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
776:
773:
761:
741:
736:
730:
708:
673:
659:
635:
623:
597:
592:
557:
533:
529:
501:
495:
488:
481:
455:
450:
444:
413:
408:
360:
349:
335:
303:
302:
263:
245:
219:
208:
199:
198:
192:
172:
151:
146:
139:
90:Ronald Collé
82:Ronald Collé
68:no consensus
67:
45:
43:
31:
28:
482:Strong keep
304:Weak delete
558:apparently
447:WP:BIO. --
268:Pete.Hurd
256:Pete.Hurd
752:Contribs
648:contribs
640:Disavian
608:Contribs
575:article.
466:Contribs
424:Contribs
357:previous
289:contribs
281:Disavian
233:contribs
225:Disavian
162:Contribs
134:View log
62:P.S. in
731:Comment
696:Stammer
674:Comment
664:Stammer
660:Comment
636:Comment
628:Buridan
363:. The
181:WP:PROF
107:protect
102:history
552:, and
546:WP:BIO
379:Wafulz
264:Delete
220:Delete
200:G1ggy!
193:Delete
185:Dacium
177:WP:BIO
173:Delete
111:delete
561:time.
550:WP:OR
512:also:
128:views
120:watch
116:links
72:mikka
54:mikka
16:<
742:Love
737:Lara
709:Note
624:Keep
598:Love
593:Lara
554:WP:V
456:Love
451:Lara
414:Love
409:Lara
361:keep
350:Keep
336:Keep
246:Note
152:Love
147:Lara
124:logs
98:talk
94:edit
46:keep
718:--
715:.
535:DGG
445:and
365:Afd
254:--
252:.
179:or
132:– (
48::
651:)
589:--
548:,
405:--
393:.
377:--
353:GS
292:)
236:)
183:--
141:OR
126:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
748:/
645:/
642:(
604:/
462:/
420:/
286:/
283:(
230:/
227:(
158:/
136:)
130:)
92:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.