294:
247:
actual first name search but only for initials). When I searched WoS for individual publications, some highly cited papers do come up, such a 2005 paper in Nature "Experimental one-way quantum computing" (218 hits) and a 2005 papers in
Physical Review Letters "Resource-efficient linear optical quantum computation". Basically, I think that, together with Scog's search results below, this does make him pass criterion 1 of
255:
general, I also think that the current state of the article is too unsatisfactory, so as to almost look hoaxy. If someone a little bit familiar with physics can expland it to a more satisfactory stub, it would probably deserve to be kept. Otherwise I am not sure that it isn't doing more harm than good in its current shape.
254:
he says the following about his position at
Imperial College since 2003:"Thanks to an Advanced Fellowship from the EPSRC, I am now a member of the physics faculty at Imperial College, London. (Yep, I now have my own graduate students to try and make miserable...)" Not sure what this means exactly. In
379:
He's not the lead author on most of "his" articles, because he's not the lead researcher on most of "his" articles, because he's a young scientist in a field that demands a lot of depth for notability. The article is not a good source of information on him, because there is not much to say, except
246:
for the moment, per Scog's comments below. Indeed, there was a problem with the spelling of the name (in fact, my WoS search was for "Rudolph T G", including his middle initial, as a seach for "Rudolph T*" produces a bit of a phonebook there, with lots of false positives; WoS does not allow for
223:
I did a search of the WebOfScience and found only five papers, that appear to be by him, dated 1995, 1998, 1998, 1999 and 2008 (the last is the article in Nature mentioned above), with citation hits of 19, 6, 11, 1, 0. No significant citability here and no other evidence of passing
380:
that he probably will be researching in a hot area of physics. When he does that, and writes it up as the lead researcher, there will be plenty of information to use to write a good article about a notable (on other than his own web page) scientist. --
321:: Commenters should also take into account that not all publications have been fully digitized yet, and that relying solely on internet database searches for someone who published before the internet era is likely to miss a lot of hits. -
475:-- Getting an article published in Nature (which is the leading scientific journal dealing with new discoveries, implies that his discovery is notable. I would suggest that indicates that the discoverer is notable.
149:
399:
116:
451:
425:
492:
unless the article presents an evidence of scientific notability or proves that Terry
Rudolph and Terrence Rudolph or whatever are one and the same person.
335:
Actually, as it turns out, this is a fairly young researcher (PhD 1998) and all of his publications are 1998 or later, so very much in the internet era.
381:
83:
78:
87:
70:
201:. He may be one of the older professors who has not written much in a while which would explain the absence of papers in arXiv.
17:
129:
359:
546:
354:
Article needs improvement. My weak keep recommendation is for the reasons presented by Scog, plus the fact that the
592:
36:
591:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
290:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
574:
553:
520:
501:
484:
480:
466:
440:
414:
389:
385:
371:
344:
328:
326:
313:
264:
251:. However, his webpage at Imperial makes it unclear if his position there is permanent. In his "Acdemic bio"
237:
210:
184:
164:
138:
52:
362:. On the other hand, this Nature paper seems to be a commentary on a study that was not performed by him.--
539:
74:
367:
66:
58:
355:
476:
322:
532:
462:
436:
410:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
570:
363:
296:, with a total of ~1000 citations, including a couple of 100+ citation papers, although his
195:
340:
260:
233:
206:
160:
358:
seems to be a groundbreaking new look at a known phenomenon. It seems to have attracted
562:
497:
309:
301:
248:
225:
134:
180:
124:
517:
458:
432:
406:
297:
192:
304:, point #1, and so if pushed I'd probably err on the side of keeping the article.
104:
511:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
566:
49:
336:
275:
256:
229:
202:
199:
191:
Actually, I don't think it is a hoax. There is a 2008 article in Nature by him
156:
252:
493:
305:
175:
300:
is only 15. For me, this puts him on the borderline of notability under
585:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
274:: a bit of Googling turned up his homepage and academic bio
150:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
111:
100:
96:
92:
516:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
194:which identifies him as a physics professor at the
400:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
595:). No further edits should be made to this page.
277:, which suggests that he generally publishes as
561:- one article in Nature is not enough to pass
8:
452:list of England-related deletion discussions
426:list of Science-related deletion discussions
285:missed a lot of publications. Searching for
173:no physicist by this name listed in arXiv.
450:: This debate has been included in the
424:: This debate has been included in the
398:: This debate has been included in the
148:: This debate has been included in the
198:. The college's website confirms this
7:
24:
281:, so the previous searches for
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
356:News and Views paper in Nature
1:
485:15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
467:04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
441:04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
415:04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
390:20:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
372:16:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
345:13:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
329:13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
314:10:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
265:13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
238:04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
211:04:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
185:04:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
165:03:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
139:02:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
575:18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
554:17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
521:17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
502:08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
53:18:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
612:
531:Non-notable, unverified.
588:Please do not modify it.
360:quite a lot of attention
32:Please do not modify it.
123:Non-notable scientist
293:gives 87 abstracts
44:The result was
523:
469:
455:
443:
429:
417:
403:
167:
153:
603:
590:
551:
544:
537:
515:
513:
456:
446:
430:
420:
404:
394:
196:Imperial College
154:
144:
114:
108:
90:
34:
611:
610:
606:
605:
604:
602:
601:
600:
599:
593:deletion review
586:
547:
540:
533:
509:
283:Terence Rudolph
132:
110:
81:
67:Terence Rudolph
65:
62:
59:Terence Rudolph
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
609:
607:
598:
597:
580:
578:
577:
556:
525:
524:
514:
506:
505:
504:
487:
470:
444:
418:
392:
374:
348:
347:
332:
331:
316:
269:
268:
267:
214:
213:
188:
187:
168:
128:
121:
120:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
608:
596:
594:
589:
583:
582:
581:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
557:
555:
552:
550:
545:
543:
538:
536:
530:
527:
526:
522:
519:
512:
508:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
477:Peterkingiron
474:
471:
468:
464:
460:
453:
449:
445:
442:
438:
434:
427:
423:
419:
416:
412:
408:
401:
397:
393:
391:
387:
383:
382:69.225.11.246
378:
375:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
350:
349:
346:
342:
338:
334:
333:
330:
327:
324:
320:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
292:
288:
287:Terry Rudolph
284:
280:
279:Terry Rudolph
276:
273:
270:
266:
262:
258:
253:
250:
245:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
227:
222:
220:
216:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
193:
190:
189:
186:
182:
178:
177:
172:
171:Speedy delete
169:
166:
162:
158:
151:
147:
143:
142:
141:
140:
136:
131:
126:
118:
113:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
587:
584:
579:
558:
548:
541:
534:
528:
510:
489:
472:
447:
421:
395:
376:
351:
318:
286:
282:
278:
271:
243:
218:
217:
174:
170:
145:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
364:Eric Yurken
352:Weak keep.
242:Change to
135:WP Physics
473:Weak Keep
459:• Gene93k
433:• Gene93k
407:• Gene93k
272:Week keep
130:κοντριβς
125:Headbomb
117:View log
563:WP:PROF
529:Delete.
518:Spartaz
302:WP:PROF
298:h-index
249:WP:PROF
244:Neutral
226:WP:PROF
84:protect
79:history
567:Boffob
559:Delete
490:Delete
377:Delete
219:Delete
112:delete
88:delete
50:Secret
46:delete
549:Freak
337:Nsk92
257:Nsk92
230:Nsk92
203:Nsk92
157:Nsk92
115:) – (
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
571:talk
542:Gear
498:talk
494:Twri
481:talk
463:talk
448:Note
437:talk
422:Note
411:talk
396:Note
386:talk
368:talk
341:talk
319:Note
310:talk
306:Scog
261:talk
234:talk
207:talk
181:talk
161:talk
146:Note
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
565:.--
535:Top
457:--
454:.
431:--
428:.
405:--
402:.
323:Mgm
291:ADS
289:on
176:DGG
152:.
573:)
500:)
483:)
465:)
439:)
413:)
388:)
370:)
343:)
312:)
263:)
236:)
228:.
209:)
183:)
163:)
137:}
133:–
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
569:(
496:(
479:(
461:(
435:(
409:(
384:(
366:(
339:(
325:|
308:(
259:(
232:(
221:.
205:(
179:(
159:(
155:—
127:{
119:)
109:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.