Talk:Shōhei Suzuki

Questionable notability
This article was AFD'd (result delete) before. At that time it was determined he was not notable with 119 google hits. He now has 149 google hits a few years later. No awards. JCutter (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read that discussion. However, with sources that turned up in the AfD I initiated for his colleague Masanori Hirasawa's article, the arguement can at least now be made that notability can be proven. The mere number of Ghits does not prove or disprove notability, what those hits are does, and in this case I feel it squeeks over WP:GNG. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions we need to ask following the consensus guidelines at Notability (people):
 * Agreed, ghits don't define notability, however I consider it relevant to point out since it was discussed during the original AFD and not much has changed over a few years.  Your references number 1 and 3 are essentially the same list sorted differently.  I certainly agree he has discovered a lot of planets.  So I am just wondering if 2 references = notability.
 * Is Suzuki-san regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers or successors?
 * Is Suzuki-san known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * Did Suzuki-san play a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * Has Suzuki-san's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
 * To be honest, I don't know the answers to those questions - but I know that none of the references already provided fit any of those requirements.JCutter (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We're trying to find answers to those questions... However if the subject meets WP:GNG, then Notability (people)/WP:Bio only reinforce the presumption of notability if they are met. I *think* it meets the GNG, but it is somewhat questionable. However, if the two sources passed GNG, then two sources would be sufficient, as multiple sources are required, and two is multiple. The big issue I have is that the coverage in one source is not significant, so obviously some more work is needed. At this point notability is questionable enough for a tag. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have discovered that Shohei Suzuki is a published author (w/co-authors), via Waseda University. See the following five papers: #1: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/504929 That article is cited by five other papers, which isn't a ton, but the paper is relatively new (2006). #2: http://usparc.ihep.su/spires/find/hep/www?irn=7648413, #3: http://ursi-test.intec.ugent.be/files/URSIGA08/papers/JP04p2.pdf, #4: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1742-6596/31/1/048, #5: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/504929 Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: There are several S. Suzukis. I'm pretty sure the above sources are for Shohei Suzuki due to the Waseda University link, but I've found at least one other astronomer named S. Suzuki, who works for NASA JPL. There are also at least three other SHOHEI Suzukis, one in the U.S. who works in biochemistry, one in Canada, and one in Japan who works for Hitachi. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)