Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce G. Klappauf


 * 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. Chick Bowen 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruce G. Klappauf

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of this bio of a living person has complained about this article, stating in a message to the Oversight mailing list, "I am not a 'widely published quantum optical physicist'. I am a barely published experimental physicist -- if that." ➥the Epopt 13:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. He is too obscure to warrant such notability; refreshingly, even the physicist in question accepts this. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, but oddly, the article was originally written by an "Maklappauf".DGG 17:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Checking further, he has published 11 articles--the two most cited are in Physical Review Letters, the best of all possible physics journals in which to publish, with a 10% acceptance rate, both having him as principal author, and cited 81 and 45 times. On the other hand, they derive from his doctoral work, not subsequent independent research.
 * The way I see COI, is that scientists and other people are divided between the excessively modest and the excessively self-important, and no one is a good judge of whether they themselves really are important--in either direction. But this is at most still borderline by our usual standards, so I think having him decide is reasonable.DGG 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. If the physicist in question says to delete it, delete it. "Maklappauf" sounds suspiciously like one of his relations. Bart133 (t) (c) 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, even though the subject in the article does notthink he is notable and may not want an article, is not enough for me to remove it. He has written papers on the subject. My only comment as to what I think the article needs is more sources. Callelinea 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if the subject disputes its accuracy then surely it should go. Bigdaddy1981 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Callelinea. Article subjects do not get to choose whether they are notable or not. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that in most cases except for use as a deciding factor when its really borderline, as here. "Papers on the subject" is not the criterion, and does not meet WP:PROF--all science PhDs who expect to get a job in the academic world publish at least 1 or 2 papers as a minimum qualification along with the thesis. DGG (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.