Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Beenakker

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (and nomination withdrawn). Sjakkalle 11:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Carlo Beenakker
This was tagged as in February. The content has not changed since. It currently does not explain why this person is "a famous professor". Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, I am sorry. I admit I was lazy in not doing enough research on this person. I apologize. Based on Average Earthman's modifications, Keep. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you were more lazy than you should be. The article didn't describe his notability, so questioning it with a significance-tag in february and a vfd now was very apropriate. I don't think it should be expected to do extensive research on the subject of an article to list it. If that were the case, at least I would be too lazy, and maybe even afraid for risking harse comments, to list almost anything. Now you motivated this discussion on him, made people expand the article alitle, and get people involved. Thats a good thing. Shanes 20:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, not particularly lazy. I mean, Leiden's a good university, but I doubt it's a household name worldwide. If you proposed a direct delete of a research group leader at MIT or the University of Cambridge without doing a quick google first, then that perhaps would be lazy. Average Earthman 10:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Leiden is probably one of the best known universities in Europe, and a couple of hundred years before MIT was founded, Leiden was the place everyone traveled to learn the new things in science and medicine. (And no, I'm not a Leiden alumnus...). Anyway, this VfD is another sign we need better criteria for judging the notability of academics. We can't expect every scientist bio-stub to exhaustively explain that person's research, because then only experts would be able to even start such a biography. To some extent we have to put our trust in the internal notability criteria of academia itself, just as we do for sports or pop music. Uppland 14:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely we can expect at least a rudimentary explanation? I don't think just listing a scientist's vague field of study is enough to justify an encyclopedia article.  Gamaliel 20:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Leiden is one of the top 150 universities in the world, and unlikely to appoint a complete muppet to a professor position. Google Scholar produces 3,810 hits for CWJ Beenakker, so he's been either very busy, or influential, or both. Some of his papers have over 400 citations (this one has 474. This is very, very good by the way - In-cites rate the hottest physics paper of the last two years as one that has 396 citations . Average Earthman 19:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add - a google search also indicates he is regularly an invited speaker at international conferences, another sign of note (I stress invited, as opposed to accepted) Average Earthman 19:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not trying to claim that every professor at every one of the "top 150 universities in the world" deserves an article. Delete, article does not establish notability.  RickK 19:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? We appear to be keeping every sportsperson in far more teams than that overall. I'm talking full professor here, anyway, not in the US title inflated sense. Average Earthman 09:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep per Average Earthman's assessment of notability. Kappa 21:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not establish notability beyond that of an above-average professor average professor at an above-average institution.  Not every professor at a top university is notable at an encyclopedic level. Gamaliel 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * An above-average professor would seem to pass the professor test. Kappa 21:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have clarified my comment. Gamaliel 21:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Does the importance of citations need further clarification, then? Average Earthman 09:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Gamaliel 09:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So what, you just believe that physicists are unimportant then? Average Earthman 20:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I simply believe that this particular article does not yet establish that this particular physicist is notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 20:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm missing something here - you accept citations are important, he was already in the top 300 most cited physicists when he was 37, he's published a number of papers with over 100 citations, yet you still say he's not above average? This seems blatantly obvious to me, and I genuinely want to know where the communication problem is. Average Earthman 08:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a citations database. An encyclopedia article explains why the subject of the article is important and the work that they do, it doesn't merely throw statistics at the reader.  If I wanted citation information I'd go to the ISI Web of Science. Gamaliel 08:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But if you want statistics for a cricketer you can go to cricinfo, so should we should delete all cricketer's articles that don't explain the rules of cricket? This article needs attention, not deletion. Average Earthman 09:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * For a cricketer, or any other sportsman, I can follow a link for their position that describes what that position does. But any article here that has nothing but statistics for a player I'd vote delete on too.  What would be the equivalent in science for a shortstop or quarterback?  There is no equivalent in science. Scientists aren't important because they play lead particle accelerator for the Leiden Leptons, they are important because of the specific research that they do. If we wish to assert that that Beenakker is more notable than the majority of his colleagues, then the article must provide a reason why, and that reason is what he is researching and what he has played a role in discovering or learning. In this article there is no mention of that at all.  Gamaliel 18:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean you're voting delete because I forgot to wikilink mesoscopic?. Average Earthman 10:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you keep missing the point on purpose or is this a debating tactic? Congratulations, you've dragged this discussion from meaningless down to utterly futile. Gamaliel 20:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Question for Average Earthman: how many citations would an average paper get? Kappa 21:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * For physics? Somewhere around ten. Average Earthman 09:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Average Earthman. According to the article: "In a 1997 study by the Institute for Scientific Information, Beenakker (at the time aged 37) rated in the top 300 most cited physicists of the previous 16 years." And that was eight years ago. His CV with publications. Certainly more notable than most two-albums-and-an-international-tour pop bands, most professional baseball players, fictional Klingon warships, and so on. Uppland 21:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So then we should have articles on the other 299, yes? RickK 23:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * He has probably advanced in the relative status by now, in case you didn't get that part, but if somebody bothers to write those 299 other biographies I see little harm in it (we may actually have quite a few of those already), or in articles on the 300 most cited researchers in other major disciplines. There is no reason why scientists should be Nobel laureates to be considered notable, while it is enough to have been payed by someone to publicly kick a ball around a lawn to qualify for a Wikipedia article. - Uppland 00:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles on the top 300 physicists? Well, of course we should. We have articles on more than 300 football players, or basketball players, don't we? If you think physics isn't important, well you're not writing on Wikipedia by banging a couple of rocks together. Average Earthman 09:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Passes the "average professor test". --Carnildo 22:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep He is definetely a notable physicist, one of the most notable solid state physicists today if you ask me. Shanes 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep You don't get citations like that for nothing. I bet there's not a professor in my city who could claim that.
 * Keep and expand. Notable physicist who won a Spinoza award which is the highest award available in the Netherlands. Three professors at Leiden have won the Nobel Prize for Physics so it obviously has a reputation for physics and a Professor there is likely to be a leader in the field. Capitalistroadster 02:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and expand. Notable awarded professor. Megan1967 05:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oh come on! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Paul August &#9742; 04:13, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Expand yes, but threshhold for notability definitely met. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:15, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.