Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claude Pruneau


 * 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 keep. It's a Weak Keep, but Keep it is. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Claude Pruneau

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

High energy physicists can be very hard to evaluate in terms of citation count, because LHC papers can have literally thousands of authors, and high citation rates for those papers don't necessarily confer notability on author number seven hundred and twenty three. I don't think this guy meets any of the OTHER WP:NACADEMIC criteria, but I'm bringing it to AfD rather than PROD because I'd like to hear other opinions. PianoDan (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. PianoDan (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The large-collaboration papers don't give him independent notability as a member of their groups. Their citation counts show that the collaborations are notable but I don't think they contribute at all to Pruneau's notability. But we can still look at the remaining papers where he is first author. I found:
 * "Methods for the study of particle production fluctuations" (1st of 3 authors; 291 citations)
 * "Multiplicity fluctuations in Au+Au collisions..." (1st of 4 authors; 167 citations)
 * "Transverse radial flow effects on two-and three-particle angular correlations" (1st of 3 authors; 70 citations)
 * "New and improved phoswich detectors manufactured by a heat press technique" (1st of many authors; 34 citations)
 * This looks like a very weak case for WP:PROF. I also found two published book reviews for his textbook Data Analysis Techniques for Physical Scientists, not enough for WP:AUTHOR by themselves, but strengthening the overall case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Weak keep with 3 reviews of their book. Gusfriend (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments made by David Eppstein and Gusfriend.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2022 (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.