Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Snoke


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

David Snoke

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is essentially a one-issue biography, focusing almost exclusively on the paper he wrote with Behe. As you may be able to see from edit history, previous attempts to comply with NPOV have pretty much failed. I had previously attempted to PROD, but removal was contested. Silas Snider (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even a conservative Google Scholar search indicates that his works are heavily cited by others. The Behe paper is cited by 21 others; his book Bose-Einstein Condensation is cited by 202; his related paper "Bose-Einstein condensation of excitons and biexcitons: and coherent nonlinear optics with excitons" from Physics Today (2001) is cited by 127. Google News turns up numerous articles related to Snoke and his work. Regardless of the validity of his conclusions he appears clearly notable. Maralia (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete 21 cites about his paper, 1 so-so cite about the author. The biography is a coatrack to dwell on intelligent design. His co-authored paper with Behe is notable, and an article about the paper itself is more justified than this bio. There are often hundreds of authors to notable physics papers these days-each of their authors don't become notable figures for wikipedia bio's as a result. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. An biographical article needs biographical information. If all we have is stuff that talks about his work, then we should have articles on the work, not him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per Professor marginalia, the vast majority of this article is what Behe had to say about the reaction to the Behe & Snoke paper, and not biographical material about the putative subject of this article, Snoke. Coatrack. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The GS cites are sufficient for notability as a physicist. To be elected a fellow of the APS even though an ID advocate is an indication that his work is taken seriously. The citation for the election is sufficient third party sources. But we do not needs such anyway for researchers. The research is shown to be notable by the fact that many of his peers cite it. They show the notability . We don;'t have to discuss the physics and decide ourselves. They, the reviewers of the paper sfor Phyusical Review letters, the highest ranking physics journal and the other high-ranking journals, the Pittsburgh faculty are the people who demonstrate that he's notable. The routine facts of his bio can be taken from any adequately reliable source, including his official CV. As for his work in ID, I am not sure that one coauthored paper by Behe makes him particularly notable for it, and I'd reduce that part of the article sharply. The criticism of it should be mentioned, but need not be emphasised, for his notability fortunately does not depend upon such work. DGG (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Maralia and DGG. GS cites and APS fellow (see WP:PROF #3) show notability as a physicist. About 20+ relevant gnews hits, none to do with ID, further speak of the importance of his physics research. The article may weigh ID stuff too heavily, and there is the danger of coatracking and BLP problems, but that is not a real reason for deletion. He did write a book on A Biblical Case for an Old Earth in addition to the paper, so substantial but not overwhelming coverage seems reasonable.John Z (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2008 (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.