Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enectali Figueroa


 * 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. Many of the keep votes simply stated that Mr. Figueroa was notable, yet failed to expand upon why he was. The delete votes on the other hand were much stronger, and examined why the subject failed Criteria 1. There were one or two valid arguments for keeping the article, but not enough to sway the consensus. I'm happy to provide a copy of the article to anyone who wants it after deletion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Enectali Figueroa

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

Deprodded, as academic has h-index of 8 or 9, as astronaut "applicant" I am pretty sure he has lots of company. Joey the Mango (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dr. Enectalí Figueroa pioneered the development of position-sensitive detectors that in itself makes him notable. The thing is that his notability is also backed up by reliable verifiable sources as required by Wikipedia policy. The list of his scientific publications also make him quite notable as a scientic author. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He seems to specialize in "position-sensitive x-ray microcalorimeters". The question is, is that important enough? He is not the first author on the most-cited papers that he is listed as an author on.Joey the Mango (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So? Being cited first doesn't automatically mean highest credit to the findings. Even if he doesn't have the highest credit, that doesn't mean he isn't the (or one of the) driving pioneers of the field.  bahamut0013  words deeds   09:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your evidence? Joey the Mango (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is relevent and the article is not self-serving or vanity by any means. Dr. Enectali is notable for his contributions to science. Failure to recognize his contribution would undermine this site's main purpose of educating and informing the public. Strong Keep!--XLR8TION (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I probably would have my comment erased if I expressed myself the way I feel about this being for deletion here, so I will let you fill in the blank: what kind of (fill in the blank) would put such an important person's article for deletion?? Antonio Johnny Torrio Martin (tell me about it) 07:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be civil, assume good faith, and address the notability of the subject of the discussion rather than making ad-hominem arguments. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am civil. I did not attack anybody, just let others do it in their minds, so the civil argument does not apply here. It's like when one group does not like another, but they choose to be civil and respect their space. That is being civil. I don't see it as being uncivil because for all I know they could be thinking what kind of a SMART PERSON would put the article for deletion. You just seem to get angry at people who don't see it your way ("ad-hominem"). Besides, what do you mean by Ad-hominem?? Antonio Poncho Martin (tell me about it) 08:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. "ad hominem" is a Latin phrase meaning "to the man" that is often used in English. The meaning is that argument is directed against the person himself rather than against the argument that the person is putting forward. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks, Xxanthippe. That was totally a new phrase to me! One more ?: Since when is articles for deletion not a ballot? If it wasn't, we wouldn't have this page in the first place! (that one is not for you specifically, Xx, but for the person who put the not a ballot template or anyone else who wants to answer for that matter) Antonio The Controversial One Martin'' (talk) 11:22 AM, 6 June 2009 (UTC).
 * This is a discussion, not a vote, and this is a long-standing principle of AFD. So the closing administrator is with xyr rights to ignore in toto your contribution to this discussion, since you haven't actually addressed the article, and the application of our policies and guidelines to it, at all.  I suggest that you do so.  Boldfaced words are not the focus here.  It is not about votes. Uncle G (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Several degrees, a notable scientific achievement, several awards... whats not notable about him?  bahamut0013  words deeds   09:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most academics have something like that. What's special about him that allows him to pass WP:PROF when so many other assistant professors don't? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes him so special from other assistant professors is that he is a pioneer the development of position-sensitive detectors in NASA and the others didn't. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Every academic is a pioneer in something, if you define "something" specifically enough. If it isn't original research, it shouldn't be enough to grant them a Ph.D. So, please: using citation counts, articles in major newspapers, or other standard measures of notability, please demonstrate through evidence rather than repetition why position-sensitive detection is a subject of sufficiently great import that Figueroa's notability can be WP:INHERITED from it. While you're at it, you might explain why his contribution is such an important one when his name doesn't appear in the top hundred Google scholar citations for position-sensitive detector. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question, but maybe his published work:Title: "Position-sensitive low-temperature detectors"; Author: Figueroa-Feliciano, Enectali; Publication: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics; Research Section A, Volume 520, Issue 1-3, p. 496-501; Publication Date: 03/2004; Bibliographic Code: 2004NIMPA.520..496F; can provide an insight as to why he is pioneer in the development of position-sensitive detectors in NASA. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One paper with a title is hardly more evidence for academic notability than one paper without a title. Every academic has a paper. Most notable academics have many. Most of their papers have titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and close - Meets WP:PROF, and there is clear consensus to keep. Wikipedia BLPs don't weight the importance of a topic but the relative notability of a given person within a topic. Hence being a top dog in "position-sensitive x-ray microcalorimeters" is notable. Not to mention that X-ray astrophysics is were a lot of the discoveries on the early universe are happening and position-sensitive x-ray microcalorimeters are a key part of this.--Cerejota (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain which criterion of WP:PROF you think he meets and why. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, PROF #1 is clearly met. Of course, that I need to explain it simply means you disagree, but anyone who knows what a position-sensitive x-ray microcalorimeter is knows who this guy is: he is a bright light in the field. --Cerejota (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close - clearly notable in an area we lack adequate coverage. -- >David  Shankbone  11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -I agree that Figueroa is an expert in a field little known by the general public. The opinions of registered and frequent contributors of Wikipedia should be valued more than unsourced opinions of persons who appear to have started contributing for the sole purpose of demoting recognition of one living individual's contributions to society! Pr4ever (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article clearly informs of Figueroas Notability, El Johnson (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My nomination is in good faith. I presented evidence that his h-index fails WP:PROF, and that he was not the pioneer of the type of sensor clamed in the article. As "Enectali Figueroa" he has three Google News hits, none of which say much, and as "Figueroa-Feliciano", none. I expected a wave of Keeps when this AfD was listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Puerto Rico, and now I hope to hear from the Wikipedia community-at-large. Also, there is a not-vote for deletion on the Talk Page of the article that predated the AfD, indicating that somebody besides me thought this article was questionable. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, I question your insistence and motives. MIT Physics Faculty - reliable source; Harvard - reliable source. To single out and insinuate that a "wave of Keeps when this AfD was listed at "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Puerto Rico" is an insult to the people of Puerto Rico. It seems to me that you are stating that just because a person is "Puerto Rican", that they will be biased regardless if the subject is notable or not. I resent that. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is simply a statistical effect that when a AfD is listed with a WikiProject, members who watch that listing tend to cme to the AfD discussion. It would be the same if it was railroad hobbyists or something. My "insistence" is to have this nomination treated to the usual 7 days of deliberation. Joey the Mango (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't know where all these keeps are suddenly coming from, but I don't see any evidence that he passes WP:PROF. My default assumption is that assistant professors are typically not yet sufficiently notable / have not yet had time to develop the academic impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. I don't see anything exceptional about this case that would cause it to rise above that default level. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The "keeps" come from established Wikipedians such as yourself who have expressed themselves and therefore, let's respect their opinions as you would expect others to respect yours. To assume that that article was created because the subject is a notable assistant professor is in itself ridiculous. He is notable becasue he is a pioneer in the development of position-sensitive detectors as stated above. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When I suddenly see a lot of "snow close" keeps coming from a lot of people whom I have not seen participating before in academic deletion discussions, and who exhibit clear misunderstandings of WP:PROF, it is natural to suspect that some sort of canvassing might be going on. I'm happy to assume good faith on the part of any individual participant, and to assume that the closing admin will look at the strength of the arguments rather than just vote-counting, but I don't think calling attention to the highly unusual voting pattern in this AfD is in any way ridiculous. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agricola44 has explained the case well, but despite that I'd like to add to my comment above, expanding on my reasoning. I think everyone can agree that, if he has any notability, it's as an academic, so clearly WP:PROF is the guideline to use. And he is not a fellow of a national society, president of a university, editor of a major journal, etc., so clearly WP:PROF #1 is the criterion within that guideline that we should look at: has he made a significant academic impact? It's been common to judge this sort of question in similar discussions of other academics by citation counts and h-indices; I'm not a fan of that sort of bean-counting when it can be avoided, but for Wikipedia AfDs it often can't be avoided because few of us have the expertise to judge impact less quantitatively and more qualitatively in specific subject areas. So: he has an h-index (using the Google scholar citation numbers) of 9, good for untenured faculty but not enough to excite me, and he has one paper with over 100 citations and others with many fewer — the 100-citation paper might be enough to convince me of a marginal pass of WP:PROF if I thought it were substantially his own work, but his position in the author list makes it likely that it isn't, and the remaining papers aren't enough to convince me of a pass by this method. However, most of the keep votes in this discussion seem to be focusing not on citation counts but rather on something that can be found in footnote 2 of WP:PROF: "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." I completely don't see the argument here. He is clearly not a pioneer in position-sensitive detection (whatever that is): as I indicated in a different reply elsewhere within this AfD, his name doesn't show up in any prominence when one searches for that phrase. The fact that he has done research in that area doesn't make him one of the prominent researchers in it. And if not that, then what, and where is the part about the significance of the discovery or the majorness of the problem he could have hypothetically solved? Based on this, I stand by my delete vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is extremely important and relevant. Why it will be nominated for deletion?  Check another similar articles in Wikipedia and you will see that this article is better than other few around. He doesn't need to have tons of information and achievement to stay.  His awards, information and achievements talks by itself.  Keep it and close the discussion. Io_Wiki2007 (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment could be copy-and-pasted onto any AfD about any person, notable or not. It does nothing to address the specific question of the notability of Figueroa's achievements. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability of Figueroa's achievements have previously been mentioned and speak for themselves. I ask myself, why have you taken this so personally that you are attacking the Keep votes as if this were some kind of battlefield? Why not just let it go and let others express themselves which ever way they wish, be it Keep or be it Delete? Tony the Marine (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not all the keep votes I am attacking, just the fatuous ones. But there are unusually many of them this time around. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What was that you said about assuming good faith? You're not. You just seem a bit mad to me that so many disagree with you and I am sure if they voted for deletion, you would not be calling them fatuous. Antonio The Cool One Martin (tell me about it) 08:21, 6 June, 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, I think what will be immediately obvious to the closing moderator is the significant canvassing going on here. Most of the "keeps" are simply votes, rather than substantive arguments. With all due respect, these commentators do not seem to understand WP:PROF, which certainly applies to the subject of this article (as he's an asst. prof. at MIT). Let's get a few things straight first: (1) Please do not make any more improper pleas for immediate closure – there's no reason for this article to receive special consideration – it will go through the normal, full debate. (2) Please be WP:CIVIL – some of the above comments are way out of line. Nobody is trying to disparage the subject or his accomplishments. (3) Vague assertions, e.g. "Dr. Enectali is notable for his contributions to science" carry no weight whatsoever – please furnish specifics. (4) Simple statements of credentials, e.g. "MIT Physics Faculty - reliable source; Harvard - reliable source" also carry essentially no weight under WP:PROF, especially at the asst. level – boatloads of profs have similar credentials and these, by themselves, confer no notability.
 * Now let's take an objective look at matters. The only substantive argument I've seen made so far, albeit without any explicit supporting information, involves his work on detectors, i.e. we are evaluating whether WP:PROF #1 is satisfied or not. Indeed, a cursory glance conclusively shows that none of the other criteria are satisfied – they essentially never are at the asst. prof. level – so, it has to be criterion #1. How do we evaluate #1? In his case (physics), we check his research record – readily accomplished using Web of Science. This will allow us to determine how many publications he has, how significant they were to his field of study (via citations), approximately how he contributed to each, etc. Initial findings do seem promising: 54 articles in mainstream journals, e.g. Phys. Rev. Let., Atrophys. J., etc. A few stand out with 136, 32, and 28 citations, but the count drops off rapidly from there. Now, this would probably be passable, if this were primarily his work. That is, if he were the lab head, principal investigator, sole contributer, etc. But unfortunately this is not the case. When you start checking these articles in more detail, which WoS readily allows you to do, you find that practically all of them are "big science" projects having oodles of authors, with his name mostly not in one of the key positions (7 exceptions, see below). This implies that he, like most of the other people listed on those papers, played essentially a supporting rather than a primary role. Note that these sorts of projects and the corresponding observation I just made are very typical of all the mostly-experimental hard sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, etc. This is an unfortunate aspect of the prevailing "authorship culture", for example it is easy to find research technicians with high h-index. Again, I'm not disparaging his character or knowledge here, but I am critiquing what we can reasonably discern as his contributions (which is what must ultimately satisfy #1). He did have 7 articles where his name appears first. While 5 of these are again "big author list" publications, we can still reasonably assume he made significant contributions. The remaining 2 are sole author papers, so these are entirely his work. None of these are the three relatively highly-cited papers mentioned above. (2 have 7 citations, 1 has 3, 1 has 1, the rest have 0).
 * The picture that all these observations paint is one of a young, promising researcher, who has done work roughly commensurate with his peers who are also early in their careers. My very detailed, albeit long-winded analysis simply underscores what David Eppstein already succinctly pointed out above. We almost always reach the same conclusion for articles on assistant profs because they are at the "entry level" of the academic profession and simply have not had the time to establish a notable record. In closing, we can all speculate whether he will do so in the future (it's likely he will), but WP is not in the business of fortune telling. I hope this clarifies the process for those of you who are not regular commentators on WP:PROF cases. Again, be assured that there is no intentional disparagement here, but I would say that, given the facts that we now all have, it is likely this case will end in a deletion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep— Meets #1 of WP:Prof. Also, the subject   represents  one of misrepresented minorities in scientific research and that’s why NASA  is starting to use him as a spokeperson, 1. Now, as a regular participant  in AfDs, I object to the comments made about keep votes.  Deletion sorting is routine and  indented to get interested parties  involved in the discussion.  So,  now because this was listed in the Puerto Rican deletion sorting, the keep votes are biased?  Its reminds me of Sonia Sotomayor and the reverse racism allegation!    Believe or not, Puerto Ricans are capable of many things, so please AGF.-- J mundo 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Sir. First, I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth. "Puerto Rican" and "bias" are your words – your back-handed accusation is way out of order here! The wording of your post suggests you are the one who has WP:NPOV issues. So how about an example of the canvassing I'm talking about. Are you aware that Tony the Marine and Antonio Johnny Torrio Martin are father/son? Their entries create, at the very least, the perception of vote-stacking, i.e. attempting to "sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion". Instead, you are looking for racism in my comments where there isn't any. Please cease and desist. Second, your "keep" also has little substance to it: "NASA is starting to use him as a spokeperson" is speculation on your part. The link you furnish is actually to an article on Brain drain. There are only 3 sentences that actually apply to the subject and the extent of his single actual quote is precisely 5 words, "going into space and beyond". This hardly makes him a spokesperson. Third, your assertion that he meets WP:PROF #1 is WP:JUSTAVOTE, unless you can furnish some actual evidence. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC).
 * I was responding to this comment, " I expected a wave of Keeps when this AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Puerto Rico, and now I hope to hear from the Wikipedia community-at-large". My vote is also based in WP:BIAS, "The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject." I suggest to take a breather, and stop making accusations of NPOV and canvassing if you don’t have evidence. Comment on content, not on the contributor(WP:No personal attacks).-- J mundo 20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. My apologies, though I will point out that if you follow the convention of responding to specific, earlier comments by placing them within that thread, then we would not have such regrettable misunderstandings. Again, apologies. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Wait a minute User:Agricola44 stop making false accusations or assumptions. I was going to stay out of the discussion until you made reference of my person. Yes, Antonio Johnny Torrio Martin is my son and User: Isabel Santiago is my grand daughter (in case you didn't know), so what? They both are individual people with their own believes and particular way of being. You are stepping out of line making false accusations and assuming bad-faith on my part. Unless you have direct evidence that I am canvassing, I would appreciate it if you showed me some respect and keep me out of your discussions. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please look carefully at my wording: "Their entries create, at the very least, the perception of vote-stacking" (emphasis added). Are you contending that these don't create perceptions? In my experience, when such perceptual risks are possible or are likely to occur, people will go out of their way to disclose/disclaim in order to defuse any subsequent problems, such as we now appear to have. It is a fact that nobody in this discussion, including yourself, did so prior. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete. Like David Eppstein and Agricola44, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. He has a good chance of becoming WP-notable in the future, under either WP:PROF or WP:BIO, but this is a clear example of a biographical article that was created too early. Definitely a role model for all Hispanics, but not WP-notable yet. Sometimes these hasty article creations for junior academics do more harm than good for the subject, and I think that the discussion going on here is a good example of that.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * strong Delete Few publications. The most cited paper, "The X-ray observatory Suzaku" in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan Volume 59, Issue 1 SPEC. ISS., 2007, Pages S1-S7 is a supplement devoted to a particular very important  spacecraft where he is one of the team involved. Since the authors are listed alphabetically,  and there are 140 of them on that single paper, membership on a team like that indicates nothing particular about notability except that he was one of the large group of developers.  (there is a problem is assigning importance to people who work only as members of such teams, but that's another matter--this is normally done informally in recommendations by their colleagues). In a situation like that, we have to trust those who are qualified to determine, which in this case is the MIT faculty.  It is a very rare assistant professor, even at MIT, who is notable. The position almost by definition is for those who have not yet attained tenure and made their mark in the profession.  That they appointed him at all indicates they consider him more than a technician, and that they think there's a chance he might have some promise--which is a far shot from notability. The very few cases in science where an assistant professor is notable is when xe makes a remarkable discovery early in his career. There is no indication of that here at all.   Researchers are judged on an objective basis. In this AfD, it is impossible to avoid noticing the manner of discussion, once there has already been the regrettable  intervention here of users trying to make this personal.  People of any background are capable of splendid achievements in any field, but that is not the same as saying that one particular person has achieved them. I am usually much more ready than most to use somewhat flexible criteria of notability for the benefit of those in disadvantaged positions, but it's absurd to say that a PhD from Stanford on the junior MIT faculty needs special consideration.    As for NASA,  "starting to use him as a spokesperson" is the typical wording that in any field of endeavor that unmistakably says: not yet notable.  .  Members of an   group do themselves a great disservice when they mistake those in their group who are still beginners for people who have attained distinction. Several people have shown their foolishness in this regard here. I charitably assign it to unfamiliarity with the subject at hand, as shown by their being impressed by the mere titles of scientific papers.   The nominator has nominated in a short time a considerable number of  slightly important academics for deletion. Some of them are notable. Some are not. I have no bias to following his lead, and I wish he had gone more carefully, but this is one where he certainly got it right. David E is usually somewhat more conservative than I in judging borderline notable academics as  notable than I am, but in this case I agree with him 100%.  He is not borderline. He is unambiguously not yet notable. DGG (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete on basis of closely reasoned arguments of Agricola44 and DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC).

Comment "Notable" - He may not be notable as an MIT professor as has been pointed out by the majority of the delete votes here, however new evidence provided by User:Ercheck in his restructuring of the articles introductions shows that Dr. Figueroa had a featured piece on the PBS show NOVA - "Dark Matter" talking about his research. He is also the Principal Investigator on an NSF grant which adds evidence that his research is noted. Updated intro.:

Enectalí (Tali) Figueroa-Feliciano, Ph.D., (born 1971) is an astrophysicist who pioneered the development position-sensitive detectors and is an expert and researcher on dark matter. Figueroa is a researcher with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and a professor of physics MIT.
 * References


 * I think you misunderstand the use of "award" in the NSF citation; that is a grant of $125k to do some science, not an award for science done. Joey the Mango (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there is no misunderstanding. Nowhere in the introduction is the word "award" mentioned. What you have failed to mention here is that the reference in question "The National Science Foundation" cites Dr. Enectali Figueroa-Feliciano as the "Principal Investigator". I don't really think that the foundation will cite just anyone as such. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so. Each of the hundreds (thousands?) of grants issued by the NSF routinely (this is a continuing grant) has a "Principal Investigator" who is the contact person responsible for using the grant properly and who usually plays a large part in the research that it funds. Essentially anybody who applies for a grant and gets it becomes a Principal Investigator. Xxanthippe (talk).

Keep, per Tony the Marine, he has put forward the strongest argument. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good clarification. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * grants we have sometimes considered multiple very large grants to be indications of notability . In the sciences, $125,000 is not a large grant, it is rather the grant to a beginner. (In the humanities, alas, it would usually be a very significant grant indeed). He is furthermore not a professor, he is an assistant professor. There is all the difference in the world. One featured piece on a show, even Nova, is not enough for notability. He is one of a specialist team in one particular instrument, not in dark matter generally.
 * Delete per Agricola44 and DGG. لenna  vecia  13:17, 9 June 2009 (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.