Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan siemann


 * 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. Meets notability and RS (non-admin closure) ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Evan siemann

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

Quite a few published papers, but I don't know if this counts as notibility.  RT |  Talk  21:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Notability for scholars cannot be gauged by the number of publications alone. The article does not make claims of notability beyond what could be considered "normal" credentials, no claim to whether or not his research has had impact in his field, holds a tenured, chair or distinguished post, etc. WP:PROF is clear about that. On the other hand, a gsearch does reveal he has a namesake laboratory at Rice, so that in and of itself might represent notability. But I'm not sure it's enough. §FreeRangeFrog 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Every researcher's lab is called after him, that's just colloquial use: "I did a rotation in the Smith lab", etc. I'm just here because I cannot sleep, I'll look into his citation record tomorrow. --Crusio (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very strong citation record indicating that he is a major influence in his field. Web of Science lists several publications with hundreds of citations each (top 5: 598, 329, 207, 198, 126). Given that ecology is a field with rather low citation density makes this record even more impressive. Obviously meets WP:ACADEMIC #1. --Crusio (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Crusio. People with citation records anywhere near that good are always kept, and with some work, their articles can almost always be improved substantially.John Z (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Like the WoS search by Crusio, citation impact suggested by Google Scholar indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:46, 12 February 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.