Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konrad Pesudovs


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Konrad Pesudovs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to be notable (per WP:BIO) - the only reference is a page on his employers website. Orphan. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable within his field. For example he received "The Garland W. Clay Award (established 1978)... presented to the author or authors of the manuscript published in Optometry and Vision Science that has been most widely cited in the world of scientific literature in the preceding five years." Clearly at the top of his field. Plenty of coverage in reliable inependent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think that the Garland Clay award establishes notability (even if one ignores the fact that Pesudov is a member of the editorial board that awards this prize). However, the Web of Science lists plenty of publications that have been cited quite frequently (ignoring any cites to book chapters): four of them have been cited over 90 times (max: 104), total cites over 2400, h-index of 27. This is far beyond what we usually accept as evidence of meeting WP:ACADEMIC#1. The article does indeed need a lot of work, I agree. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - From what I could find I already considered the man notable and Randykitty's info above topped it all.  Yinta n  16:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adding to the above, there is also a dedicated write-up on him in Clinical and experimental optometry (2010) 93(1). Agricola44 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2013 (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.