Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Rice Camp


 * 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. Consensus is clear. I don't want to step too deeply into the notability divide, but participants voting to !keep appear to be finding sufficient strength of publication. BD2412 T 00:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Paul Rice Camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject is not eligible as notable per WP:NACADEMIC and WP:PROF. I could not find any significant publication, citation under his name as part of WP:BEFORE. ☆★  Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 11:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☆★   Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 11:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ☆★   Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 11:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment He does have some publications listed at Google Scholar, but do note there are multiple "PR Camp"s - the ones around 1960 about ice in particular are his though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There are some easy-to-find publications of his, all related to ice and ice growth, published when he was at his various institutions. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/200350a0, https://www.nature.com/articles/206495a0, https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/handle/11681/5802, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1728003. -Raymond033 15:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  Very weak keep under #5 of WP:NACADEMIC, I'm not sure how notable chair (effectively head) of a Physics department is, but he did become "Distinguished Emeritus Professor". Number of citations appears to be fairly low though, unless I'm missing something. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note...I would argue for Keep I have done work on the page to address concerns brought up. Camp is notable for his work in CRREL, and particularly so for his membership on the CCP and for his importance in establishing the PhD program and expanding physics education at the university. This is in addition to his ultimately being named a "Distinguished Emeritus Professor." Thanks Illyich40 (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is proof he worked at CRREL and served on CCP, but unless he was running them I don't see how that's sufficient to establish notability under WP:NACADEMIC. I can't see what his personal contributions were. Expanding the physics program at a single uni department isn't sufficient to establish notability either really. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasons given above. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I think "distinguished emeritus professor" is the kind of recognition for lifetime achievement that WP:PROF is asking for. As he retired in 1996, his work would largely fall in the pre-Internet era, and looking at citation numbers the way we do for currently-active researchers will probably not be very informative one way or the other. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. His number of citations seems to be slightly below the bar, even considering his particular low-cited field. The title of "Distinguished Emeritus Professor" was not conferred by a particularly notable institution, and I did not find details on how the title was granted. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 19:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * complementing, I checked if he held any particularly notable position in any of the societies he had relations with (American Physical Society, American Association of Physics Teachers, and International Glaciological Society), but the answer is negative, so WP:NPROF does not apply. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 20:08, 18 September 2020 (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.