Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Carr Anderson


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Philip Carr Anderson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable person per WP:Academic William 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  — William 00:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Few sources, possible hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC).
 * delete&mdash;not a hoax, i think, as the book mentioned appears in worldcat, although not widely held. also, this seems to be a paywalled jama obit, per this. more likely memorial page.  in either case, not notable. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'm seeing Google scholar citation counts of 92 ("Loxoscelism and necrotic arachnidism"), 48 ("Utilization of physician services for dermatologic complaints"), etc. It's respectable, but not enough to really convince me of a pass of WP:PROF, and neither is being a department chair enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I find the same cites as David Eppstein and I agree that his Google Scholar record is marginal. However, being a department head at a major university for 25 years is impressive. So is having the university name an endowed professorship after him. The article needs major work to make it encyclopedic but I believe it could be salvaged, and I will undertake it if the consensus is keep.--MelanieN (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * comment&mdash;MelanieN, i don't want to be argumentative, but getting an endowed chair named after oneself is purely a matter of having the money. the more famous the school, the more it costs, but anyone who can pay can have one unless they're so notorious that the school won't take their money (oh my, a case could be made that *not* having an endowed chair named after one is more likely to indicate notability than having one!).  anyway, that's why it's actually being in the endowed chair that meets wp:prof. you and David Eppstein have made me feel a little more wavery on my delete, but am not quite ready to switch it up yet.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MOST endowed chairs are "purchased" by a major donor and named for that donor, yes - but not all. Occasionally they are named in someone's honor. I suspect in this case the position of department chair was upgraded to an endowed chair and named in his honor, without him actually bankrolling it. Lifelong academics usually don't have that kind of money. Such a tribute could have been created when he retired, or when he died. The fact that his obituary suggests memorial donations to the "Philip C. Anderson Endowed Professorship" also supports the notion that it was created ABOUT him, by admirers and former students, rather than BY him. BTW he or his work do seem to have gotten some coverage in the lay press.  --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * you make a good point, and i'd believe it prima facie about anyone except a professor of medicine, as there are quite a few of those who do have quite a bit of money. however, like i said, i'm feeling wavery, and getting waverier.  you're finding good sources.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW here is additional evidence that the chair is being funded by gifts given by the public in his name, rather than funded by him. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * that's a good one there. call me cynical, but i'm sure that even for fully endowed chairs, universities will solicit gifts.  nevertheless, i don't believe that they'd say that the endowment wasn't funded to do so.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing more than a tribute page. "Dr. Anderson was somewhat of a renaissance man."  Please.--Seduisant (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already said I will clean it up if it is kept. Let's discuss whether he deserves an article, not the current state of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed. i wish that participants in these discussions might remember that the afd policy states clearly that In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. and a fortiori, not a reason for saying that an article should be deleted.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Would you care to give us a link to that statement as it is one that needs to be quoted to many AfD nominators. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC).
 * it's WP:BEFORE D3.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2011 (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.