Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard M. Weiner


 * 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The result was   nom withdrawn, article kept.  Jamie ☆ S93  18:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard M. Weiner

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

This is a resume, not an article. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Yeah, it's a resume but the subject of the "article" meets notability requirements. I was skeptical at first but his articles are much-cited and his books are held by many important libraries.  Needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, should be kept and cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciceronibus (talk • contribs) 12:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)  — Ciceronibus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Richard M. Weiner is a well known physicist who has brought important contributions in atomic, nuclear and particle physics predicting several new effect which were later confirmed. He is the author of the first and so far only textbook on Bose-Einstein correlations JIROT (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC) — JIROT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, keep it I am just writing a Wikipedia article about Bose-Einstein correlations and find the contributions of Weiner to this important topic fundamental. The modern theory of Bose-Einstein correlations is due to him and his collaborators.Kikeku (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) — Kikeku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Web of Science test: Phys. Rev. D (1993), 79 citations; Phys. Let. B (1985) 76 citations; Phys. Let. B (1989) 75 citations; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A (1993) 67 citations; Phys. Let. B (1992) 60 citations; Phys. Let. B (1993) 54 citations; Phys. Let. B (1989) 53 citations, ... The subject is unquestionably notable – article should be cleaned and saved. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. Weiner is one of the leading scientists in an area of theoretical physics that is of considerable actuality and, due to current developments in particle physics and the experiments at CERN, also of public interest. His theoretical predictions of the Isomeric Shift and of Hot Spots in nuleons and nuclei could have brought him a Nobel Price. Weiner definitely meets the notability requirements, but the article needs to be cleaned up. (Transmobilator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transmobilator (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)  — Transmobilator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - unless I'm mistaken, he fails all the WP:PROF requirements. He certainly fails points 2-3 and 5-9. Points 1 and 4 are a bit less clear, but what is suspicious is that 9 of 14 footnotes cite works by him - failing the "independent reliable sources" requirement, and that a further footnote uses an Amazon review (!) to validate his notability. We're left with two papers citing him (which isn't that remarkable when you've written nearly 200, and anyway don't actually discuss him but his work), a blurb for his book, and a couple of sources indicating he's been interviewed (which is not evidence of notability). What's strikingly lacking is independent reliable sources about Weiner and about the fact that he has made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. - Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, I'm afraid you are mistaken. As someone pointed out below, satisfying any one of the criteria is sufficient. Web of Science shows numerous highly cited research papers (i.e. >50 citations apiece, see above) – unmistakable evidence of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

" If ANY ONE of these criteria is met...." Weiner meets several of those criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.48.116 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — 71.240.48.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Please see notability criteria for academics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)
 * Weak keep. This AfD seems to have been infested by a large number of single-purpose accounts, but that doesn't imply that we should do the opposite of what they say. The citation counts in Google scholar (two papers with over 100 citations, several others with over 50) look good enough for a pass of WP:PROF #1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/Withdraw: Issues have been fixed, and meets notability criterion IMO. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:57, 29 May 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.