Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Freitas


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus for a Weak Keep but Keep it is. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Robert Freitas

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Marked for multiple issues since 2017 without much improvement. Relies exclusively on promotional content and citation to his work for sources. While there are a number of references and citations to his researches, not enough coverage of himself to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Does the Feinman Prize not give notability for wikipedia? I'm unsure. It does need further sourcing however. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. We have three different things that all point to notability, but each only weakly: (1) The Feynman prize, (2) Well-cited publications, but in a high-citation field, and (3) book reviews, one of Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines already in the article, and another of Nanomedicine, Volume 1, . On the negative side, he appears to be much more of a futurist than a scholar, so these notability criteria aimed at scholarly work do not fit him very well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to be considered something of a pioneer in nanotechnology based on this write-up which states he wrote "the first book-length technical discussion of the potential medical applications..." and has published lots of peer-reviewed papers and 4 books - according to this source. His "expert" opinion is referenced in some articles, i.e. here and here .--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Scientists in business or independent scholars are more difficult to rate than academics on the tenure track. I lean to a keep based on the above discussion. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2023 (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.