Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollin C Thomas


 * 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.  Singu larity  07:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollin C Thomas

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

Rollin is not (yet?) a particularly famous astrophysicist. (I'm sure he will be someday, but not now.) He doesn't even have a tenured position. And he himself has expressed the opinion that he's not really worthy of a page in Wikipedia. (While it's true that he loves his Chumby, he considers the persistence of this statement on his page as proof of the previous statement.) So we should probably delete this page. No offense intended to the original author. . . I know both of them. Mk421 (talk)
 *  Speedy Keep  Delete per Rcthomas3000. Seems notable enough. If there is misinformation in the article, the article should be improved, not deleted.  Felis Leo Talk! 07:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Define "notable enough." I am not saying there is misinformation. I'm saying that Wikipedia will grow a lot if we make a page for every postdoc. Mk421 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't come close to satisfying WP:PROF right now. (He may do at some point in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Scog (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PROF.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the discoverer of several supernovae he is notable. Dloh   cierekim  23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC) <>
 * Switch to weak keep per DGG Dloh  cierekim  14:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article says he discovered several supernovae, but this isn't verified (where are their names even?). In an age when supernova searches are increasingly automated and depend on high performance computing, collaboratively-written software tools, and international collaborations, who in these groups can be credibly credited as "the" discoverer of a supernova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.142.242 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SZF (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Rcthomas3000 (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He works in a collaboration on an experiment that discovers many supernovae -- that's the point of the experiment. It's not like he's out discovering these on his own, there's a long list of contributors credited on each one. Search ATel or IAUC for a list. This does not make him notable, it's his job. Mk421 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I am a little bothered by this article also, & the photograph gives an unfortunate impression, but there are a good many papers for a post doc, the work seems not all just descriptive, there are a reasonable number of cites, and I think this is over the bar. The relevant link for his actual peer-reviewed papers is That we do not make an article for every postdoc does not imply that we do not make an article for any of them. DGG (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you decide to keep the page I'll have to take a better picture. Mk421 (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dear all, please let me comment on several of the points adressed here. It seems that this article has to be kept if R.C.Thomas is "notable". within the bounds of what defines someone as notable for wikipedia, I think that he is clearly "not notable" enough (yet) for a wikipedia page.
 * He fails WP:PROF test
 * Being in the same field as R.C. Thomas, I concur with Mk421 that being part of a collaboration he can not be counted as "the" discoverer of several supernovae. Shall we make one wikipedia page per postdoc who was in any particle physic experiment that discovered a new particle? I think not: if you count postdocs and grad students, that's probably over 1000 persons, and will soon be an even larger number.
 * DGG says that he has a "good many paper for a post doc" and that there is "a reasonable number of cites". Since this statement is not really quantitative I am unsure about how over the bar is defined. Nevertheless, if you compare to other astronomy postdocs, even if he is not bellow average, I don't think that he can be qualified as special.
 * The bar above which someone is notable should be thought carefully: do you think wikipedia is the place for any single postdoc, grad student, etc, to have his vita. If wikipedia is an encyclopedia, R.C. Thomas should wait several years before getting his article. On the other hand, if we are talking about a collaborative yearbook, matters are different.
 * Delete. I'm the subject of this article.
 * Strongest reason seems to be Wikipedia's own standards in WP:PROF.
 * The claim that I "discovered several supernovae" is just inaccurate, and so that probably should be removed from the article, and also therefore the "keep" from Dlohcierekim is non-sequitir. To be clear, since our project is a group effort I can't claim sole discoverership of any supernova, it's a team effort -- and that discussion belongs in another article.
 * I find DGG's comments on my publication record a little generous -- especially since the list wasn't restricted to first-author publications. In general I'd caution against using citation counts as a metric of notability -- at best it's valid only in a relative sense, and that analysis hasn't been presented.
 * ::Comment A plate of cookies to Rcthomas3000 for his humility. Very refreshing.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree with Fabrictramp ! Rcthomas3000 deserves at least the plate of cookies. Wonderfully humble response. (Perhaps that, in itself, is worth an article!)  Tim Ross   (talk)  21:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rcthomas3000. A relatively junior academic (was a postdoc as of 2007, PhD 2003); will probably merit a separate WP article in a few years but not yet. Nsk92 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF yet, by the subject's own comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per Rcthomas3000. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Utterly fails WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2008 (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.