Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Collé (2nd nomination)


 * 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 ~ Anthony  20:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Collé

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While Mr. Collé may be notable (as established by the first AfD), he ultimately fails WP:V. I cannot find a single good biographical source on him. Therefore, the article must go. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I haven't looked for a biographical source, but these five articles on Google scholar may be helpful, and I think a database of scientific literature would have more. YechielMan 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All of those sources merely mention his name in a list of people involved with some journal. In fact, it is the same exact list in each of the five sources. That most certainly is not enough to satisfy my concerns. The fact that he is mentioned is insufficent-- indeed, your Google Scholar search has convinced me that there is no real information about him anywhere on the internet. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability for researchers is typically established by their publications. People become notable scientists by writing notable research papers. That the papers are notable is established by their being published in peer-reviewed journals. The review by two or more specialists in such peer review establishes those papers as evidence of N--it serves the purpose that book reviews or reviews of films serve in other areas of interest. An appointment as senior scientist at a lab like NIST is essentially equivalent to full professor at a research university.  To get there, they pass stringent reviews by peers, including particularly peers from other institutions. This establishes notability much more strictly and reliably than we could here. The profession establishes notability; WP just records the fact.
 * In general, nobody writes magazine articles on researchers, and they don't get a biography as such until they retire or die. Therefore, since notability in each field is judged by the standard of the field, and notability in this field is established by publications and positions, their publications and positions are always considered sufficient, as is explained more fully in WP:PROF., and consistently maintained at AfD.
 * The standard there is more notable than the average. Ninety published papers is far more than the average researcher which is one per year at the most.DGG 05:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not contesting his notability; I'm contesting his verifiability. The following is from WP:PROF, some emphasis added:

If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.
 * Let's assume for a second that Ronald Collé passes the guidelines set forth in WP:N and WP:PROF. How would you go about improving and/or referencing his article? Looking at WP:PROF, I don't see any sourced evidence that meets any of the conditions set forth in that guideline. My main point is that you can't just take WP:N and ignore WP:V; you have to use them both to examine if an article is inclusion-worthy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is one of those articles which is under a person's name but is really about the person's career rather than about the person. It isn't a biography, but it merits existence as an article. Kla'quot 06:14, 28 April 2007 (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.