Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saul Adelman


 * 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. Mfield (Oi!) 06:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Saul Adelman

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

Non-notable Person. I can find no sources to back up anything in this article; this search is particularly telling. Oo7565 (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Everything in the article seems easily verifiable; I have no worries in that regard. I linked to his dissertation and website for verification.  Very little is claimed in the article; There is something to be said for a publication record of 308 papers. (I'm of course out of my element in professional astronomy, but such a publication record seems to establish notability in my eyes.)  --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure just what search the nominator thinks to be particularly telling.  Google Scholar is eloquent enough to me: . That;s just his own publications, not the references to them. As for the refences  Clearly an authority in his field. (note that a few in my search are by SW Adelson, an economist, but almost all are him)DGG (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. 300 publications and the best he can muster is one with 35 citations in Google scholar? It is not difficult to find papers on similar subjects with ten times that (e.g. 10.1086/305126). To me this seems a clear sign that he has not been making an impact, and there is no evidence of passing the other WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I agree with David Eppstein that the citations on Google Scholar alone are not enough. I also checked WorldCat and it does not look very promising – most widely held item, seems to be a book or report, in only 54 libraries. But when you look at this Google Books search, it goes some way toward meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed) based on his leadership in the field; the entries suggest that he chaired high profile committees, organized important academic meetings etc. All combined, pubs+citations+leadership = weak keep, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:04, 6 April 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.