Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley A. Klein


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Stanley A. Klein

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

Fails wp:PROF -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t13:53z 13:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 14:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Full Professor at a major University. Enough publications to pass WP:PROF. Salih  ( talk ) 14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What criteria in WP:PROF am I missing? -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:43z
 * Criterion 1; The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Scopus author profile returns this. Also, Googlebooks returns 62 hits. Salih  ( talk ) 15:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Scopus link doesn't work for me. If his work "has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", shouldn't there be RSes saying that? I missed wp:profs "When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average." which is a strange notability measurement because Berkeley had about 1900 professors 18 years ago. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-20t08:23z
 * Keep. I agree with Salih. The subject meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact clearly indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't these be citations of Klein's work in trusted sources by others, not a list of articles he's published?
 * Keep by our usual standards. I suspect most or all full professors at Berkeley will pass WP:PROF. One does not get this rank there without significant accomplishment and being known widely as an authority in the profession. I trust their ability to judge this more than our own. (OK, I admit I'm an alumnus). DGG (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Salih, Eric Yurken and DGG make valid points for keeping. Also he has passed muster of the Psychonomic Society which requires notability. Also being a senior member of SPIE. So outside of notability, what other criteria is valid for deletion? I see none. As to notability the Psychonomic Society. SPIE and Berkeley have made that distinction for us. Also Klein does in my evaluation meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). As that states “ If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable.” So why are we waste our time on this? If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable.Jlrobertson (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added comment to Keep on criteria for inclusion:
 * - The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (Klein is)
 * - The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area (Klein is a topical editor of OSV – Not Chief but close).
 * - A tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average (DDG has it right).
 * - The citations in Goggle, Scopus and at the University of California at Berkeley establish verifiability of Klein’s work.Jlrobertson (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not seeing the argument for the other criteria of WP:PROF, but (picking out the vision-related papers from Google scholar) he seems to be co-author on six papers with over 100 citations each; that's enough to convince me that he passes criterion #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 23 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.