Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Frank


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve Frank

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Of the thousands of professors in the US, no reason given why this one is notable. SolidPlaid 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PROF. This person, based on the article is not regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. He has also not published a significant and well-known academic work as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per, Siva1979. Jauerback 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, has published three books through Princeton Univ. Press; Guggenheim Fellow in 1995. NawlinWiki 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are dozens and dozens of these Guggenheim Fellowships awarded every year. Are the books for the lay market? SolidPlaid 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * why on earth would this be relevant? if they were semi-techincal would it make him less notable, or more? DGG (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above and . Subject has had academic papers published in leading journals in his field.--Sethacus 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article expanded. Could be more detailed, but should be enough to establish notability. Delete Unless the article is going to be expanded to establish notability, I think it fails WP:N and WP:PROF . bfigura (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Week Keep Per authorship and professorship. Pedro | Chat  15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:PROF. Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 16:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:PROF. 105 scientific publications, including 3 books from Princeton University press. Full professor at respected university. Guggenheim Fellowship. Far more productive as a scientist and scholar than the average college professor. Edison 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - None of this alleged notability appears on the page. If no citations appear in a few days, let's delete it. SolidPlaid 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Added the books and awards to the page, along with a citation to a review of his first book in Nature (journal). NawlinWiki 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep if Edison is right then he easily meets our notability standards. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite to establish notability/ ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article now asserts notability and has some references to demonstrate this. Ante  lan  talk  21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- Bduke 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Full professor; over 75 publications on Medline for SA Frank, some in high-impact general journals such as Nature & PNAS, others in high-quality specialist journals, including several recent reviews in high-quality journals eg Nature Reviews Genetics; also three books from a high-quality university press. Google Scholar reveals high citations of several of his papers, eg 366 citations for, 318 for his book Foundations of Social Evolution. Seems easily to meet my interpretation of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons cited by Edison, this subject meets and exceeds the WP:PROF guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:PROF. Bearian 19:06, 17 August 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.