Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence Rudolph


 * 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. Secret account 18:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Terence Rudolph

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

Non-notable scientist Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —Nsk92 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete no physicist by this name listed in arXiv. DGG (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think it is a hoax. There is a 2008 article in Nature by him which identifies him as a physics professor at the Imperial College. The college's website confirms this. He may be one of the older professors who has not written much in a while which would explain the absence of papers in arXiv. Nsk92 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I did a search of the WebOfScience and found only five papers, that appear to be by him, dated 1995, 1998, 1998, 1999 and 2008 (the last is the article in Nature mentioned above), with citation hits of 19, 6, 11, 1, 0. No significant citability here and no other evidence of passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Neutral for the moment, per Scog's comments below. Indeed, there was a problem with the spelling of the name (in fact, my WoS search was for "Rudolph T G", including his middle initial, as a seach for "Rudolph T*" produces a bit of a phonebook there, with lots of false positives; WoS does not allow for actual first name search but only for initials). When I searched WoS for individual publications, some highly cited papers do come up, such a 2005 paper in Nature "Experimental one-way quantum computing" (218 hits) and a 2005 papers in  Physical Review Letters "Resource-efficient linear optical quantum computation". Basically, I think that, together with Scog's search results below, this does make him pass criterion 1 of WP:PROF. However, his webpage at Imperial makes it unclear if his position there is permanent. In his "Acdemic bio" he says the following about his position at Imperial College since 2003:"Thanks to an Advanced Fellowship from the EPSRC, I am now a member of the physics faculty at Imperial College, London. (Yep, I now have my own graduate students to try and make miserable...)" Not sure what this means exactly. In general, I also think that the current state of the article is too unsatisfactory, so as to almost look hoaxy. If someone a little bit familiar with physics can expland it to a more satisfactory stub, it would probably deserve to be kept. Otherwise I am not sure that it isn't doing more harm than good in its current shape. Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Week keep: a bit of Googling turned up his homepage and academic bio, which suggests that he generally publishes as Terry Rudolph, so the previous searches for Terence Rudolph missed a lot of publications. Searching for Terry Rudolph on ADS gives 87 abstracts , with a total of ~1000 citations, including a couple of 100+ citation papers, although his  h-index is only 15. For me, this puts him on the borderline of notability under WP:PROF, point #1, and so if pushed I'd probably err on the side of keeping the article. Scog (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Commenters should also take into account that not all publications have been fully digitized yet, and that relying solely on internet database searches for someone who published before the internet era is likely to miss a lot of hits. - Mgm|(talk) 13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as it turns out, this is a fairly young researcher (PhD 1998) and all of his publications are 1998 or later, so very much in the internet era. Nsk92 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Article needs improvement. My weak keep recommendation is for the reasons presented by Scog, plus the fact that the News and Views paper in Nature seems to be a groundbreaking new look at a known phenomenon. It seems to have attracted quite a lot of attention. On the other hand, this Nature paper seems to be a commentary on a study that was not performed by him.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete He's not the lead author on most of "his" articles, because he's not the lead researcher on most of "his" articles, because he's a young scientist in a field that demands a lot of depth for notability. The article is not a good source of information on him, because there is not much to say, except that he probably will be researching in a hot area of physics.  When he does that, and writes it up as the lead researcher, there will be plenty of information to use to write a good article about a notable (on other than his own web page) scientist.  --69.225.11.246 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- Getting an article published in Nature (which is the leading scientific journal dealing with new discoveries, implies that his discovery is notable. I would suggest that indicates that the discoverer is notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the article presents an evidence of scientific notability or proves that Terry Rudolph and Terrence Rudolph or whatever are one and the same person. Twri (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable, unverified. Top  Gear  Freak  17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - one article in Nature is not enough to pass WP:PROF.--Boffob (talk) 18:01, 4 December 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.