Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Schauer

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. While the !vote appears to be close, DGG's arguments have more weight and logic to them. The debate has been up for almost one whole month; it's time to close it up. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Schauer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this individual meets notability guidelines. Coverage provided in the article is mainly primary sources that do not establish notability. There is this WaPo article, but it doesn't focus on him in great detail, and it's about all I can find. The initial contributor of the article is Davidaschauer (talk · contribs). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, though I was initially inclined otherwise when I saw his pubs in Pubmed (with him as senior author in NEJM, etc). Looking beyond the obviously-personal touches in the article that need to be removed, the subject just doesn't rise to the level of notability by WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. -- Scray (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
changed to Keep - DGG's argument below is compelling. -- Scray (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Widely quoted as an expert on radiation issues e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being widely quoted and receiving significant coverage aren't the same thing. Those articles only significantly cover radiation issues, and don't discuss Schauer in any great detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, that's why it's only a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's why it should be delete, though. Being quoted as an expert on a subject doesn't make one notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed thoughts about this one. Although he is an expert, he does not seem to be a groundbreaker; it seems more that he is knowledgeable than that he has advanced the sciences. The article lacks sourcing for most of the content, which would require serious trimming if the article is kept. If kept, the article so far as I can tell will show he knows his stuff, had a responsible job which he executed without incident, and that's all I can see. I am sorry, but I have to lean to Delete. Killer Chihuahua 10:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relevant criterion is WP:PROF, which is an alternative to the GNG. Widely quoted as an authority meets it specifically by standard 1, an authority in his field. The standard was adopted because otherwise the usual secondary sources are not available in this field. The relative status of the GNG and the speciality guidelines depends on which guideline. WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative to WP:BIO. and the GNG. Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. The publications and quotations are verifiable, and that is sufficient. Incidentally, I would be very reluctant to be more restrictive than David E in this field of science) DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was on the fence and had to think about this. But then happily read DGG's analysis, which I find convincing. Therefore, keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a vanity page for someone who has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability test in WP:GNG. Also the publications listed are not his own work, but of others working for the same organisation, so fails criteria in WP:PROF as well. --Phazakerley (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.