Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Martinec

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. Mz7 (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Martinec

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ACADEMIC. Unable to locate significant biographic data in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication he meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He doesn't seem to have a GS profile, but a GS search for "Emil Martinec" is pretty impressive, even within the highly cited field of physics. There are nearly three pages of articles cited in the triple digits, which I think constitutes an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 (and I'd have a hard time believing that there's insufficient material for a good well-sourced entry on his work). EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. It appears that his papers' author lists are alphabetized (typical for many mathematical disciplines), so we can't infer much from author order, but his top citation counts on Google scholar are four papers with over 1000 citations each, and even his top single-author paper has 439. That's enough even in a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 with 27 papers in the triple-digit range on GS, a GS h-index of 48, and an h-index of 33 by the more restrictive criteria of SCOPUS [1]. Heterotic string theory is a major topic in theoretical physics, and their 1985 paper that introduced it has 1,297 citations in the Web of Science (and almost 2,000 by the more permissive counting of GS). The paper from the same era on the BRST quantization of superstrings has been comparably influential (1,444 citations on Web of Science, over 2,100 on GS). In academic biographies, institutional sources (e.g., the subject's current or former universities) are acceptable for uncontroversial claims. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a bit. Subject sails past WP:PROF#C1. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep with around 10,000 GS citations (when I stopped counting). Nominator is advised to do WP:Before before making more nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Individual is sufficiently notable in field, though article could use improvement Lagrime (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2018 (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.