Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luboš Motl

This is an article about a living person with no notable accomplishments. Lubos Motl set up this article by himself (user Lumidek who created this article is identified as Lubos Motl). Then, the article was created on the Czech wikipedia based on this article. Lubos Motl claims to have published articles in Czech press, however his letters to the editors are of no or minor importance and are mostly published on web servers or by minor media. Dahramon 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AfD nomination resulted in a "Keep". It closed in January 2006.

Delete Luboš Motl as autobiographical. --Ng.j 15:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As I write, all of User:Dahramon's 4 edits are relate to Luboš Motl, three to this AfD and one to removing his name from Matrix string theory. Hmmm. There are lots of people who strongly dislike Dr Motl; I suspect we'll see lots of them voting here. CWC 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I don't like the idea of autobiography, however I think he's notable enough. Apple •_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His actual physics work seems notable, and I would say that a physicist "prepared ti defend the Bogdanov brothers' papers in public" is notable all the more, in a perverse way.DGG 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Luboš Motl's accomplishments are mostly self-reported or originate in references leading back to the Wikipedia article on him. All PhD.s are expected to publish articles.--This is a result of compliance with academic standards and is not enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article without a substantial peer review. His self-made claims to authorship of Matrix string theory are not backed up by his authorship of the key paper that the article refers to. His authorship is ascertained, again, based on claims made on his numerous autobiographical pages and own blogs. There is only a minimal evidence of peer review of his theoretical work on the internet. There is no evidence of Luboš Motl's practical/experimental accomplishments. --Dahramon 05:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Dahramon (talk • contribs) has made no edits outside this topic as of 13:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC). CWC[reply]

"all PhDs are expected to publish articles" yes, and the N as an academic will depend on the number and quality and citedness. The necessary peer review of accomplishments is precisely that found in the peer review of the articles, and the later review of the body of work by academic peer committees.

The review of his work was performed by the Harvard Physics Department when they appointed him. WP just records it. I note that it was as Assistant Professor, so this is not quite automatic. DGG 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page only got worse since the last VfD. WP does not need to be the place where personal conflicts get expressed and there doesn't seem (yet) to be not much of notability outside of them. Pavel Vozenilek 09:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two recent String Theory text books contain endorsements from Motl. This would not have been sought if they did not consider him notable. Cgoakley 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - slightly notable, also AfD initiatior also seems to be a puppet account with a personal agenda +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy is not very distinguished. For a physicist to be noted he should have won a significant prize or as a popularizer physicist should at least have some notable popular work. It's not clear that he has either a significant readership or important contributions to the field. Viz 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cgoakley, appears to be notable within his field and meets WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 08:27, 4 April 2007 (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.