Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Peumans

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a consensus that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF, partially per the argument presented by David Eppstein around WP:PROF#C1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Peumans[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Peter Peumans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet criteria of WP:NACADEMICS Although has plenty of citations, no independent coverage. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a tricky one because he does clearly meet WP:PROF#C1 for his academic citations but has left academia and the article is almost entirely about his post-academic career. Or more to the point, what's there uses his post-academic career as a WP:SOAPBOX to branch off into a lot of stuff that isn't about him at all. So what's there is not notable and what's notable isn't there. If this is kept it needs to be stubbed down, but even to do that would require having a little in-depth sourcing on his academic career; we can't base an article on citation counts alone. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 03:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Updated article and added doi sources. [1][2]

Jacobmcpherson (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Articles by the subject of the article don't usually demonstrate notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Peumans, Peter; Uchida, Soichi; Forrest, Stephen R. (2003). "Efficient bulk heterojunction photovoltaic cells using small-molecular-weight organic thin films". Nature. 425 (6954): 158–162. doi:10.1038/nature01949. ISSN 0028-0836.
  2. ^ Peumans, Peter; Yakimov, Aharon; Forrest, Stephen R. (2003). "Small molecular weight organic thin-film photodetectors and solar cells". Journal of Applied Physics. 93 (7): 3693–3723. doi:10.1063/1.1534621. ISSN 0021-8979.
  • Delete per WP:TNT. The immediate restoration of the problematic promotionalism after XOR'easter removed it does not inspire confidence in me that this can be kept in a good state without long-term protection and a sufficient number of watchlisters, and I don't really see the point in making that effort for what is at best a borderline academic permastub. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It includes a citation from VRT, one of the national publications of Belgium Jacobmcpherson (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject was also assigned a Wikidata number (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q88385220), and no alternatives to the proposed text have been presented Jacobmcpherson (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You only need to say "keep" once. Being assigned a Wikidata number is not evidence of notability; it just means that a Wikipedia article exists. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources about the company say little to nothing about Peumans as a person. No indication that Peumans passes WP:PROF for his time in academia or WP:GNG for his work after. There's an argument to be made that he passes WP:PROF#C1 on citations alone, but this is one of those cases where there is so little to say apart from the citation record that writing an article on that basis would be well-nigh impossible. There's no indication of passing WP:PROF on other counts (which would help us say what was actually meaningful about his academic career based on the judgment of his community), nor is there any indication of passing WP:GNG for his work after. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepHe is heavily cited on Google Scholar - [1]. According to several sources, he developed several efficient solar cell device architectures and contributed to the current understanding of the mechanisms present in organic solar cells. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jacobmcpherson: As you have already been told, the AfD procedure only allows one boldfaced opinion per editor. If you have additional points to make that you missed in your previous comments, you can make them, but not with a new "keep" opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Articles for deletion/Peter Peumans publications indexed by Google Scholar
  • Delete Assistant professors who quit or otherwise leave are held to a high standard indeed for WP:NPROF. The activities for the company don't look to yet be notable. Comment that there are signs of WP:PAIDCOI. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Peumans&oldid=949018522"