Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Gaspard

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Gaspard[edit]

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

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

Does not meet GNG. Barbara ✐ ✉ 13:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because a) he has a high h-index of over 50 on Google Scholar, b) he won the Francqui Prize, ~~and c) he is a member of 4 major learned societies.~~ I think this is enough to meet WP:PROF easily, especially a) which allows a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. Everymorning talk to me 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking point c) since it appears that membership in major learned societies is not enough but fellowship is; this distinction has honestly always seemed kind of arcane to me. Points a) and b) as well as my keep vote itself still stand. Everymorning talk to me 17:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that arcane, though the details vary from one learned society to another and have to be checked in each case. Generally, anybody who works in the field can be a member. For example, I joined the APS when I was an undergraduate. On the other hand, being elected a fellow of the APS means that the Society recognizes you as having made "exceptional contributions to the physics enterprise; e.g., outstanding physics research, important applications of physics, leadership in or service to physics, or significant contributions to physics education" [1]. Not every learned society handles the terminology in exactly the same way. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His citation record is more than enough to qualify per WP:PROF#C1, and the Francqui Prize counts for WP:PROF#C2. Merely being a member (as opposed to a Fellow) of the various societies doesn't count, but in this case, notability is already established so that doesn't matter. XOR'easter (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. Very convincing pass of WP:PROF, which the nominator doesn't appear to have considered. – Joe (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Membership in those other societies is not notable (and accordingly I've removed it from the article) but membership in the Royal Academy of Science, Letters and Fine Arts of Belgium does pass #C3. Given that he also passes #C1 and #C2, the outcome should be clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clear pass of WP:PROF; notable in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NPROF criteria 2 and 3. The Royal Academy is something you're elected to. Natureium (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:NPROF. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:23, 4 July 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.