Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lazarsfeld
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The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator) (non admin closure) Sven Manguard Talk 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Lazarsfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Sven Manguard Talk 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, "R-Lazarsfeld" gets an awful lot of citations according to Google Scholar. Do you have an explanation for this? Abductive (reasoning) 03:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Publish or perish. The man has been around for a while, so has had to produce a lot of academic papers. That in and of itself fails the guidelines set at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I checked the website, and I did a news and a general search on top of the scholar search. He has published a lot of papers, but every professor publishes a lot of papers. I don't know what to say, other that that notability tends to focus a lot on quality over quantity. Finally, as I don't see his CV on his website, I can't tell if he has any honors or positions not mentioned in the page. Certainly I didn't see any in the searches I did. Hope this helps. Sven Manguard Talk 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He has published a large number of much-cited papers. I think he is notable. —bender235 (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 03:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how you reached the conclusion that he is "much-cited." I'm not doubting it or confriming it, I just want to know how you're determining how often he is sourced. Sven Manguard Talk 03:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the little "cited by" numbers at the bottom of each entry in this search. Those are fairly big numbers for mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how you reached the conclusion that he is "much-cited." I'm not doubting it or confriming it, I just want to know how you're determining how often he is sourced. Sven Manguard Talk 03:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to the very likely pass of WP:PROF#C1 based on the citation numbers, he also passes #C5 as the holder of a named chair. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. To put a number onto the comments above, the GS h index is 31, pretty high for a mathematician, so obviously a pass by a mile of WP:PROF#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Withdrawn You learn something new every day. Today it was h-ratings, and that citation number at the bottom of the scholar search. I never would have guessed that the man was important at all from reading the article though. Someone needs to rescue that mess. Sven Manguard Talk 04:45, 28 October 2010 (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.