Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robijn Bruinsma

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. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robijn Bruinsma[edit]

Non-notable, possible COI as autobiography —G716 <^T·_C> 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems, to me, to pass WP:ACADEMIC. I guess it could be COI, but I see no special evidence. Maybe I'm missing something. Tim Ross (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two papers with 100+ citations in Google scholar, but he's listed in a middle position in both of them. The strongest claim to notability seems to be the APS fellowship — how selective are they? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say full professor of physics at a strong physical science school like UCLA is a pretty strong claim to notability too. --C S (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of Ghits, many papers in Google Scholar, several of them cited many times (even disregarding the two papers noted by David Eppstein above). Several important honors ("Distinguished Lecturer, College de France" is very selective and nothing to spit at), Full Professor at a major US University AND Department Chair at a major European University, 44 papers in Web of Science, cited a total of more than 1400 times, h index of 19 (and only a few citations away from 20), etc. How is this not notable? Don't see any evidence of COI. Article could use some more detail and the list of pubications is excessively long (looks more like a complete list than "selected"...) --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Crusio. Selected publications section ought to go IMHO, preferably in favor of expansion of the short description of his research into a section describing the impact of his work on the field. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crusio. Even if one takes out the two 100+ citation papers mentioned by David Eppstein, the citation record for the remaining papers still looks impressive. I do agree that the selected publications section should be either significantly trimmed or deleted altogether. Nsk92 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2008 (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.