Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Friedan

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. Courcelles 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Friedan[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h index of 22 and thousands of cites. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Being a MacArthur Fellow is already sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF#C2; also has a major prize from the American Physical Society - so certainly passes WP:PROF#C1 as well. Nsk92 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MacArthur Fellows can be presumed to be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (Google scholar citation counts 1794, 1012, 796, etc, about ten times higher than would convince me) and #C2 (the Onsager prize). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:David Eppstein — Finemann (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2011 (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.