Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jens Eisert

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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Eisert[edit]

The IP User:87.221.81.204 tagged this article for speedy deletion, claiming that it does not assert the notability of the subject. I declined this, because I believe that the first sentence of the article is an assertion of notability. However, the IP believes that the assertion is insufficient, and that the subject is actually not terribly important. I know nothing about quantum game theory, so I am taking this to AFD. Danaman5 (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough Gnews hits (in German) to satisfy me that the subject is notable. Most of the hits appear to be referring to this individual. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Known co-author mentioned in Physical Review, and a number of books on quantum theory. [1] inter alia. Collect (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A total of 19 gHits for the man's name does not seem to indicate much notability. Quantum game theory clearly exists. For Eisert to be sufficiently notable under WP:BIO or WP:PROF, though, I would think that it has to be an important concept, not merely one that exists, and Eisert would need to be shown to have been a major developer of the theory. Just calling him a "pioneer" is insufficient to my mind. He may well be deserving of an article, but this one needs more work before I'm convinced of it. Tim Ross (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His CV claims 76 publications, which is more than enough to satisfy the first criteria of WP:PROF. Many hits with Google scholar (probably about 76 unique). -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The gnews hits are enough to show WP:BIO notability, and the gscholar hits are highly cited : 217, 197, 165, 133 . . . (citations are more important than the raw number of publications). Especially so for a newish area, which is presumably notable - see our article.John Z (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), as noted by the editors above referring to citations and indep. news coverage.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable in his field. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (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.