Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melvyn Rubenfire

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The result was Speedy keep - withdrawn by contributor. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melvyn Rubenfire[edit]

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

Seems like a finely accomplished physician, but no 3rd party confirmation that he's particularly notable. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - per new information provided in discussion below. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep His citations at Google Scholar [1] may be enough to qualify under WP:PROF. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full professor at University of Michigan. Such people are almost always notable. Based on the information in Google Scholar, clearly an authority in his field, and therefore notable by WP:PROF. .His most cited paper has 571 references, 2nd most cited 450, then 248, 230, 210, 205 189..... h=60. Even in the medical sciences, where citation numbers are on the high side, this is an exceptional record, and meetsWP:PROF. As one would expect, U Michigan, one of the highest ranking public universities in the world, is very good at judging whether people are notable before appointing them to full professor. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An h-index of 60 is enough to establish notability under WP:NACADEMICS #1. 63.92.232.57 (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Enough highly-cited publications for WP:PROF#C1 (I only get an h-index of 45, not 60, through Google scholar, but whatever). But the bigger problem is that we need enough sources that are independent of the subject, reliably published, and in-depth, to provide the material to write an article about the subject. There's a little more about him and his works e.g. at [2] and [3] but I couldn't find much else. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per User:DGG, User:MelanieN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should settle the question of whether he is notable: the University is fundraising to establish a named professorship in his name - "the highest honor the University of Michigan can bestow upon a faculty member." I added it to the article along with some additional biographical information. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2015 (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.