Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard D. Robinson (engineer)

Add links
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. I am satisfied that the concern raised by The Gnome is not going to affect the very clear consensus to keep the article. Any further questions about the subject should be handled on the article's talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard D. Robinson (engineer)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Richard D. Robinson (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not my area of expertise, but as an Associate Professor in the US, this appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Associate professors aren't necessarily notable, but can be. 5404 citations and an h-index of 26 in Scopus, probably more in Google Scholar (he doesn't have a profile there), is more than enough for passing WP:PROF C1. --Tataral (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nearly half of his citations come from a 22-author review article [1] where he is not the corresponding author. An h-index of 26 is good but not exceptional for an academic in his field and at his career stage (PhD in 2004). It seems like there are other grounds for establishing notability in his case but citations and h-index alone are not exceptional.Polyharrisson (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with lenient WP:REFUND if something more develops later. Most attention seems to have come from a single event (WP:BLP1E) which seems a bit WP:run-of-the-mill, for an academic. I can't get from there to the need for a biographical article just yet. WP:TOOSOON. -- Netoholic @ 01:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF based on citation in Google Scholar as mentioned by Tataral above. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on press coverage and citations. hroest 18:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Google hits mean very little as far as Wikinotability is concerned. (See warning about Goodle scholar hits.) The criteria for academics are quite clear and specific:
  1. Must have been author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. FAILS
  2. His research must have had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. FAILS
  3. Must have received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. FAILS
  4. Must be or have been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. FAILS
  5. His academic work must have made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. FAILS
  6. Must hold or have held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. FAILS
  7. Must have held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. FAILS
  8. Must have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. FAILS
  9. Must have been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. FAILS
  10. Must be in a field of literature or the fine arts, and meet the standards for notability in that art IRRELEVANT.
- The Gnome (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable based on press coverage. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence of notability on the basis of this "coverage" per WP:NACADEMIC. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely passes WP:NACADEMIC, WP:BIO (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level)..--PATH SLOPU 13:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Path slopu What research has had a significant impact? Which highly prestigious award are you referring to? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49:Robinson works on size-, shape-, composition-, and surface-controlled nanoparticle synthesis, and nanoparticle assembly, and nanoparticle assembly for electronic and catalytic applications. His work was featured in the Cornell Chronicle, Physics Today, and R&D. He received an NSF CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation and a 3M Non-Tenured Faculty Award in 2012. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 14:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's examine the sources you just provided, Path slopu: His work ostensibly appearing in Physics Today is actually an article written by someone else about Robinson (it's here); the Cornell Chronicle is the journal of his place of work (nothing wrong with that but hardly notability material); and I have no knowledge of a journal named 'R&D'. Got any link perhaps? Thanks. (The two awards you proffered are evidence of notability are quite evidently not notable enough. One of them, listed as going to "Joshua Robinson", is simply an encouragement for early-career work, and the other one goes, explicitly, to non-tenured staff. The criteria in WP:NACADEMIC are not met.) -The Gnome (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite the alleged awards and provide sources for the alleged impact of his research per WP:NACADEMIC. Same goes for our colleagues who simply claim "notability is there". Arguing that there is proof of notability without being specific, especially when the notability has been questioned, is explicitly deemed as unacceptable in AfD discussions. See WP:JNN and WP:SOURCESEXIST. -The Gnome (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even taking into account the limitations pointed out by Polyharrison, the citation statistics as given by Tataral is quite good; I find the two separate occasions on which his work was reported on by Physics Today sufficient to demonstrate that his peer group deemed the contributions in question to be notable. Markus Pössel (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two Physics Today "separate occasions" are actually one occasion. It's the same text. One link contains a condensed format as a brief, and the other the full article. It's a single mention and WP:NACADEMIC is specific (I apologize but I have to quote it again): The subject must have been the author of either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications. Emphasis added. A couple of publications are neither several nor a substantial number; and they are in fact one publication. Not authored by him either.-The Gnome (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject passes WP:NACADEMIC, WP:BIO independent reliable sources are given: both primary and secondary. Subject also passes WP:PROF per Tataral Lubbad85 (☎) 15:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Robinson? There's something confusing about the NSF (National Science Foundation) award on which the whole notability argument is based. The Wikipedia article is about Richard Douglas Robinson, who is Associate Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Cornell University (see here). The NSF award seems to have been awarded to a Joshua Robinson (see here), Assistant Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Penn State. What is going on? -The Gnome (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Concern raised above by The Gnome need to be addressed as this affects a principal argument cited for keeping the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lubbad85. I'm not asserting that this is a delete sans the award. But I am of the opinion it should be looked at. If consensus remains substantially unchanged after 24 hrs I will reclose the discussion. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, Lubbad85. I believe that instead of "speedily keeping" the article and closing down this AfD, we should try and search what is really going on with the two Robinsons, as I pointed out in my comment above ("Which Robinson?"). The AfD may close again with a decision to keep the article, which would be fine, but the article itself should contain the most clear and correct available information as supported by reliable sources. That is supposed to be, after all, out main duty here. So, let us not rush things. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Gnome. That question can be addressed on the article talk page. I have re-opened the discussion as a courtesy to see if this issue affects the consensus. However, at the moment there is a strong consensus to keep this and if that doesn't crack over the next day or so I'm not going to keep this open just for the sake of process. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We can revisit the article's merits is the need arises. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the concerns of The Gnome about the award on the article talk page. The NSF itself lists the award, quite definitely given to this particular Prof. Robinson. Claiming there might have been some confusion (which would have amounted to the professor's own page listing the award illegitimately) on such very slim evidence as The Gnome has presented, namely that one other person with the same (not uncommon) surname has received an award of the same type, is highly problematic, I think, in particular given the high standards we are meant to apply in all things WP:BIO. Markus Pössel (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_D._Robinson_(engineer)&oldid=898897603"