Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Stephan

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. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friedrich Stephan

Friedrich Stephan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Stephan is the discoverer of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (the "body clock") and undoubtedly passes WP:PROF — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep notable... even without an assertion of notability... imagine that.--Buridan 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep One indication of probable bad faith is the the nom choose to nominate only the FSU professors who were holders of Named professorships and distinguished chairs. Not all FSU faculty are distinguished. Many are at earlier stages of their career where they are not yet distinguished. Many would not be N by WP standards. For many I would not keep a WP article if there were one written. But all those nominated here have been from the top level. DGG 03:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

see my comment just above. DGG 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The "reference" for the alleged discovery is just a link to some other academic's resume, and the only other reference is unavailable without a site membership. Notability isn't established yet, in my opinion. fbb_fan 15:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It would have been more constructive to fix the first reference, as I just did, than to bitch about it here. And why must the second reference be freely available on the net to count as a reference? It's publically available to anyone capable of walking into a public university library. —David Eppstein 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please see WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette and WP:CIVIL. fbb_fan 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • (Response copied from my talk page): It was not intended as incivility, merely constructive criticism. I attempted to suggest a course of action that would, I think, lead to a greater amount of improvement to WP than the (inherently destructive although necessary) AfD process: edit, when an edit is obvious and easy, instead of using someone else's failure to make that edit as an argument against an article. It was not intended as an insult against you, merely a disagreement with your course of action, and if the way I worded it led you to interpret it in any other way I apologize. —David Eppstein 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. His 1972 PNAS paper has 300 citations in Google scholar, and his research made the mainstream media in 1992 (I added a reference to a newspaper article from the time quoting him). —David Eppstein 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a factually accurate assertion of notability in the article, including references, and this is far more notable that at least 75% of the professor stubs that are added to wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.216.26 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

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.