Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M. Treichel
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.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul M. Treichel
Likely non notable academic, no information provided to set this person apart from any other chemistry professor. Sorted as part of Wikipedia: Wikiproject Notability. Daniel J. Leivick 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, accomplished academic but not really more notable than average, from what I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Not an informative article, probably done by an unsophisticated student. but he is Helfaer Professor of Chemistry at the University of Wisconsin a named full professorship at one of the principal universities of the world. People don't get there without multiple reviews of their work by their peers, included at least 3 major ones that judged him worthy of being promoted at a major university to the highest rank a university can offer. No "average scientist" gets anywhere near that. the publication of more then 170 papers in scientific journals. WebofScience finds 178, of which the five most cited have been cited 224, 161, 157, 126, and 119 times, with 10 articles altogether having over 100 citations. 40 publications cited 41 times or more, an h-factor of 40. Fifteen papers in Journal of the American Chemical Society, the top general chemistry journal in the world. Sixty-one in Journal of Organometallic Chemistry, 32 in Inorganic Chemistry. each the top specialized journal in their fields. This is clear evidence of acceptance by his peers as a notable body of work.
- (He also wrote a widely used textbook, a separate consideration of notability)
- I don't expect everyone to have access to WebofScience, but everyone does have access to Google Scholar, which shows much the same. The people sorting in Wikiproject Notability should know enough to judge the subject , not the article--the project page WP:WPNN says very clearly to check beyond the article, to include Google Scholar, and to use deletion as the last resort. DGG (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The long pub list and named chair at good research university would already be enough for a weak keep from me, but a textbook that has gone through six editions is widely used enough to pass WP:PROF by itself, I think, and it's easy to find course syllabi at many institutions that use it. The article serves an encyclopedic purpose as it's likely that students using his text would look him up. —David Eppstein 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Strong body of work, published in high-quality journals. Espresso Addict 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- 'Keep per David Eppstein, Espresso Addict, et al. Bearian 21:32, 17 July 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.
