Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Ceyer

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. W.marsh 16:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvia Ceyer

nn professor, only 114 unique google hits [1], awards do not seem notable for scope of a notable professor, publications are just academic journals Giant onehead 04:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Associate head of department & named Chair in the MIT Chemistry department, multiple papers in Science and high-profile chemistry journals. Espresso Addict 05:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a fellow of the National Academy of Science is a sign of notability. Besides, she is doing some really cool science. http://www.foresight.org/updates/Update10/Update10.4.html puts it this way: "atoms and molecules can indeed be added to a workpiece by hammering them against it, and they can be pre-processed to enhance their reactivity." --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Because the National Academy of Science and its counterparts in other fields and in other countries (such as the Académie française) exist to recognize notability, it would be a worthwhile project to create articles on current and former members of those academies who do not already have an article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:PROF could do with expanding to state which learned society memberships constitute notable awards or honours. Espresso Addict 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think being a member of the NAS automatically confers notability and the academic record does not make it clear that she has it otherwise. Eusebeus 16:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Being elected to the NAS recognizes notabiility rather than conferring it. The article states: "Election to membership is one of the highest honors that can be accorded to a scientist and recognizes scientists who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research." Arguing otherwise is not a productive use of anyone's time. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She is not merely a member of the NAS, she is also chair of its chemistry section. One does not achieve that position without being notable in his or her field. -- Rglovejoy 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep - per Rglovejoy. --mathewguiver 21:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So do we have a consensus for a keep? -- Rglovejoy 03:33, 5 October 2006 (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.