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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Spielmann (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)

Does not meet WP:BLP. The mentioned award itself is not notable. Cheers AKS 07:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC#1, stellar citation data (over 11,000 citations and an h-index of 48). Award is indeed not notable, but who cares with this kind of citation evidence. Given his standing, finding more sources should be possible and expansion of this too-small stub is highly desirable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above. A totally misguided and time wasting nomination. A trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. Fine, the consensus can be otherwise but it cannot be termed as trout. Before you get judgemental & personal, I strongly suggest that you a) Check the time stamp of the nomination and what state the article was in (no in use tag) b) AfD discussion page from any day and how many nominations are voted as Keep. No one gets personal there and c) Other editing work that I have done that has positively contributed to Wikipedia. Please refrain from using such harsh language. You are making this sound as if every nomination should result into a delete - else its a waste of time???? I don't think so. Cheers AKS 06:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, what he is saying that its a waste of time to nominate an article without looking into GS first. And no one denies that you have many positive contributions, besides nominations. Not to mention, no one is being harsh, some folks just got annoyed that every time someone writes a BLP article, the user is greeted with Speedy deletion or PROD. My advice, check GS, then if in doubt PROD it, no one will just you if you will follow this simple rule: GS first; nomination second. :)--Mishae (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Thanks Mishae. As I stated earlier, at the time of nomination, the article had only one line, making it difficult for anyone to determine notability + the article did not have in use tag, which the author should have placed if the article was under development. I am sure you will agree with me that the responsibility of writing an article correctly and fully lies with the author and not on the person patrolling it / nominating it. Having said that, I would also like to mention that this nomination was not done randomly; but yes, we all can still be more cautious in the future. What I did not appreciate is Xxanthippe getting personal with this issue (check my talkpage). If a process can be improved, one can be told politely (like you did, which was well received). And we all, being experienced editors have to accept the fact that not every nomination will result into page deletion - that's the whole point of having layers of reviews, editors and independent views. Over an above everything, your suggestion very well taken and in future I will be more cautious of this. Discussions have and will take place. Thanks for your time. Cheers AKS 08:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're wrong about the fact that the 1 line article and the absence of an "in use" tage justified an AfD. To start with, the 1 line contained enough sourced information to immediately see that this is a very notable person. In addition, you are mistaken that it is not the nom's duty to check notability, see WP:BEFORE. Even if the stub had not been sourced correctly, you should have checked for notability before nominating it (and indeed wasting our time on an unnecessary nomination). I agree with Xxanthippe: this nomination deserves a trout. --Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, incidentally just now I noticed a new page Rahul Trehan (A.A.P volunteer) and nominated it for Speedy deletion. Now, if I have to go by what I have been accused of, this page will stay on Wikipedia for weeks to come before someone deletes it. We must understand that the nominators are not the people increasing the work, it is the wrong articles that are increasing the workload. Cheers AKS 08:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I do think that the article should be kept, I think there is a certain amount of abuse of citation numbers going on in this discussion (and in the article as well), and the case for trouting does not seem so strong to me. In experimental physics, it is not unusual for hundreds of individuals to coauthor the same paper. In the first pages of results on Google scholar, he is not the primary author. Even so, he clearly does hold a respectable h-index even as a primary author, so I would grant him a pass under criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. (However, I would remove the statement from the article about his Google scholar citation number as grossly misleading WP:OR. Search index results are not usually thought of as reliable sources for this very reason.) I agree that the awards are not significant enough to qualify as fulfilling criterion 2. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of coauthors have not contributed to the subject's papers. The largest number I can find is ten. The editor may be thinking of high energy groups, and the subject does not work in one. The pattern of coauthoship here is pretty standard for a laser optics group. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• • O.K. I removed the Original Research part (was bad on my part).--Mishae (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have re-reverted that. Getting citation data from performing a search and then hand tallying stuff is OR. However, in this case, we cite a Google Scholar profile, which has a stable URL and is not a search result. That is not OR at all. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but citation metrics, like h-index are constantly changing and depend upon the database used. We do not conventionally list such information in an article, unless the subject reaches some externally-recognized milestone, for example a WoS "highly cited researcher" (as in the case of Daniel D. Joseph). This sentence should probably be redacted. Agricola44 (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Actually, this kind of information can be found in quite a few articles. And, yes, it changes from time to time. So do impact factors, but still we list them in journal articles and try to update all of them every year... In the present case, this is clearly sourced to GS, with a publicly accessible link, so I don't see the problem with citing it and mentioning it in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per WP:ACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per stellar citation record. A complete failure of WP:BEFORE by the nom. -- 101.119.29.9 (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. To add to the overwhelming evidence above, WoS shows an h-index of 42 with citation counts: 1313, 654, 545, 519, 514,...The assessment seems conclusive. Perhaps the nom would consider withdrawing AfD to save others some time. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2014 (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.