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. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lu[edit]

Peter Lu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Peter Lu is surely no more notable than any post-doc research scientist working in a university. This reads more like a resume--a means for Peter Lu to attain publicity for himself--than a genuinely informative piece on a noteworthy figure. If articles like this are allowed, where do we draw the line? Should any academic who's ever published be entitled to an entry? Blahdrone (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should just point out that there have been a number of accusations leveled on the article Talk page that Lu created this article, when in fact the edit history clearly shows it was created by User:JRSpriggs. And now we have a new user creating an account just to try and get the article deleted, based on more of the same accusations. assume good faith and examine the references, rather than make unfounded accusations of self-promotion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepDelete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact is promising, with even a Science piece (co-authored with well-known professor Paul Steinhardt; with only 16 citations in Google Scholar), but some time is still needed to establish notability in my opinion. Has a good chance of attaining notability in the future, but is not yet at that stage.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Meets WP:BIO, as shown by John Z below.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since not enough notability. May I add that claims like "Lu's work with medieval Islamic tilings received substantial worldwide news coverage" need a better reference than the subject's own resume on his employer's website. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough notability at present. Perhaps in future this article can be resurrected. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Initially I thought this would be a straight forward case of a non-notable scientist that should be deleted, but after a little hunting I'm confused, and need some advice before making decision -- this is a tricky case. Although Peter Lu is just a regular postdoc, based on his average number and citation level of publications, he does appear to qualify for notability under WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACADEMIC based on his discovery of a “significant new concept”, creation of work that has been the “subject of several independent periodicals” and the “significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources”. Searching with Google identified many mentions of this individual by name, both on academic websites, scienctific[1] and popular press,[2] news[3][4][5] and radio station[6][7] websites. But are these mentions significant enough? Any views? ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- clearly notable enough, based on the comments listed here! ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (ec) The discovery of ancient Penrose tilings did get a lot of press, quite arguably enough for the notability of a discoverer. This profile, this NPR interview and gnews searches "Peter J. Lu" or "Peter Lu" tiling go toward satisfying WP:BIO and WP:PROF # 7. Lu is clearly much more notable - at least 30-40 or more gnews hits on this Peter Lu - than just "any post-doc research scientist working in a university."John Z (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Z. Postdocs are almost never notable, I guess this is the exception that confirms the rule. Publication and citation record is perhaps not yet up to WP:ACADEMIC, but the third-party coverage is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. The article needs cleanup, though (remarks like "unprecedented success", "landmark paper"). The article history is weird, with quite a lot of vandalism, so the article should be watchlisted by several people after cleanup to keep it in a decent state. --Crusio (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but scrub for WP:Notability in article content. I agree with Crusio. The WP:Academic criteria is on the edge, but WP:BIO seems to be close if not satisfied itself. Putting the two together is a keep for me. The article verges on peacocking right now though, and should be toned down. WP should not be a CV, but it should provide some context for notable individuals. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per notable RS cited above, including NPR, BBC, Chicago Tribune, etc. However, there is some peacockery and I've tagged the article for same.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough notability at present. Minor references on a few news websites to scientific discoveries made by some obscure scientist in an obscure field do not (or at least should not) qualify for notability. There may not be enough evidence to suggest this was written by Peter Lu. But it was quite clearly written by someone who knows him (see mention of where he grew up, for instance; this kind of information is not in any of the references). 131.111.243.37 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Might I add that mention on news websites does not meet notability requirements in either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. 131.111.243.37 (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but this IP nominated the article for deletion under a different name. The IP address 131.111.243.37 at Cambridge University and Blahdrone appear to be one and the same. If so, this could be construed as engaging in WP:sockpuppetry by attempting to support your own Afd. Or am I mistaken? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please reply at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/131.111.243.37 Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article reads like a C.V but the sources presented here and the references section seems to establish the notability of the subject. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is famous work within the subject field. The article shows the notability from the general notice to this even from out of the speciality. A post doc if he makes a notable discovery can be notable. People nowadays tend to stay at that stage for longer and longer periods in some fields. It can even happen to a graduate student, & we have one or two articles here where the student had sufficient attention from the media DGG (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I read Peter Lu's article in SCIENCE on Girih tiles and I was impressed. I improved the article on them and corresponded with Peter for a while about that subject. I created an article on him as an extension of the article on Girih tiles. Although I am not currently working on this subject, I see nothing to be gained by deleting this article and making the information about him inaccessible to those who are curious about him. If the article is deleted and he becomes notable in the future, all this work will have to be done over again. (By the way, I am not Peter Lu and had never heard of him before I read his article.) JRSpriggs (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the person is notable. Green Squares (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Lu is notable. Besides his extraordinary papers, he has been included in book chapters and given interviews on TV and on radio. There is also no evidence that he edits this page (see editing history). In fact I edit this page once in a while (and some other people have identified themselves as founder/editors of the page). All the information on his wikipedia site are consistent with the information on his website (CV etc). The page should stay at wikipedia. 18.62.15.212 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I also think he is notable (publications, media coverage, etc)24.91.152.78 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2009 (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.