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 no consensus. This does not prevent redirecting/merging. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Semmel[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm afraid the subject doesn't pass the notability guidelines. He is a director at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and an academic, but the citation rates are low, there's no significant coverage, mostly only mentions. As an alternative to deletion I suggest redirect to Applied Physics Laboratory. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not pass WP:NPROF, no indication of notability in the article. --hroest 15:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF. Among the many references, most do not contribute towards GNG. Among the few that might, The Daily Record piece is not convincing to me; it looks more like a copy of a press release than an independently researched story. The Howard Community College link does not have a lot of depth about Semmel. And writing about their own alumni makes the UMBC piece's independence dubious. So the case for having multiple in-depth reliable independent works about the subject is weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is something seriously wrong with WP's notability for academics when being director of the John Hopkins APL (a hugely world-famous research centre employing over 7000 people) is considered less an indication of notability than landing the editorship of a specialist journal that hardly anyone reads, or a named chair in a university that was short of cash one year and managed to persuade a millionaire to endow something. It is much, much easier to become a named-chair professor than to become a director of a research institute of even 1/10th the prestige of this one. Elemimele (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this, and should apologise for my rather drastic rant above. Here is the more considered opinion: although Semmel appears to fail WP:NPROF, our guiding principle in all matters of notability should be: will our readers have a legitimate interest in the subject in years to come: will they have a legitimate expectation that we should be providing this information in, say, 50 years? The John Hopkins APL is so vastly influential that it is highly likely WP readers in 50 years will be looking at its article and interested in its history. They will undoubtedly ask the question "who were the men and women who guided this organisation as it supervised the human race's first proper look at Pluto (etc.)?". They will want to know the basic biographical details of APL's directors as a matter of encyclopaedic interest. We could put the biographies of the directors in the APL's own article, but in another 50 years they might have reached twelve or more directors, which would unbalance the article. Some (all) of those individuals will have had much wider careers. So it makes sense to give them individual articles. I do think this article should be kept. Elemimele (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems hard to believe that someone in this position wouldn't meet WP:NBIO, but I agree that the current sources are not sufficient. Unfortunately my searches only turned up passing mentions in interviews and Foreword sections of books. Hopefully someone can find more substantial coverage before this AfD is closed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with previous comments regarding this article. I consider that the article complies with WP:ANYBIO policy under the "additional criteria", because it satisfies points 1 and possibly 2. My understanding is that Mr. Semmel is the effective recipient of a well-known and significant honor when he was appointed to lead said institution and therefore has the notability required by the policy. His scientific research might also qualify him on the second point. Louie (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing evidence of this person meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Being director of this non-profit is an argument that I could be persuaded about, but I do not see enough evidence of its influence at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If WP:NPROF accepts named chairs, editors of major journals, high-level appointed positions in academic societies, members of the Royal Society, and so on as notable, this person is failing it on a technicality, not according to the spirit of the rule. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2021 (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.