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. also seems it may have been withdrawn but ran its course so might as well keep. Valley2city^‽ 06:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Duncan (physicist)[edit]

~~NN individual. Fails WP:PROF Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)~~ per fellowship. Passes WP:PROF. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, he's been in Scientific American and on 60 Minutes. At the moment, I don't see that he's made the news for his contributions to science, but he apparently has a knack for explaining things to laymen. Not voting to keep, since the article doesn't indicate much. But I won't be surprised if he becomes more notable in the future. If he can't be proven notable at the end of the 7-day debate, consider bringing him back if he becomes a regular on news shows. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Last week the following people were on 60 minutes in just one story: Christoph Westphal, David Sinclair (biologist) (possibly written by the subject or someone close to them), Ricki Colman, Richard Weindruch. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, as per WP:VAGUEWAVE, can you please explain why you want this article deleted? It's not enough just to link to WP:PROF without explaining why you want to undo someone else's work. Thanks. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want this article deleted because it fails the guideline on the notability of academics. You know, because the guy dosen't have the cold fusioneers eagerly watching his biography, or, heaven forbid, he changes his mind on cold fusion, it's just another target for the greatest engine for personal defamation of all time. Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I find this deletion request a bad faith one. quite a few news stories mentioning this guy I think a speedy keep would be appropriate. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:PROF is not the only notability guideline to be considered, but also a general notability guideline.93.86.201.173 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assuming my bad faith. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Deeds speak more than words. Thank you too. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vice-Chancellor doesn't cut it according to WP:PROF criterion 6, since it's not a top post. I don't think his press coverage counts under criterion 7, since, according to my search, he's not "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" nor has he "authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects." Cool dude, it seems, but not Wikipedia-level notable. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply fails WP:PROF, which seems to be the only bio guide that applies to this BLP. Verbal chat 14:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything on google scholar. also fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By going through this primary source, he appears to pass WP:PROF. Also, this is one of his papers which appeared in Phys. Rev. Lett. His author abbreviation seems to be R. V. Duncan. Salih (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results on Google scholar. Salih (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web of Science does list 10 research articles and 13 proceedings papers. The highest-cited one is a Phys. Rev. Let. paper from 1997 (37 citations), but this output is not particularly prolific for physics. His UM website indicates he has a very responsible position, but I agree with Vicenarian that it is not sufficient by itself. The overall picture does not seem to add up to one of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Please be aware, there is ample recent reliable source on Duncan, due to his recent appearance on CBS Sixty Minutes. ~~Please also understand that the nominator here and at least one !voter are heavily involved with an anti-Cold fusion agenda, and~~ Duncan is now prominent as a physicist who was retained by CBS to investigate the topic, and came up with a reversal: originally skeptical, he is now convinced that the matter is worth investigating, and there is not only the CBS article and video as a source, there is also a prominent lecture that he gave to a major conference at the U of Minn, and other sources mentioning him, such as a press release from the American Physical Society. The YouTube copy of that video (link was just removed) was made when the U of Minn temporarily took down the video (I'm sure they received a firestorm of complaints) and there are people who don't like censorship....) But I've received email that it is back up, the original, I'll cite it later, here and in the article. --Abd (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2009

Missouri Energy Summit notice the prominence. There is a video there. The CBS special, which talks about Duncan, it doesn't just mention him, he's much of the focus, i.e., his journey. He organized a seminar today, it's going on right now, and the speakers include most of the major figures in Cold fusion. The Missouri Energy Summit put up a bio.[2]. I believe there is other source on Duncan, but I certainly know of him from the CBS special. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator bias is not relevant to whether or not we keep the article, but it is relevant, sometimes, to the credibility we assign to uninvestigated evidence. Consider me biased. ~~Both~~ I have been very active with Cold fusion recently. So are Hipocrite and Verbal. It is not some random accident that Hipocrite nominated this and that Verbal showed up to !vote. (I'm not alleging canvassing.) I created this article because there was another Robert Duncan, and I'm sure a lot of people were, because of the CBS special, googling his name, and they were getting the article of Robert C. Duncan (astrophysicist). (That was originally Robert Duncan (physicist),I think. Hence I believed that a stub was useful, and I didn't have time to make the article deeper with more sources. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it proves much, but this is a link to today's seminar. Duncan, whatever he was in the past, is now most notable for his "conversion" to Cold fusion. The APS was exercised to issue a press release that, contrary to the original CBS video, the society itself had not "recommended him." That was technically correct. CBS had asked a prominent member to recommend an "independent scientist," and Duncan was on a list provided. (A copy of the press release: [3]) I'd say that before this, he was marginally notable. With the CBS special, he's definitely notable; people will be looking for our article on him, and I was originally confused by the other Duncan, for some days I thought they were the same person, and that the astrophysicist had simply moved to Missouri. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR is a bluelink. If Dr. Duncan is only notable for his 60 minutes appearance, then BLP1E applies. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PROF doesn't have a "no cold fusion researchers" clause, and since that's the noms rational the link to cold fusion POV (whatever it is) doesn't seem relevant and has only been mentioned by Abd (and now me, in order to discount it). WP:AGF Verbal chat 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IMHO, the purported agenda(s) of the nominator and/or any !voter is completely irrelevant to the discussion of any article deletion. Deletion discussions and decisions should based only on the merits of the article and not the editors involved. Thank you. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 18:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The article at present is an inadequate stub. Scholarly publication record seems very average. Position as administrator does not, of itself, confer notabilty but cold fusion connection could do so if the article is improved. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. His contribution to the field of "Low Temperature Physics" as seen from the number of publications (as key author) in Google scholar is sufficient to pass WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted by Salih, he's made a significant contribution to the field of "Low Temperature Physics". In addition, while Vice Chancellor of Research isn't the highest post available, it is a major post; the "Gordon and Betty Moore Distinguished Scholar" position is not enough to establish notability in itself, but is a reasonable honour; and he is a fellow of the APS. Taken as an overall picture, he seems to meet WP:PROF well enough to justify inclusion. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the combination of a strong WP:PROF combined with the 60 Minutes piece creates a strong enough case to justify inclusion. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence for the "strong WP:PROF". Verbal chat 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is point 3. fellow of major society, namely in this case American Physical Society. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fellow of the APS is sufficient. A further examination of the career would no doubt justify it in more detail, but is not really necessary. His views on cold fusion if relevant need to be properly discussed in the article, and regardless of their fringe nature, his prior accomplishments make him notable. DGG (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now clearly shows that he passes WP:PROF #3, #5, and possibly #7, and doesn't give unbalanced weight to his cold fusion work. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Switched !vote. It is now clear from the discussion that the subject does, indeed, pass WP:PROF. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 17:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly as a member of APS, criteria #3 of WP:PROF is definitively passed, even if this article is notable for no other reason. It seems that Duncan may be notable for any number of other reasons as well. Krellkraver (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF now. Good work. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dunno what the article said when it was nominated, but it now mentions 2 memberships, in CalTech and APS, that make him pass WP:PROF#3 with flying colours. Good job. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 3 June 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.