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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Groner (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)

All references given in this article lack independence from the subject. Article requires citations to sources that are independent and that cover the subject non-trivially. If there are English sources, I could not find them. These German ones do not appear to qualify the subject as notable. KDS4444^Talk 01:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait with deletion. I'll try to improve references over the weekend. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trace72 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's give this new editor a little time, even some help and advice, in seeing if this article can be brought up to snuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the research life referres to reliable sources now. I'll fix some formal errors the next days. Trace72 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep -- major improvements by Trace72 in writing and in citations of work. It's still a bit under sourced on impact/awards/etc. that would make WP:PROF#C1 a clear keep, but there are definitely many well cited articles online (and earlier articles from the 60s and 70s would be less likely to be online). Does this improve the encyclopedia? Yes, it seems clearly. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whereas he has contributed to his field of research, however based on the citation index on WOS, RG and GS he is not among highly cited scholars nor meets the other criteria for a living scientist. Perhaps the article can be developed with more reliable references to indicate his major contribution to the science (i.e. a paradigm shift in his research area). Otherwise it should be deleted. Arashtitan 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as this is questionable for the applicable notability. I hope this can be opened enough time for DGG who is familiar with this topic area so he can comment with his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Keep. Adequate citation record to shown him an expert in his subject: Google Scholar shows 228, 137, 122, 109..... Anyone in any field with two or more papers with over 100 citations is almost always here considered to meet WP:PROF as an expert -- in his case, on eye movement research. . He has 4, all in either major commercial or society journals and is also one of the three editor of a major conference proceedings that is in 343 Worldcat libraries, & founder of a specialized journal and society in that field,. I cannot see why Arashtitan thinks the citation record insufficient--the requirement is notable not famous. The article still needs rewriting, mainly because we normally list only the 4 or 5 most cited papers. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 6 February 2016 (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.