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) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Rudaz (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)

Non-notable, contains original research, non-neutral point of view Chakra13543 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)— Chakra13543 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The person is clearly notable, as a member of American Physical Society, clearly passes WP:NPROF. I'm also somewhat surprised that the first action of a new account is to put a page up for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I haven't looked yet at the person himself, but as any physicist can join the APS, as can students, I can't see that is enough to make someone notable. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Delete I was thinking that was the American Fellows Society (can't remember what it's called), which is an exclusive institution. This one isn't. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's actually not just an APS member, but an APS Fellow, which should be an easy pass of WP:PROF#C3. I've added the source, as well as one supporting an award from the Canadian Association of Physicists. Also has impressive citation records in Google Scholar (h-index of 46). EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear passes of WP:PROF #1 (highly cited papers on Google scholar) and #3 (APS Fellow). The Herzberg Medal is for a younger researcher (within 12 years of Ph.D.) but still might be good for #2. Any one of these three criteria would be enough. As for the sourcing, it could still use help, but the medal and fellowship have now been properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EricEnfermero and David Eppstein, thanks for the references. I have removed my "delete" recommendation to reduce relisting. References that provide more context regarding the subject and his contributions would be nice, but at least the current references provide sufficient evidence of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - pass WP:PROF —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: with a h-index of 52 (in perspective, Hirsch suggested a h-index of just 15-20 can mean fellowship in the American Physical Society) and more than 11,000 citations, the subject easily passes WP:PROF#C1. Esquivalience ^t 03:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Passes WP:PROF. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2015 (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.