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.
Not notable - article is about a minor academic figure, provides no arguments for his notability. Djr32 (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple awards, medals, and notable fellowships; profiles in the NYT and USA Today. Amply satisfies both WP:PROF and WP:BIO (for his pre-university achievements). Hqb (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the reasons mentioned by Hqb, he has two papers with literally thousands of citations each in Google scholar, and an impressive h-index of 46, so I think he clearly passes WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep How one decides that a full professor of physics at princeton, perhaps the strongest physics dept. in the world, is a minor academic figure , escapes me entirely. DGG (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has the prodder looked up, as anybody can do easily, the Google Scholar cites for this subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Per Google scholar hits here. Clearly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and possibly other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: Publishing papers, receiving grants, and even getting tenure at a prestigious university (though not generally considered the strongest physics department in the world!) is what academics do, and doesn't necessarily make them notable. I would see these all as being a great start to a career, without necessarily passing the notability test. (The newspaper mentions, which have been added since the AfD nomination, relate to his high school achievements which don't count under WP:PROF.) The highly-cited paper is probably the strongest argument - string theory isn't my area, and typical numbers vary a lot from field to field, so it's hard to judge where to draw the line here. I thought he was borderline, there certainly seems to be a strong feeling that he's notable! It would certainly improve the article if these matters were covered in it, rather than only being brought up when it's proposed for deletion! Djr32 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The high school achievements may be irrelevant for WP:PROF but they seem in this case to be highly relevant for WP:BIO: we don't delete articles on people who are notable for something else, merely because they also happen to be a professor. Although in this case as I've argued above it's moot because he also meets WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editors new to the academic AfD pages always have the option of lurking on those pages for a while to familiarise themselves with the standards that prevail there before making further academic prods. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Not sure there's any need for the patronising tone. My WP experience is mostly in WP Physics, rather than trying to be part of the AfD clique... As to the IPhO, I note that we have articles on very few of the other people who have won it over the years! Djr32 (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Applying this argument to other subjects, then since writing novels is what novelists do, then we should start deleting numerous articles there; since performing in plays, movies & on tv is what actors & actresses do, that's another topic with lots of cruft in it; & since fighting battles & war is what generals do, we have another area with lots of cruft in needing attention. Simplistic arguments are very often dangerous ones. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. As thoroughly established above, Gubser is a major figure. String theory isn't my area, either, but even I have heard of this guy, who (along with Juan Martín Maldacena, Edward Witten, and a couple of others) discovered the AdS/CFT correspondence. ((Expand)) is a better way to go than AfD for articles that need improvement. -David SchaichTalk/Cont 01:00, 22 July 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.