Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Zeeman

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. Seems like a convincing NPROF #3 case here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Zeeman

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, probably speedy keep - Fellow AAAS meets the requirements of WP:PROF. nothing more needs to be shown. Viable stub Of course a better article must be written, bu tthat is our usual improvement. It was however a little outrageous to write such a minimal stub--it's always opssible with a subject like this to do better than that, and doing only the bare minimum will only confuse the eds. who don't understand WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The AAAS Fellow is a clear pass of WP:PROF but sourcing seems very sparse. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The AAAS grants the title of "Fellow of the AAAS" to well-respected scientists within the organization. So Maurice Zeeman is a well-respected scientist and deserves a place in Wikipedia. His most cited paper was cited by 749 others, and he writes the final chapter of this book on environmental toxicology, summing up the field of ecological risk assessment. I think he meets WP:PROF. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is his most cited paper about? Its not mentioned. Rathfelder (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a survey paper rather than a research contribution, on chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system, in which he is 12th out of 13 authors. I don't think it should be mentioned unless we can source some significant contribution of Zeeman to the work despite his low position in the author list. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being number 12 on a paper is just not the stuff of academic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the SNG for Academics, point 3. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article as it stands gives any indication to the reader as to why he is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Of course the article could be expanded, as he must have done something important to become an elected fellow, but that's not in the scope of AfD. Galobtter (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2017 (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.