Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainer Mauersberger

: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) Logan Talk Contributions 00:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Rainer Mauersberger]]=

:{{la|Rainer Mauersberger}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Rainer Mauersberger}})

So here's what I think happened. Young Laura comes to Wiki to write an article about her dad, Rainer Mauersberger. The article actually looks pretty good, and he appears to be Notable. There is the COI issue, so if anything it needs a COI tag. Anyway, later her dad himself logs on via IP address and requests it be deleted (see his note under the "redirects for deletion" tag. What are we supposed to do here? 1. we don't know it's actually Rainer who is behind that IP address. 2. he appears to be Notable at first glance. 3. Do we delete articles about people if the people themselves request it? I mean if we can confirm it's actually them requesting it. I'd personally like to honor such requests in most cases (except public figures etc), as god knows I wouldn't want a Wiki article about me if I were notable. 4. Since there is a request for deletion, I am listing it here for discussion. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: He has 35 cites at G-Books and 50 cites at Scholar, and winning the Otto Hahn Medal might readily be construed as passing a notability bar; the website of the Max Planck Society, which awards the medal and has an enormous impact on scientific research, has 190 hits for Mauersberger there. For my own part, I'm against the notion that you can have an article about yourself deleted, notability be damned; no doubt there are all manner of criminals and celebrities who'd just love to scrub otherwise notable and documented facts about themselves from the public eye. In any event, we don't swallow much on an anon IP's unsupported say-so.  Ravenswing  04:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete on basis of GS cites which are very small. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC).
  • Are you sure? [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:r-Mauersberger This search] shows the top five as being 148, 128, 88, 87, 87, not that far off the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=interstellar+spectroscopy top hits] for interstellar spectroscopy. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

::Yes, your figures give a respectable h index of 16, better than on the link at the top. In his CV he claims an h index of 39. Don't know what is going on here. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

  • Delete Comment The Otto Hahn medal, at least according to our article on the subject, is an award for promising junior scientists, so it doesn't really pass the level of WP:PROF on its ownsome. I see no other rationale for notability. Striking my delete !vote on the basis of David Eppstein's remark - it's strange, normally Gscholar is pretty good about this sort of thing. His CV is [http://www.alma.cl/~rmauersb/vitae.pdf here], if anybody who knows observational astronomy cares to take a closer look. RayTalk 08:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep. This is one of those instances where my skeptical feeling about GS seems justified:) WoS shows an h-index of 37 with ordered cites of 100, 99, 97...conclusive pass on WP:PROF #1. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC).
  • Keep on basis of these h index findings. Odd about GS, which is usually fairly reasonable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC).
  • Keep based on Agricola44's findings. Ever since I found one of my own articles in GS marked as having been cited over 80 times, whereas only 1 or 2 of those citations actually checked out, I have stopped using GS for anything because it is too unreliable. Oh, and don't forget [http://rr.liglab.fr/research_report/RR-LIG-008.pdf Ike Antkare]... --Crusio (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

: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.