Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lufkin

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Robert Lufkin}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Robert Lufkin}})

Does not appear to meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep WP:HEY the article just got accepted from afc a week and a half ago Scooby453w (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :AFC is not a notability guarantee. It means the accepter thinks the article has a 50% chance. Also that isn't what WP:HEY is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Scooby453w, please explain how this would meet the Heyman Standard if there have not been any improvements to the article since it was nominated for deletion? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep where was the WP:BEFORE ? he is a full prof at a R1 University, he has a substantial number of high impact publications with 100+ citations (I count 21) which is usually passing the bar for a research-only professor, even more so for a physician-scientist. On top he has invented a useful tool (the needle). --hroest 01:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :They're all multi-author publications, no? And WP:NACADEMIC says distinguished professor, not every professor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::he passes WP:NPROF#1 without much question, most contemporary research is multi-author and this is not exception. A subject only has to pass one of the 8 criteria, not all of them (are you referring to NPROF#5 with your comment?). --hroest 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Criteria 1 says {{tq|As demonstrated by independent reliable sources}}. Can you point to any? (and yes). PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{re|PARAKANYAA}} I have no particular opinion on Lufkin, but in the case of academics, publications in peer-reviewed journals are in themselves regarded as independent reliable sources because the peer reviewers are independent of the author. The citation count is an indicator that the research has made significant impact. Almost all scientific papers are multi-author, and Lufkin's place as last author on some of these indicates that he was the senior academic running the project (except in those disciplines that use alphabetical order, first and last authors are the priority spots, corresponding to the one who did the work, and the one who conceived, planned and scientifically-directed the work). Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning weak keep It does seem to be over the line of notability on the strength of his book e.g. [https://www.today.com/health/diet-fitness/doctor-lufkin-lies-taught-medical-school-rcna163006], plus this [https://dailybruin.com/2010/04/19/uc-regents-sue-ucla-radiology-professor-robert-luf], would seem to be >1 event, a pass on GNG even without considering in-depth the academic publications such as [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2367892] and whether his standing is significant in his field. Assuming he is RB Lufkin, he has quite a lot of Google Scholar hits.Andre🚐 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't think we can include the information in the second source because he is a BLP. The first one is an interview. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::He would be a PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of his notability if we are saying he is a notable public intellectual and for purposes of his career. I agree the first one is an interview slash promotion for his book, but it's good enough for me when taken as a whole with everything else. There is an essay WP:INTERVIEW and I agree this one is a little on the fluffy side, but he has a bestselling book. I also did find at least one mention of the "Lufkin needle" he is credited with inventing. [https://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/ajr.165.4.7676977] Andre🚐 03:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, California, Rhode Island, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Week keep : Some sources are reliable tho this article needs some clean up, improvement should be done Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The article has been improved and he’s notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep seems like the academic passed WP:NACADEMIC, and reliable sources were included. Cinder painter (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.