Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sven Kullander (physicist)

: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 speedy keep. Nominator now feels it should be kept and there is no dissent. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

=[[Sven Kullander (physicist)]]=

:{{la|Sven Kullander (physicist)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sven_Kullander_(physicist) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Sven Kullander (physicist)}})

Not Notable Bhny (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment this person may meet WP:PROF criterion 3, as a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences assuming that can be referenced. Perhaps the nominator could elaborate on why they think the subject is not notable. 137.43.188.224 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

: I have no idea why being member 1344 of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is notable. He doesn't seem to have published much and the 2 current thin references are obviously not enough. Bhny (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:: Well, because this is what is written in WP:PROF criterion 3, as noted above.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

::: I just mean I'm not qualified to say whether the Swedish Academy is "highly selective and prestigious" like the Royal Society. If it is then we should keep. The biggest problem with the article is there are no links to anything significant he's done. One link was to an article he wrote about fringe science and the other to his dissertation. Bhny (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:::: I added a bit of info of this (from the official bio provided by the Nobel Foundation). Yes, Royal Swedish Academy is fine as a prestigious institution. The problem is that he seems to got involved into cold fusion which is clearly marginal, and this is what all post-2010 references talk about: some praise him as an academic scholar supporting cold fusion, and others critisize him. I have chosen not to add this bit at all since this can easily get me in trouble in real life.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

::::: The article looks ok now, I guess we keep it Bhny (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. With a GS h-index of around 35 clearly passes WP:Prof#C1 as well as WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
Keep High h-index, member of the Swedish Royal Academy: obviously meets WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY. Also, as professor emeritus at a highly-respected university, he would pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2012 (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.