Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oswald Leroy

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. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Leroy

Oswald Leroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As written, this resume-like article fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NACADEMICS. Appears to have made a fair contribution to his field but I can find no sources to indicate his contribution is substantial by our standards. Ivanvector (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep. GS
  WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Does h-index account for an author listed far down in the list of authors, and/or does it matter in this field? When I was going through Google Scholar there seemed to be many papers that he has co-authored but few where his name was listed in a citation. For the purposes of NACADEMICS I think being cited is much more important. But I'm not all too familiar with Google Scholar or h-index. Ivanvector (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• from the creators of this article : we have now added a description of his most important contributions with references (articles by others that refer to Leroy's fundamental works). On the link to the list with honorary doctorates of Gdansk University (see last reference in the article) you will also see that we find in the list Poland’s former President Lech Wałęsa, Germany’s former President Richard von Weizsäcker, French former President François Mitterrand, US former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel (User:Leroy-former-team) — Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the list. However, the claim that these papers are significant must be supported by an

independent source. I don't have access to the sources given but it appears to me to be links to other scholarly articles which Dr. Leroy has been cited in. I'm not sure that this satisfies NACADEMIC but it does seem that the volume of cited works indicates notability. Reading further into the guideline we find that persons granted honorary degrees are considered notable, which I didn't think was the case but I won't oppose the guideline. Changing to keep. Ivanvector (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, as other editors have pointed out you appear to have a

plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and you should be able to keep yourself out of trouble here. Please also remember to "sign" your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ which is converted to a signature and timestamp by our software. Ivanvector (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• • With regards to the h-index, I'll ping User:Randykitty. You are right that the current guidelines states that all and any honorary degrees may satisfy notability criteria. I'll inquire at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The only thing towards meeting
  WP:ACADEMIC is, in my eyes, the honorary doctorate. The Web of Science indicates that Leroy has over 100 publications, but together they have only been cited 837 times, which, like GS, gives an h-index of 14. Highest-cited papers 60, 35, 30. For a field like this, I don't think that is sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC#1, but as said, the honorary doctorate meets the letter of #1. I must admit that I find it surprising that someone with such a weak citation record already got an honorary doctorate over 20 years ago. Are we perhaps missing something here? I must say I have seen a person get an honorary doctorate because they were pals with an influential guy. Not saying that's the case here, but the mention "co-operation with scientists from the University of Gdańsk" does ring some warning bells, I think... --Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- honorary doctorate from a substantial research university is enough. When the h-index numbers contradict the notability of the field, consider whether the h-index is the best measure for someone who did work in the 70s. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I know the limitations of h, Michael, but Leroy regularly published (according to WoS) until 2005, so I maintain that the number of citations for a field like this is strangely low for someone who got an honorary doctorate. --Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The case for
  WP:PROF#C1 looks weak to nonexistent from the citation record, but the honorary doctorate and the foreign medal of the French Acoustical Society together add up to international recognition that has a high enough profile to pass #C2 for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2014 (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.