Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Riedacker

Arthur Riedacker

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

Strangely not listed as a nobel prize (co-)winner. Fails WP:GNG. Sources mentioned are hardly independent. Kleuske (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm. I've dug and dug trying to find specific reference to Riedacker being connected to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. His connection to it does in fact exist, in his role as one of the (many) reviewers of the IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report from 2007 (see list). I don't know that I would claim he won the prize per se, but I don't think the claim is exactly false. Really on the fence about that. Regardless of this, this academic has made an impact in his field. This (scroll down for him as one of the keynotes) is worth a reading. Perhaps most compelling is ResearchGate showing him being cited 243 times. That seems significant to me. Google Scholar also has considerable entries on him. Is there enough to pass WP:NACADEMIC? Hmm. Perhaps, perhaps not. Some of this is complicated by his work being largely reported on in French speaking circles. I'm on the fence here, but wanted to put what I found here so others could evaluate. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually claims he won the Noble prize. 😊 Agricola44 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that might be a legitimate claim. It was given to a group, and he was part of the group that did the work. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the joke was lost (Noble, Nobel, heh-heh)...tough crowd. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you're here all week, or at least until the AfD ends, right? :) Sorry, I really thought it was a typo :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seriously, there doesn't seem to be much to go on here. Not sure about "group Nobel". Will try to do some checking. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any claim to a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is spurious. According to the award citation, IPCC received the prize for the totality of its efforts over several decades: "Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming". Moreover, in science, having reviewed/refereed an important article does not entitle you to a credit for that article. GScholar citations appear to be fairly low, even for a field like agronomy, with h-index around 7, and the top-cited article having only 30 citations. I am not seeing anything else here to justify passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He is notable Scientist and academician. His contribution in literature is also remarkable. He is writer and public speaker, motivating young generation and he is guiding torch in his specialised area.2405:205:312F:5E4C:67D9:6CEF:709A:D3C3 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PROF for the notability requirements for Wikipedia articles about academics. You need to provide specific verifiable evidence of the subject satisfying some criterion/criteria of WP:PROF. Your personal expressions of appreciation don't count. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]