Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Samuel Berman

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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Samuel Berman

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

Person doesn't look notable; Googling on Google News archives for "Marcelo Samuel Berman" turned up these articles, but they are all from the same publication (Paraná Online), and are thus considered a single source by the general notability guideline. Searching on WorldCat for books on Berman yielded these. Of the thirteen, eleven are authored by Berman himself, while the two listed as having been authored by Paul V. Kreitler appear to be compilations of scientific papers (some of which must have been authored by Berman) which Kreitler merely edited. The sources present in the article fail to establish notability, as well, so Berman doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). CtP (t • c) 23:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Looks somewhat like a resume. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Written by subject for one thing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edition war on the article is actually a family dispute between father and son, namely, Marcelo Berman and Albert Berman. It is morally wrong and completely against all standards of Wikipedia to propose a delition motivated by strictly personal or family issues. Deletion proposal made by Albert Berman against the article on his father is preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waren Beat (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Waren Beat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I made the nomination, and I have no connections with the Bermans whatsoever. Your point is moot. CtP (t • c) 21:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Three articles with over 100 citations each (and an h-index of 13, searching Google scholar for author:ms-berman and counting only the cosmology-related hits) is enough to convince me that he's made a scientific impact. By the way, Waren Beat (talk · contribs), the single-purpose account who left the comment above mine, removed the AfD notice from the article; I restored it, and left a warning on his user talk page, but he did it a second time after that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Keep the article, for Marcelo Samuel Berman is an important physicist, and the proposal for deletion is purely motivated by a dispute between him and his son.--Waren Beat (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that the deletion nomination was motivated by a family dispute is, again, a complete falsehood. If you look to the top of the page, you'll see that I was the one who made the nomination, not Albert Berman. Being from Massachusetts, I have no connections with the Bermans and simply didn't believe that Marcelo Samuel Berman met Wikipedia's general notability standards, which you can read here. CtP (t • c) 19:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. GS h-index is low for a well-cited field but highly cited papers take it over the line. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2012 (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.