Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Heuser

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 The Result of this RFA was Keep as the AFD has been open for 4 days and no users have voted anything but keep. Non-Admin ClosureNew England ^{(C) (H)} 00:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John_Heuser

John_Heuser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. The page discusses electron microscopy techniqes which are not specifically cited. This information should be presented in the electron microscopy article. Thrawn562 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, seems to pass WP:PROF by having had several notable works published. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, if his published works are indeed notable. Jauerback 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article has huge WP:COI issues, as it appears to have been substantially written by John Goodenough Heuser (Jgheuser (talk · contribs)), who is apparently his son (based on links from his contributions). And the second half looks like a resume. However he is notable and passes WP:PROF -- significant contributions to the field. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - does seem to meet WP:PROF with published works and notable achievements; the article does seem rather laudatory and could use some tidying and POV removal. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, numerous awards, namesake of semi-notable lab, indicative of a widespread reputation. WP:COI is not by itself justification for deletion, and WP:NPOV issues may be addressed through editing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not quite my area of expertise, but 6 Nature papers, 6 Science ones and 9 PNAS ones pretty much guarantees that he'll be regarded as an expert in his field - you don't get published in those journals by doing trivial work. Most of the stuff on electron microscopy would be better in that article than in his biography though. Iain99 22:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep yes, when not clear about an academic subject, it's reasonable to go by the quality journals--not all of the work is just technical electronic microscopy--there are articles of broader significance, including several other very high quality journals more specialized journals. But for most notable people, one or two articles in Nature are the high points of a career, and you don't have to be a specialist to realize the significance of that journal. The bibliography should be cut to the most important (as well as some of the minor bio). DGG (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There's an independent assertion of his pioneering work on techniques to increase the em resolution here: [1] and the techniques have certainly had wide-ranging applications across cell biology, as the range of papers on his CV shows. Also nice independent review of his key paper on synaptic membrane recycling here: [2] The article could do with reworking, though. Espresso Addict 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per the above discussion. It seems to have been cleaned up of POV. Get rid of a few peacock adjectives. Bearian 23:58, 15 July 2007 (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.