Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Bruce (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 keep. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bruce (physicist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO generally. jps (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #3, Fellow of IEE and IoP. The obit is broken, only the first page is visible (site is broken). A work around go to the "Other Article Option", bottom of page says "Print Pages" and choose pages 75 through 75, then 76 through 76 etc.. -- Green Cardamom (talk)
Keep. Although GS h-index of 10 is lowish, the cites make it clear that he was regarded as a world authority on electrical discharges. Multinamed nominator [1]needs to produce better arguments than "fails generally". Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The ad hominem isn't necessary, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong in pointing out the inadequacy of a nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The ad hominem part was in pointing out the nominator's topic ban from fringe science topics. But that may be relevant, too, as there seems to be a close connection between Bruce and the electric universe fringe theory. In fact, given the nominator's past work in deleting material here on the same theory, it seems likely that the connection is not coincidental and that the nominator would be in violation of his topic ban (if it hadn't been lifted). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Fellow of the Institute of Physics and the Institute of Electrical Engineers (as the article clearly states) means a clear pass of WP:PROF #3. This is an incomprehensible nomination. -- 101.119.15.146 (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As already said above, obviously meets WP:PROF. The relatively low citation counts are to be expected for a researcher who worked in the 40s and 50s (many contemporary citations will not be in our databases and works that old get cited only rarely nowadays). --Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep this is a perfectly good article, on a subject who's deceased (so no WP:BLP) and has had at least one obituary in the academic press. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two society fellowships and one published obit should be enough. I rewrote the article to avoid both some copyvio issues and an undue emphasis on his fringe research (which is to be sure an important part of his life, but not why he is notable). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am also impressed by the award of D.Sc. This is higher than Ph.D.: such doctorates are normally only awarded towards the end of a distinguished career. 100 academic papers is also a lot. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing wrong with the article. As usual, this is just a case of ScienceApologist trying to get an article deleted because he sees it linked with pseudoscience and Velikovskyism. Wanting to purge wikipedia of topics you don't like is not a valid criterea for article deletion. --feline1 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Feels like JPS / ScienceApologist seems to be recently nominating various AfD (Pensée: Velikovsky Reconsidered, SIS, NPA, CER Bruce, etc.) related to a prior area of topic ban in something of a guilt-by-association crusade, going after various articles related to persons, organizations or topics deemed supportive of or tangentially related to subject(s) he personally considers "fringe". Feels like a distinct conflict of interest WRT these nominations, given user(s)'s prior antagonism for the subject(s)/person(s) and years of lobbying against them on WP. Anyway, the recent spate of AfD's seem suggestive of a continuing pattern. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - COI statement: I have been interested in the subject of plasma cosmology / electric universe. If that disqualifies my vote, so be it. That said, I don't see anything wrong with the article in question, as written. Seems reasonably NPOV, no undue emphasis in WP article on topics perceived as "fringe." Did publish quite a few articles, many {most?} in respectable peer-reviewed journals (vis a vis, IEEE journals, Nature, etc.). Seems to have been reasonably well-regarded by peers/contemporaries. Notable? I guess that would depend on who you ask and in what context. I certainly find some of his longer treatises noteworthy. Others may disagree (either with that assessment or with the notability of the topic of his research in general). But, I guess the question might be was it noteworthy research at that time? I think it was, as it explored some pretty fundamental questions in astronomy/cosmology (whether or not his final assessments were or weren't borne out by further scrutiny). Pity more attention wasn't paid (but, that's just my personal opinion). Mgmirkin (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:PROF as fellow of prestigious societies, etc.--Boson (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2013 (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.