Gerald B. Cleaver: Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF .  PhD in 1993, h-index of 21 ( Web of Science ) or 23 ( Scopus ).  The university website has a comprehensive list of achievements.  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 21:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Science ,  and Texas .  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 21:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There does not appear to be sufficient RS coverage of achievement or career.  I vote delete.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 21:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Citability is insufficiently high and there does not appear to be anything else to indicate notability under WP:PROF .  Nsk92 ( talk ) 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not seeing anything that meets NPROF.  He seems to be the primary on a handful of publications but hasn't done anything extraordinary in his field from what I can tell.  He may get there yet, but it's TOOSOON.  Lamona ( talk ) 18:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  String theory is a high-citation field but I think six publications with over 100 citations each in Google Scholar should be a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1 .  I'm not seeing anything else, though.  Incidentally, I don't think there is such a thing as "primary author" in his publications; they appear to use alphabetical author ordering, and he merely happens to be alphabetically first on most of his publications.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is the corresponding author in these publications.  But in my eyes, the individual accomplishment is still diminished by the fact that his coauthors have much higher h-incides and that he has not produced anything with similar impact after leaving the postdoc phase.  Also I could not find any source attributing the invention of the MSSM model specifically to him.  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 11:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : their academic work meets WP:PROF#C1 and WP:ANYBIO#2 // Timothy :: talk 22:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue : Since we still don't have a consensus, would you care to elaborate?  What is the "widely recognized contribution" for WP:ANYBIO#2, and which sources establish it?  Also, what is your reasoning for WP:PROF#C1?  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 19:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  I think this is a borderline case.  an h-index of 28 and six publications with 100+ citations would generally be enough to just pass NPROF in most fields, but this is a high citation field and in this case all publications are over 20 years old and presumably from his postdoc.  He would have probably been above-average at that stage but I think it is hard to argue that he now stands out above all other professors at a comparable career stage which is required to pass the NPROF "average professor test".  Is there any achievement / award / recognition that we are missing?  His CV claims that he is a fellow of the APS but I could not find any evidence on their website .  -- hroest 15:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re "His CV claims that he is a fellow of the APS": I read it as stating that he is a fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation and a member of the APS. Neither of those two things conveys academic notability, and I can find no evidence that the ASA even has a Fellow membership grade. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] David Eppstein , I thought you were arguing for a Keep but your comment reflects the opinion of an editor advocating Deletion. Are you reconsidering your stance? L iz Read! Talk! 04:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really; I am arguing for evaluating the WP:PROF criteria consistently across articles. My weak keep is based on WP:PROF#C1 . This comment was about whether WP:PROF#C3 can be applied. The correct decision is to keep the article if even one of these criteria is deemed to hold and to delete if none do. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, I misread his CV and it seems to indicate that he is a member of the APS. In either case, NPROF#3 cannot be argued here and only NPROF#1 is in question. -- hroest Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: This is a borderline case regarding NPROF and I'm hopeful a consensus can be reached with a couple more editors participating and reviewing.  Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete .  I see no indications that he is close to WP:PROF on any of the counts.  No major awards, a weak h-factor.  I do not think this is borderline.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 03:39, 14 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete