Bernardo Huberman: Sources appear primary, commercial or autobiographical in nature.  I am unable to find evidence of secondary coverage in news or google scholar.  The citations provided are simply links to a few books he edited or authored.  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 08:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science .  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 08:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - according to Google Scholar he has an h-index of 103; on Scopus, his h-index is 65.  His work is highly cited by others (GS: 62,726) Netherzone ( talk ) 13:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not evidence of notability.  He lacks significant coverage in secondary sources.  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 17:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per WP:NACADEMIC as The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).  .  I looked into notability a while back and added a citation so this is documented.  [10] .  Fellow of APS (American Physical Society) is clearly highly selective honor akin to the Institute of Physics that's mentioned in the policy.  Note that nominator prodded this first [11] .  Nominator self-reverted the prod, only realized now, sorry.  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC) AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, was not aware being a fellow of institutes was sufficient to establish notability.  I would note it is a guideline, not a rule.  But Huberman’s coverage in books and news is lacking IMO.  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - He clearly meets several criteria of our guidelines for a notable academic, thus passes WP:NPROF .  An academic only needs to meet one criteria of that SNG.  His Index scores are high 103 h-index on Google Scholar, 65 h-index on Scopus, his work has been cited over 62-thousand times (62,716), therefore he has made a substantial impact on his field.  Friendly question to nominator Zenomonoz : How many more book and journal articles does his work need to be cited in to be "enough" (and not lacking) in your opinion?  Additionally I am finding numerous reviews of his books in academic journals, therefore meets WP:GNG .  In addition, he's a Fellow of several notable associations: Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science , Fellow, Japan Society for the Advancement of Science, Fellow, American Physical Society [1] , CECOIA Prize on Economics and Artificial Intelligence, IBM Prize of the Society for Computational Economics, Trustee, Aspen Center for Physics , Chairman, Council of Fellows at Xerox Corporation and a Senior Fellow at HP Labs , where he also happened to be the Director of the Mechanisms and Design Lab.  Please review WP:BEFORE .  Netherzone ( talk ) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "APS Fellow Archive" .  www.aps.org .  Retrieved 2023-09-25 .  happy to withdraw AfD nomination, although I would like to see some of those reviews for confirmation.  I don’t think a single page noting that he is a fellow is sufficient content for a Wikipedia article, so yes, other sources would be needed to establish the notability of his contributions.  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 19:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion outcome: keep