Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Hefferlin

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Hefferlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable academic, apparently meets none of the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS. Highest Google Scholar cites are 27. He has however written a lot, which taken en masse might help him to qualify. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The citation record isn't very convincing. But we can point to one significant concept that he was known as a pioneer of — Periodic systems of small molecules — and two obituaries in major national Adventist publications [1] [2]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. First, many thanks to EricEnfermero, who added referenced information to the article. When I read that I almost came here to withdraw this. However, I found that the mention in the Scientific American is a brief passage in a long article mostly on the periodic table proper. David Eppstein, may I ask if you are sure that periodic systems of small molecules is truly a significant concept (I'm not questioning its notability, btw)? Because the citation record of Hefferlin's articles on the topic seems to suggest quite otherwise, and to show that take-up has been minimal. Redirection of this page to Periodic systems of small molecules might also be an option here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't vote here because I wasn't sure of the significance, but I figured I would add it and let others judge that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the significance of the "periodic systems" concept is purely based on the obituaries, and not on any personal knowledge of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David Eppstein. I did a small amount of reading, including a look at our own article on periodic systems of small molecules (which has a mass of literature and not enough references). It seems that Hefferlin's scheme was by no means the first (which the Scientific American writer fails to mention), though it apparently was the first to use a Kronecker product to generate a multi-dimensional array. The article he published it in gets 20 hits on Scholar. Does that indicate a significant discovery? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been notified in three or four different ways (starting with your ping in this comment, and most recently with a request on my talk page) that you want a response, but although formatted with a question mark the question at the end of your comment looks more rhetorical than genuine. I stand by my earlier comments, and have nothing to add to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is not the subject's list of publications that makes him or her notable, it is the evidence of the discussion of that subject in secondary sources that supports a notability claim. In my search I found virtually no discussion of Mr. Hefferlin proper. His findings may be significant/ notable, and if so then they should be written up in their own article(s). But the man himself does not appear to have received the attention of sufficient independent reliable secondary sources to warrant a notability claim. An obituary alone does not fill the need, and is only WP:ROUTINE news. KDS4444^Talk 02:13, 1 May 2015 (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.