Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Kaplan (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kaplan[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Poorly sourced article about non-notable minor academic who has himself written about how to commit PR in Wikipedia, with a suspicious history of editing by SPAs and IP addresses. Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are but three independent references; his academic institution is not independent. One ref is the weak Who's Who; one is a three-sentence synopsis of an institutional press release (see article talk page). The multiple cites to Science Direct merely demonstrate that one paper was downloaded repeatably, which is a primary source reporting on its own website activity. This in no way satisfies WP:PROF. — Brianhe (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Reversed my earlier !vote based on evidence of academic and book citations uncovered during AfD debate. Still with concerns about article as now written and sourced. — Brianhe (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 6 papers with more than 100 citations on Google Scholar, 1 over 500, 1 over 3000. Most cited paper in social media domain. Known in the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.221.210 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. But he is a marketing man, so he's good at self-promotion. Maproom (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly known academic in the field. Benjaminvermersch (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)— Benjaminvermersch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment Without any sources to back up your claim, this !vote will likely be ignored. --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with one very highly cited piece on social media, the record is unremarkable per WP:Prof, and the individual does not have WP:GNG worthy coverage.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the citation data is objective, and sufficient to show notability. Multiple papers with over 100 citations is notability in any field whatsoever, and the only exceptions to that in afd decisions here is when we have some degree of dislike for the field or the individual. Such bases of judging notability represent institutionalized prejudice.

And contrary to what is said above, it is not true that the number reported by GoogleScholar of "multiple cites to Science Direct merely demonstrate that one paper was downloaded repeatably,". Rather, as the article of Google Scholar will explain, it is a count of the number of different published works that the article in Science Direct was cited in.--you can see them all listed by clicking on the words "cited by 3267" at the top of the Google Scholar result. . (the number of times it was downloaded is usually estimated as somewhere about 100 times that for papers of a purely academic interest, much higher for those with a popular interest. It's like the difference between the number of times a WP page was edited, and the times it was read. And contrary to what was said, such a citation record is indeed "remarkable per WP:Prof", and therefore proof that the person is an authority in his field, DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were based on the Science Direct citations in the article like this one, not Google scholar. The S.D. page states that its counts are are "according to Scopus" data. Which may be similar, I'm not sure now what it's telling us. If Google Scholar is the basis for notability, then perhaps the S.D. cites are not well chosen? [edited to add] Also the article points out that one paper was "downloaded more often than any other of the approximately 12.5 million papers in the [Science Direct] collection" which sounds really PRIMARYSOURCES|primary source-ish to me, if ithis download count from the site does not help establish notability then perhaps it should be removed. -- Brianhe (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not very good (using Marquis' Who's Who as a reference...) but that is not a reason to delete. Usually, I don't give much about article download statistics, but in this case they're a/ absolutely stellar and b/ impeccably sourced. On top of that the huge number of citations to his articles. One article cited over 3000 times on GS and over 900 times on Scopus, if all he had ever published that one article, that would be enough to establish notability according to WP:PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable professor at good b-school. MathisKrog (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — MathisKrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Your !vote is not policy-based and will therefore likely be ignored. WHether or not the subject is at a good or bad school is irrelevant. Whether or not he is notable is what we are to decide here and just claiming he is, is not very convincing. --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clearly the only rationale for keeping this article would be that the subject qualifies per the special criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Looking at those (nine) criteria, the only one that seems possibly relevant is #1 - "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." So I strongly recommend that "Keep" and "Delete" arguments be based solely on whether criteria #1 has been satisfied. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I guess that there is not much to add to the discussion at this point. I second DGG’s view that several papers with more than 100 citations on Google Scholar demonstrate that this person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline as stipulated in #1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and that this should be the criterion to be looked at as commented by John Broughton. What better prove of making an impact is there if hundreds of other researchers quote an author’s work. This also corresponds to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)’s specific criteria notes 1: “The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work.” One of these articles even has been quoted by over 3300 other publications according to Google Scholar and by more than 900 other sources within the Scopus database – which seems to be extremely rare in the field. As stated by Randykitty, “if all he had ever published that one article, that would be enough to establish notability according to WP:PROF” and thus shows the notability of this professor (as stated by MathisKrog). The only thing which might be added and to be considered is that this paper was published in 2010 and thus is only four years old with approximately 1000 new citations per year as can be seen here. This also seems to be outstanding and a further demonstration of significant impact within the discipline. Maybe the article could be adapted to show this already in its introduction? Benjaminvermersch (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just note that WP:PROF is very specific that meeting any one criterion is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics). AAA3AAA (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added one article from The Nation via HighBeam that discusses his work and I agree with Randykitty's analysis above. I am One of Many (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Subject has an h-index of 16 by my count, which is low for a full professor (rule of thumb is 20). The two high-citation papers make up for this, so while it's a marginal case, let's keep it. And file a few WP:SPIs. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2014 (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.