Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Doxtader

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Doxtader[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF, Google search did not bring up articles, has 120 citations in Scopus (note that WP:NPROF says to use Scopus or Web of Science and not Google SCholar), has not won a major award, is not a member of an elected society, research does not show major impact in the field, is not a distinguished professor or holds a named chair. Article reads more like a CV than an article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. He appears to have only one authored book, with only one published review, which would normally not be enough for WP:AUTHOR. The many reviews of his many edited volumes, and the award from the Rhetorical Society of America for the book, push me over to the keep side. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, the main reason I accepted this at AfC was his being the editor of Philosophy & Rhetoric, which I thought was probably a significant enough journal for an NPROF crit. 8 pass. Any thoughts on that? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not a big fan of #C8 (I am not convinced that journal editorship is a good way of distinguishing noted scholars from less-noted ones) but that does appear to be a pass of #C8, also. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The journal is a legit journal but it is a very small journal with an impact factor of ~0.25. I think the editor rule applies to larger journals where being an editor takes a lot of time and is prestigious. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think impact factors are meaningful for anything but the most specific head-to-head comparisons of journals in the same exact subject. Even then, because they only count works cited within a narrow time window after publication, they only work well in fields where research is fast-moving and driven by journal publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah your right @David Eppstein, I did a quick search of other journals and Rhetoric Society Quarterly and Rhetoric Review both had higher impact factors. I think another important factor is if the journal is part of a larger society or group. Like for example American Psychologist is attached to the APA and Psychological Science is attached to APS so being an editor for those journals is a really big deal. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep agree with the assessments above, the award seems to be the kicker. Not much mainstream coverage of rhetoric these days. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My take on the journal differs from the above. To start, I have no idea where that 0.25 figure comes from. The linked website is weird, I looked up some other journals and their data were wrong or outdated. It also lists non-existent metrics (like a "Scopus Impact Factor"). The figure that comes closest to the .25 is the 2021 SCImago Journal Rank, but that is a very different metric than the impact factor. According to Scopus, the journal has a 2021 CiteScore of 0.6. The CiteScore is similar to the Clarivate impact factor, except that it is based on 4 years of citation data instead of just 2. For a (relatively) slow moving field like this, that may be more appropriate than the IF and 0.6 is quite respectable for this low citation-density field. Scopus lists 718 (!) journals in the category "Philosophy" and this journal ranks 238, i.e., in the upper third. In all, I find this is a clear pass of ACADEMIC#8. --Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why does a book award confer notability for the author when there is only one documented review of the book? If the book is noteworthy, there are plenty of rhetoric journals that would have covered it and even then, the book would be the subject of the coverage and our article, not the author. czar 23:04, 1 October 2022 (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.