Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason W. Fleischer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. joe deckertalk to me 18:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jason W. Fleischer[edit]
- Jason W. Fleischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ACADEMIC; no 3rd party references that discuss the subject; no awards etc. (Previously prodded) Tassedethe (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Although he seems to have quite a record of publications including a Nature article he's not notable per WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - too early. If he becomes a full professor, he may well deserve an article. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PROF#C1: half a dozen papers with over 100 cites each on Google scholar, including one in Nature with over 800, are enough to convince me that he's making a serious impact. At nomination time our article was in dire need of improvement; as De728631 states, it was a good candidate for A7 speedy deletion. However, I have made some improvements which I hope bring it up to the level of an acceptable short stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h index of 19. Comments from the nominator would be welcome Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Notable academic per David Eppstein's research. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just by clicking on the GS link above one can find around 2000 reliable and independent citations to the subject's work. Why did the nominator not note this? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Citations of a paper do not automatically equal notability. I can see that many citations are from papers by the author or co-authors, meaning they are not independent. Tassedethe (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. Citations to work published in appropriate journals do confer notability under WP:Prof#C1. GS, which I am sure you have looked at, gives citations of 808, 419, 284, 139, 114, 103.... with an h index of 19. You are correct in saying that self-citations should be discounted. On the subject's home page you will find that he has published 47 papers. It is interesting to consider what would be the result if an author cited in every one of his papers all the papers he had written previously. If he had written N papers then he would get approximately (assuming N to be a large number) (N squared)/2 self-citations. With N = 47 this would give 1105 self-citations. This still leaves 900 cites by others, which, on the basis of past precedent, is enough to ensure notability. However, my own inspection of the citation data suggests that the number of self-cites is not nearly as large as this. My conclusion is that even with the theoretically maximum number of self-cites, notability under WP:Prof#C1 remains. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks for your expansion on your point. I would have to say your analysis goes way beyond what is expected of WP:BEFORE (or at least my expectation of that guideline). And even if I had done it myself WP:Prof#C1 makes no mention of any citation number, h-index or publication count to act as a notability threshold. Tassedethe (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Before editing in an area of Wikipedia that is new to them, editors are often advised to lurk around for a while to learn the standards and conventions that prevail there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks for your expansion on your point. I would have to say your analysis goes way beyond what is expected of WP:BEFORE (or at least my expectation of that guideline). And even if I had done it myself WP:Prof#C1 makes no mention of any citation number, h-index or publication count to act as a notability threshold. Tassedethe (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. Citations to work published in appropriate journals do confer notability under WP:Prof#C1. GS, which I am sure you have looked at, gives citations of 808, 419, 284, 139, 114, 103.... with an h index of 19. You are correct in saying that self-citations should be discounted. On the subject's home page you will find that he has published 47 papers. It is interesting to consider what would be the result if an author cited in every one of his papers all the papers he had written previously. If he had written N papers then he would get approximately (assuming N to be a large number) (N squared)/2 self-citations. With N = 47 this would give 1105 self-citations. This still leaves 900 cites by others, which, on the basis of past precedent, is enough to ensure notability. However, my own inspection of the citation data suggests that the number of self-cites is not nearly as large as this. My conclusion is that even with the theoretically maximum number of self-cites, notability under WP:Prof#C1 remains. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (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.