Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Karp
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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn, and although there was 1 other delete !vote, their reasoning does not match the information provided by others WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Karp[edit]
- Jeffrey Karp (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)
Article about a young researcher. I'm not convinced the awards mentioned here are sufficient to confer academic notability. Certainly receiving a faculty mentorship award isn't, nor is the minor award from the rather specialized research society to which he belongs. That leaves the coverage in Technology Review; anyone care to weigh in on that? Psychonaut (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As far as I can tell he's not notable per WP:ACADEMIC (assistant prof, no major positions in learned societies, no major awards, though I don't know about his citation index) or by WP:GNG. He's one of 35 people in the annual TR35[1] (how prestigious is it anyway?) and co-leader of a team that invented an innovative bandage[2]. A popular figure at MIT/Harvard Medical School, but probably not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pretty high citation levels at Google Scholar - including some articles where his name is first or last on the list of authors. I just did a rewrite, wikified the article, tidied up and added some references. BTW a previous version of this article was deleted in 2009 for copyvio, but that doesn't appear to be a problem here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Was it really necessary to nominate this article for deletion less than 10 minutes after it was created? --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you define "pretty high citation levels"? What are the levels, exactly, and how do they compare to those of researchers already known to be notable? Psychonaut (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could try looking at Google Scholar yourself. There was one in Nature that was cited 860 times (although he was just one of six authors on that); there is one by him and one other author that was cited 175 times; there are six others cited more than 100 times; clearly his work is getting noticed in his field. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not at all clear. The absolute citation count means nothing; again, how does it compare against those of other researchers who are already known to pass our notability criteria? Also importantly, what are the numbers after self-citations are discounted? Google Scholar does not differentiate between third-party citations and authors citing themselves in subsequent papers. Keep in mind that the more authors a paper has, the more likely it is to be self-cited. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to argue with you about it. I'll wait for other editors, including possibly those who have access to Scopus or h-index calculation, to weigh in. (BTW I note that both your nomination and the "delete" !vote above seem to be based entirely on his "awards" and his position as an assistant professor, and I agree that those don't qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC. It doesn't look as if either of you considered his publication/citation record, which possibly could IMO.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW note for those searching: he is usually indexed as "Karp JM" - so that you can distinguish him from others like Karp JA. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the nomination is based on the claims of notability made in the article itself, none of which relate to how his research has been received, either by the scientific community or by the mainstream press. I admit that an exceptional citation count could establish his significance, but without knowing what sort of numbers are typical in his field we can't say whether the papers you found are in any way remarkable. It would help if we could attract to this discussion the attention of someone with the background necessary to make such a determination. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not at all clear. The absolute citation count means nothing; again, how does it compare against those of other researchers who are already known to pass our notability criteria? Also importantly, what are the numbers after self-citations are discounted? Google Scholar does not differentiate between third-party citations and authors citing themselves in subsequent papers. Keep in mind that the more authors a paper has, the more likely it is to be self-cited. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could try looking at Google Scholar yourself. There was one in Nature that was cited 860 times (although he was just one of six authors on that); there is one by him and one other author that was cited 175 times; there are six others cited more than 100 times; clearly his work is getting noticed in his field. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you define "pretty high citation levels"? What are the levels, exactly, and how do they compare to those of researchers already known to be notable? Psychonaut (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Was it really necessary to nominate this article for deletion less than 10 minutes after it was created? --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Web of Science confirms the citation counts found by MelanieN (and as usual a bit lower than GS): h-index of 21, 80 listed entries, total citations 2191 (without self citations: 1975), highest citation counts 743 124 109, first author on the two last ones. Note that the second one (124 citations) was only published in 2009, according to the "Essential Science Indicators" this number of citations would put it in the top 1% percentile of all articles published in that year in the field with the highest citation rates (molecular biology & genetics). He's still young, but obviously over the bar of WP:PROF#1 and it looks like there's more to come. Impressive. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just added several general-interest (non-technical) links to the article, including this profile of him by the Boston Business Journal. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Per high citation count and newspaper profiles. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable scientist. Easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. Basket of Puppies 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the TR35 award gives significant coverage of his work in an important forum, much beyond the average assistant professor. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and many thanks to the editors who found the sources establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean you are withdrawing your nomination? (The reason I ask: Your nomination counts as a "delete" !vote, so !voting "keep" now means that you are essentially !voting both ways - unless you withdraw the nomination.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As there are other delete !votes (only 1, but still), the nomination cannot be withdrawn at this point, but Psychonaut could indicate that he changed positions from "delete" to "keep". Nevertheless, given the voting pattern here, I think we can move for a speedy close of this AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What Guillaume2303 said. Where did you get the idea that a nominator speaking against his own nomination counts as !voting both ways rather than as simply changing his opinion in light of new evidence? It's the first time I've heard this particular interpretation of the (not-uncommon) practice. I can't withdraw the nomination from consideration at this point as the opinions haven't been unanimous. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, according to Wikipedia:Speedy keep, withdrawing the nomination can be a reason for a speedy keep (as Guillaume recommended). I never heard that a nomination can't be withdrawn if there are any delete !votes, but if that's how Psychonaut feels, I respect that. We could ask for a Snow Keep, but I have heard it said there can't be a snow close if the !vote is not unanimous. (I don't find that written down anywhere as policy, though.) Looks like we may have to leave it up for the week. BTW I am gratified to see that other editors confirmed my "gut" impression that his citations were noteworthy. Thanks for your research, which exceeds my ability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW: Here and here are examples of a nomination withdrawn despite an existing "delete" !vote. Here and here are examples of a nominator striking out their "delete" recommendation to replace it with "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't remember where I've seen it, but I'm pretty certain that policy does not allow to withdraw a nom if there are delete !votes. Of course, there is IAR... And perhaps Colapeninsula will chante their delete !vote. @Psychonaut: you misinterpreted my comment: I agree with MelanieN that, as it stands, you have both a delete and a keep !vote. An AfD nom is implicitly taken to be a delete !vote. However, given all the discussion on this topic, I think that by now any admin can easily see what your opinion is :-). As for the closing, there's no hurry, this can sit here for a few more days as far as I am concerned. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What Guillaume2303 said. Where did you get the idea that a nominator speaking against his own nomination counts as !voting both ways rather than as simply changing his opinion in light of new evidence? It's the first time I've heard this particular interpretation of the (not-uncommon) practice. I can't withdraw the nomination from consideration at this point as the opinions haven't been unanimous. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As there are other delete !votes (only 1, but still), the nomination cannot be withdrawn at this point, but Psychonaut could indicate that he changed positions from "delete" to "keep". Nevertheless, given the voting pattern here, I think we can move for a speedy close of this AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean you are withdrawing your nomination? (The reason I ask: Your nomination counts as a "delete" !vote, so !voting "keep" now means that you are essentially !voting both ways - unless you withdraw the nomination.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found substantially the same WoS results as Guillaume: h-index of 21 on 61 papers using the search "Author=(karp j*) Refined by: Institutions=(HARVARD UNIV OR MIT OR BRIGHAM WOMENS HOSP) AND [excluding] Authors=(KARP JS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". Coupled with the Boston Business Journal article, among others, that are about him, it seems there's plenty of evidence for notability w.r.t. WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep on citation arguments above. Nominator should clarify his position. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- What's to clarify? When the article was nominated, notability of the subject was not supported by reliable sources. Now it is, and so I subsequently !voted to keep, citing the new evidence. This practice is not unheard of on AfD (in fact, I've done it myself a few times) and have never seen requests that it be "clarified" before. The subsequent and explicit !vote overrides the implicit one in the nomination. If there have been recent policy or guidelines changes which disallow this, let me know and I'll make whatever changes are necessary to comply with them. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2012 (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.