Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morten Frisch

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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Frisch[edit]

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

Frisch's work has attracted a measure of attention among those engaged in circumcision activism, but as a biographical subject he is not sufficiently notable per WP:PROF Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think Alexbrn summed it up right. The article appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. The person is notable within circumcision activism circles, and the name comes up in some news articles about that topic, but I wouldn't say they've made a large enough impact on the non-academic topic of circumcision or autism to have their own BLP yet (c.f., Mark Regnerus who made waves for his "gay parenting" study and the related marriage equality SCOTUS ruling). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The attention that Frisch gets places him in almost a fringe position, and so we would need much better sources to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only does Frisch's high h-index (over 50) allow him to meet WP:PROF#C1 easily, but it should also be noted that there were at least three secondary reliable sources in the article [1] [2] [3] before Alexbrn (the nominator) removed them. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:PROF cautions "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." So some better evidence of "significant influence" is necessary. I'm not seeing any. Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Add'l RS coverage can be found, among other places, at the following links: [4] [5]. Everymorning (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets wp:NACADEMICS - has two articles with over 700 cites, and many more with hundreds of cites. I added a short bibliography of his works to the article. LaMona (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria of WP:NACADEMICS have been met, in your view? Having articles with lots of cites is just day-to-day academia. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in reliable sources identified above mean that WP:BASIC is passed, any deleted rs should be quickly restored to avoid vandalism suspiscion Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't that coverage of studies that Frisch has been involved with, and not of him as a biographical subject for which (so far as I can see) we have nothing? No well-sourced article on Frisch can be written, other than a COATRACK for the content of his studies. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PROF is totally independent of the GNG, and does not require that anything be written about the person. It is not a supplement, it is an independent guideline--as it says on the guideline , a persona may be notable by GNG or WP:PROF or both, and either one is sufficient. All we need is enough verifiable information to write an article. The facts of a career are verified by an official CV, which has is one the most consistently reliable sources available, though not strictly independent. The independent verification is the absolutely objective fact of the published work. (Similarly for other professionals, the interest in the person is their work, not their personality, unlike, say, performers; its the work we have to have sources for.) Alex, your argument is completely against deletion policy and a reject of a settled notability guideline.

The key question for the main criterion is whether their work is influential. The principal measure or that in the sciences is the degree to which their work is cited. That's what academic notability isallabout, and if it is there, nothing else matters. The only point that needs discussion in such a case is whether the publications show sufficient citations. This depends on the field, and iit is certainly true the h value, especially h value not taking account of the field is a poor measure of it. What does measure it is the distribution of citation. Looking at google Scholar [6], which is accurate enough, I see his highest cited paper has been cited 755 times . The 2nd highest is 717, then 589 321 300,, 282,,,, with 31papers having over 100 citations each. Even in his fields of epidemology & experimental medicine, this is an incredibly strong record. Having articles with this many cites -- most of them not dealing at all with circumcision but anal cancer, proves notability as a scientist. It doesn't matter what his non academic influence is. He may or may not be notable as a circumcision activist. But that is irrelevant. He's notable as a scientist. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that invocation of "settled" as an argument. WP:NOR states "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." Frisch seems to lack these. Granted his work may have influence in which case we might have an article on The work of Morten Frisch (even then, good sourcing may be hard). But, without sources that is what this article will become anyway - a coat rack at that. Is it right that a scientist inherits notability from the science they've done to the extent that such an inheritance alone is sufficient to grant them notability as a biographical subject? Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2016 (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.