Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip D. Gingerich

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. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip D. Gingerich[edit]

nonnotable scientist. Only significance is a one-time 'expert' in the Darwinius debate. This is not enough for Wikipedia standards. Northfox (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well-sourced. Several Gbooks hits. [1] GScholar shows his works are heavily cited. [2] Significant Gnews hits. [3] Edward321 (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:PROF: to begin with, he meets (5) "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" (he is E. C. Case Collegiate Professor of Paleontology at the University of Michigan). He is also a AAAS Fellow, President-elect of the Paleontological Society, and is an expert of cetacean and primate evolution. And much more. Clearly is a very notable academic. Guettarda (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The ISI scientific citation index lists 377 of his papers, 29 of which have been cited over 40 times, 6 have been cited over 100 times, and one been cited 242 times. (And bear in mind that the ISI index tends to miss a fair number of citations.) Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable academic in his field. The first page of Ghits contained multiple mentions of his awards in his field, at least one of which has its own article on Wikipedia. I've added a few to the article, with references, but didn't do an exhaustive search. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hundreds of Google News hits dating back to 1984, h-index 33, numerous awards. Abductive (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: an H-index of 33 for a person who has a 35-year academic career is quite average (H-index/years active = 1), see H-index.Northfox (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In his field? Abductive (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no , it is not "average" it does not mean 33 papers, it means 33 papers with at least 30 citations. In essentially all fields that would be notable, though it does not discriminate between 33 papers with 33 citations each, and 32 papers with 33 citations each and 1 with 300. DGG (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The h-index article suggests that "15–20 could mean a fellowship in the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the United States National Academy of Science"; so 33 would be about right for someone like Gingerich who, based on his awards and fellowships, looks like he's just a notch below a fellow of the National Academy. Guettarda (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from Hirsch's original paper: A value of m ≈ 1 (i.e., an h index of 20 after 20 years of scientific activity), characterizes a successful scientist.(see http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full ). So, based on that, Gingerich is a successful scientist. For my definition, successful=average. Gingerich might have other achievements (some are included in article; more would be better), but an h-index indicating a successful scientist does not imply notable. If one wanted to include every successful scientist in Wkipedia, we would have millions of entries. Northfox (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if successful=average, but I agree that Wikipedia could end up with over 10⁵ articles on professors if kept on the basis of h-index alone, or on any one of the criteria of WP:PROF. There has to be something encyclopedic to say (and to wikilink to) about the person. Abductive (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If editors think that the criteria of WP:Prof are unsatisfactory they should argue the case on that page. The purpose of this page and similar ones is to apply those existing criteria to the individual cases that are brought here. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:PROF is useful, but reliance on an h-index is original research. An article on a professor needs secondary sources to tell us what is notable. Abductive (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I would oppose any attempt to incorporate explicit numerical values of the h index or any other bibliometric measure in WP:Prof. For WP:Prof the secondary sources are the citations plus any other forms of recognition which, in the case we are dealing with, exist in plenitude. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, author of many papers cited in WP articles (I've linked several, but it's really botwork), named several species LeadSongDog come howl 05:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the arguments advanced by most of those above. It is difficult to understand why this article was prodded in the first place. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Snow Keep Head of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan. Obviously notable, along with all of the rest. Some was added after the nomination, but the NYT references with the quote "Philip D. Gingerich, the leading American primate specialist, also from the University of Michigan." was in the article when it was nominated. when reading an article, it pays to look at the references. DGG (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep. Second DGG. Fellow of the AAAS (documentation can be found here) is a definitive clincher. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (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.