Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Marchand (academic)

Add links
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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

André Marchand (academic)[edit]

André Marchand (academic) (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)

Appears to fail WP:PROF. I'm having trouble finding secondary sources about this guy. -- Pingumeister(talk) 16:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This page should not be deleted because this acaedmic person exist and is considered. Here are some proofs:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] --Wiwigald32 (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)— Wiwigald32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Have a quick glance at WP:E=N, "only" an essay, but relevant nonetheless. And, compounding the issue, the sources provided are very much in the main either primary sources, self-published sources, or providing slender coverage of only passing mentions; thus the subject has not received the required depth or persistence of coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources required to pass the most basic WP:ANYBIO, let alone PROF. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 17:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If these 15 sources with news, articles, and photos are still not enough to prove the existence of André Marchand, here are even more sources for the most important categories for academics:

Lots of primary sources listed in article form- this is not the place! But editors can click 'show' and see them all the same
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Books
  • Book in German from André Marchand on Amazon.de [16]
  • Book chapter in English from André Marchand from Routledge (see chapter 7) [17] and on Amazon.com [18]
Articles in scientific journals
  • Article by André Marchand in International Journal of Research in Marketing [19] and a press release for this article with a picture of André Marchand [20]
  • Article by André Marchand in Journal of Service Research [21] and a press release for this article with another picture of André Marchand [22]
  • Article by André Marchand in Journal of Marketing (which is by the way the globally highest ranked journal in the Marketing discipline) [23]
  • Article by André Marchand in Journal of Consumer Marketing (single author article) [24]
  • Google scholar entry with much more articles by André Marchand [25]
  • And see the editorial board of the Journal of Interactive Marketing, there is even another picture [26]
News (in German, sorry)

and much more...--Wiwigald32 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Wiwigald32: Just FYI, I have compressed the big article-style notes you provided above- they're still there and can be looked at- but per this, they should probably be added to the article itself. That, after all, is where they belong! :) — fortunavelut luna 18:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks Fortuna. Have you read these selections of publications about André Marchand? What else do you need to accept the English version of this german researcher?--Wiwigald32 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: This professor really exist! I know him personally. How can you still have doubts despite the many sources about him? Do you want to offend him? You could even call him or his office tomorrow (it is evening in Germany now), see: https://www.wiso.uni-koeln.de/forschung/find-an-expert/experts/prof-dr-andre-marchand/
  • No one doubts you that he exists, has published, or can answer the phone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to [33] "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." With the publication in Journal of Marketing, which is the highest ranked journal in the Marketing discipline, Prof. Marchand has developed and evaluated a ground-breaking new concept of a automated recommendation system for groups. Websites such as amazon.com will use this system probably in the future and the numbers of citation will strongly increase. One should also keep in mind that the citation count alone is not an appropriate measure for the impact a scientific breakthrough has. Usually, less innovative articles such as literature reviews get much more citations than a significant new concept. Moreover, he is a professor at the University of Cologne, which is ranked number 41 by a recent report: http://www.scmlist.com/home/university-rankings/analytical-report/ — unsigned, but from User:Wiwigald32
  • For the specific criterion you just described, "in this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." If you can indeed do that, please modify the article such that it fulfills this requirement. -- Pingumeister(talk) 09:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've already stated on your talk page, Wikipedia's purpose is to collate reliable information from existing secondary sources. The aim is to be as objective as possible. That is why these policies exist. -- Pingumeister(talk) 09:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably most scholars agree that it is a lifetime achievement to publish in the globally highest ranked journal of a discipline (with rejection rates higher than 90%) and clearly much more important than many citations from lower ranked journals. Quality matters more than quantity in academia today. Of course it may slightly vary over disciplines, but it is definitely the case in the marketing research discipline. Are there any actual marketing scholars in this discussion who are able to judge this? Please help. --Wiwigald32 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If WP:PROF#C1 is applied, this site should be kept because the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. This university professor has published in the highest possible academic journal of this field and has won a best paper award — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaDeNCH (talk • contribs) — JaDeNCH (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROF. A paper in a (supposedly) well-regarded journal does not notability make. Publication is only the first step on the path to having an impact. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added further information and references to the article. That's all I add here. I hope that better qualified scholars from the Marketing research discipline and not even more laity will add more information and comment on this article. I also kindly ask you to stop accusing me for personally knowing this person, using other accounts, or other things because it is untrue. By the way, this is my first self-created article in Wikipedia, before that I just have worked on existing articles, so please excuse my inexperience with the whole process. I have ideas for several more articles about other related topics to the Marketing research discipline, but first will wait for the final judgment of this case.--Wiwigald32 (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No PROF, no GNG, some CRYSTAL here on this page. EEng 11:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nothing indicates his work has reached the point of having a significant impact, so he does not pass notability for academics. 1 paper is almost never enough to establish notability. There are exceptions, but unless people want to argue Marchand published a paper that to digital marketing (is that a fancy way to say spamming?) is the same as Watson and associates contribution in one publication was to biology, I do not see 1 article as enough to put Marchand into being notable. If you look at how someone fulfills academic notability requirement 1, we have indications such as "has had a book of articles by other schoolars written as a furtherance of the subjects work" as one level of probably passing notability. You will not see 1 article in a top rated journal. It is general multiple articles that are widely cited by others in multiple journals. An article in the top journal does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I agree, we should refrain from disparaging the field of digital marketing; it is not a scientific subject per se, but it does include peer-reviewed journals and is probably therefore worth Wikipedia's attention in general. -- Pingumeister(talk) 13:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The academic study of digital marketing could in principle be non-spammy and completely respectable, despite the unsavory nature of its subject. After all, we don't think of researchers on cancer as being necessarily cancerous themselves. But I don't think it's a coincidence that, in practice, many of these articles are quite promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, indeed. It may also explain the accused tactic of using SPAs, etc. but in this case it does not appear to be done very smoothly. -- Pingumeister(talk) 12:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There's nothing obvious to show he meets the notability guidelines for academics and there definitely isn't enough coverage to show the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professor Marchand has published in the Journal of Service Research, which is widely considered the world’s leading service research (A, top-tier) journal. This publication is from the recent May issue in 2017 and a lead article. Give it some time and it will be heavily cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6:31d4:155:59a6:e270:bd57:235d (talk • contribs) — 2003:6:31d4:155:59a6:e270:bd57:235d (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Give it some time and it will be heavily cited. We can wait until then. WP:Crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/André_Marchand_(academic)&oldid=1078458293"