Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman H. Anderson

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 keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norman H. Anderson[edit]

Norman H. Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The guy who wrote almost all of this would like us to speedy-delete it, but I ran this by DGG and he'd prefer to AfD it per his note on this article's talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject would appear to meet WP:PROF.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable enough; IMO the lengthy list of publications should be trimmed to a few important ones, Google Scholar provides an easy way for interested readers to find more. JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the current evidence for notability? According to the article Anderson was a professor at the University of California at San Diego and published a list of papers. According to WP:ACADEMIC, neither is enough to establish notability (not even close: not every prof is notable and all academics publish, so we don't have anuthing special yet). If I find some time, I'll see whether I can find some real evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep According to the Web of Science, Anderson is very highly cited: 12 articles cited more than 100 times (most cited one: 911 hits), h-index=39, total citations almost 6000. He is also one of the founders of the San Diego Dept. of Psychology. I have added this information to the article. The list of publications still needs some paring down and it would be good if the stub could be expanded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusio (talk • contribs)
  • keep per Crusio. Suggest a consideration of withdrawl or speedy snow close. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this such an obvious keep? Where are the independent sources discussing Anderson or his work? Neither his own book, nor his own department's website, qualify as independent. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply The article does need to be fixed, but that is viewed as a different question from whether it ought to be deleted.Although it does not currently, the article could obviously be edited to demonstrate that the subject passes the WP:PROF notability standard. Deletion would be called for if it were the case that an article could not be improved to meet that standard. The evidence referred to in Crusio's !vote, is the sort of thing that has been accepted at AfDs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators to meet criterion #1 of WP:PROF. An h-index of that magnitude and many highly cited articles according to the Web of Science (which is an independent source) demonstrate that his research has a notable impact on scholarship within his discipline. If this strikes you as unreasonable, you may want to review a sample of closed AfDs from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators to get a feel for how matters have been conducted in the past, then suggest methods by which this might be improved. Creating an account would be of help if you were to go that route. Best regards. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web of Science is a database, not a source that can be used to construct an encyclopedia article. I appreciate the formal metaphysical notability that typically permeates AFD prof debates, but disagree with it. AFD should instead tackle the practical question of whether a neutral article can be written at this title. Only sources that actually discuss the topic at hand are relevant to writing such an article. Web of Science doesn't cut it. Likewise, a claim that Anderson's scholarly impact is notable can only be backed up by independent sources that discuss that impact, not by appeal to a "high" h-index or "many" citations. (And you don't have to preface your reply with "reply"--anyone reading the discussion can tell that it's a reply.) 160.39.213.97 (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it can be backed up any way we like, if it achieves consensus. If a lot of people cite a scholar, then it means the scholar's made a significant impact on his or her discipline. See WP:PROF.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
verbal descriptions of impact on a field or meaningless, and in my opinion usually susceptible to friendship networks. Actual measurements of how important work is by seeing how much it is used is true measure of significance and notability. Some fields of study dont have adequate metrics for this , but the physical and biologiclal sciences do. When we need to guess, we guess as best we can. When we can measure, we don;t have to guess Once we guessed as through a fog of words darkly, but now we can measure face to face. . Scientometrics is a fairly well understood subject, and those using it here understand how to use it properly. and avoid the many traps. It still takes intelligence. it does not result in a single number pass or fail, thoubgh some educational politicians misuse it that way. DGG (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, DGG, and I also prefer your take on 1st Corinthians to the original. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, your argument relates to some abstract, metaphysical notion of notability--notability as "significance" or being an "authority in the field." I'm talking about the practical question of whether sources exist with which to write an actual encyclopedia article that is not a CV. See the difference? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The important part of an article on a scholar is his scholarly activity, just like the one on an athlete is his athletic record. Where either of them may of gone to high school is of marginal relevance. Notability for a scholar is recognition as an authority in his field--not my notion, but the accepted standard at WP:PROF, and the publications are what prove it. If we can verify them & their citations we've meth the V requirement for an article. DGG (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've met the V requirement for a CV or a hagiography. Wikipedia demands NPOV in addition to V. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is a list of papers not NPOV? DGG (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It expresses the POV of a (promotional) CV. A list of papers is not an encyclopedia article. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for the record, I note the admitted disruption from the above anon address of an article for another academic at [1] DGG (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I note the inappropriate promotion from the above administrator account of another academic at [2]. Alternatively, perhaps DGG could address the issue that is actually at hand. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on the basis of the very large number of heavily-cited publications in major journals. Even wthout looking at citations, since journal articles are accepted on the basis of peer-review, the acceptance of this great a number at veruy good journals indicates notability as an authority. Looking at citations -- a little tricky because of the age--I and Crusio find his most cited papers has been cited several hundred times according to Scopus, and web of science: 13 Papers have been cited more than 100 times each. The article, by the way, is incomplete; it stops at 1973; he published at least 50 papers subsequent to that date. By any standard this is very high notability. . How many papers should be included is an interesting question. Some of the GA reviewers are insisting that every publication be included, generally on a separate page, "list of publications of " See the discussion on my talk page at the section "You are giving me conflicting information" [3] over the articles on Norman Wengert and Howard Adelman. DGG (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is snowing. --Crusio (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Crusio. Edward321 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's an independent source discussing Anderson & his work, in words even. Clearly notable, but with a common name and harder than usual to search for data on.John Z (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Crusio, DGG et al. The citation impact noted by Crusio meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:52, 28 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norman_H._Anderson&oldid=1086362879"