Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Phaff

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. WP:SK #2.1, 2.2. T. Canens (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Phaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

There is no notability claim in the first paragraph, nor is it sourced at all. Existing sources are weak;

1. 1: in memoriam by a trade journal
2. 2: ditto
3. 3: trivial mention of subject, different scientist article
4. 4: old academic paper by subject
5. 5: article in business journal about college yeast collection, not subject
6. 6: University site about again the collection and subject, but subject was employee there.

This gentleman was obviously a great contributor to his field, yet simply not notable enough for a world-wide encyclopedia. I do not see this article passing any aspect of WP:PROF, and that is indeed the measure we must use. Even general notability is weak, with coverage being in strictly trade publications. Oh, and creator (who is practically the only contributor) removed my notability tag. Turqoise127 01:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, regretably. Subject simply does not pass the relevant WP:PROF guideline. Thanks.Turqoise127 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC) refactored comment as nominator is presumed to have contributed a "delete" opinion unless the contrary is indicated. ^Bongo_matic 03:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor your own comments only, unless you plan to patrol all AfD's and strike out nominator's votes. This is common; first is nom, then nom's opinion. Presumtions are not wise.Turqoise127 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin the preceding opinion is a duplication of the opinion expressed in the nomination. ^Bongo_matic 05:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Make that a speedy keep: this is a bad-faith nomination targeted specifically at the work of User:Smartse. But even if it weren't, this is a ridiculous nomination. The subject had two obituaries in professional, academic journals (not one trade journal--peer-reviewed, academic articles). Do you have any idea how rare that is? Anyone in academia realizes that. The subject was obviously one of the foremost scholars in the area of yeast research, and a quick Google Scholar search confirms that some basic requirements are met: his 5 Yeasts Associated with Plants, Insects and Soil is cited 101 times. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. Otherwise, keep. Subject received two long obituaries in scientific journals (not "trade journals"), which is sufficient for GNG. Citations to journal articles (possibly under-counted due to period of scholarly activity) are quite high, as a Google scholar search would have determined. Generally, given the period of activity of the subject, significant FUTON bias can be inferred. ^Bongo_matic 04:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I am citing the GNG and the h-index as sufficient reasons to keep the article, and suggesting FUTON bias as the likely reason there isn't substantially more material available online referencing the subject. Also, I have notified DGG of this discussion, as he has given a great deal of thought on the notability of academics. ^Bongo_matic 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crying to DGG is actually CANVASSING.Turqoise127 17:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:CANVAS, soliciting the opinion of editors in deletion deletion discussions is appropriate where the solicitation is limited in number (one is limited ), neutral (see the message ), nonpartisan (DGG's reputation as unbiased is well-known— you have requested his views in other situations ), and open (I advertised it here ). Where's the canvassing?
• Referring to another editor's contributions as "crying" is uncivil and borders on the personal attack. ^Bongo_matic 20:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Would editors please comment on content rather than conduct. The bad faith conspiracy theory is far fetched and out of line. I was simply going through SmartSE's contributions and I keep running into articles I find marginal at best...including this one. If FUTON bias is the best we can come up with...Turqoise127 04:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please comment on my content, and if you can't, consider withdrawing. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is to your content. Two obituaries in journals mean nothing. Yeast as a subject is of such limited interest that of course someone who devotes thair life to it will be mourned by the other two individuals who also deal with yeast. I do not think it is rare, and I am not in academia. The high number of citations? "Microbiology is a field with very high citation density" per DGG. woof.Turqoise127 17:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. You can see that commenting on specific motivations of the nominator is codified in Wikipedia procedures. ^Bongo_matic 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it may be codified, but it remains very bad practice to do this. I do not think this a bad faith nomination--I merely think the nominator has not understood WP:PROF, or examined the way previous AfDs of academics are discussed. So far I see only two nominations of articles predominantly written by SmartSE, so this comes a good deal short of harassment. I came here to comment on notability, but on seeing the discussion above I must first give a caution about conduct.

• Keep as far as notability goes, he fulfills WP:PROF easily as a specialist in his subject. Discovering and describing new species has generally been considered notable if it was only a few, and he has a good many. Having a species named after one is also often considered notability , and he had a higher level taxon named in memorial to him, which is necessarily rarer. But to simplify this, a festschift or memorial symposium is regarded here--and in the academic world--as unquestionable notability. I really suggest the nom withdraw this AfD, as the best solution. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: appears to meet WP:PROF. Having a symposium named in your memory certainly is indicative of stature in your field. Sources appear addequate, if not stellar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Let me add to all of the above observations his research statistics from WoS – they're impressive, especially considering that much of his work is probably not in WoS (at least the version that I have access to) because of its age: >100 peer-reviewed papers with citation counts 251, 153, 151, 112, 103, ... (h-index > 20, total citations > 2000). I say speedy keep here both because of the conclusive pass on WP:PROF #1 and because past contention among several of the panelists here is liable to derail this discussion into further bickering. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

microbiology is a field with very high citation density.Turqoise127 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct on that point. But >2000 citations is unusually high even in that field. Coupled with all the other documentation that has been presented here, I'm quite certain that this article will close as a "keep". You're welcome to campaign further, of course. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• WP:SNOW keep. The "trade journal" is the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology and so forth. He was also the editor of a few other "trade journals", like Journal of Bacteriology, which is enough by WP:PROF #8. This smacks of bad faith nom from someone who has done this before after a sour grapes issue with a biography he wrote that got deleted. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (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.