Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kotter

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark Kotter

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mark Kotter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unless someone can show how this would meet WP:NPROF, subject is not notable under any other guideline. Putting aside COI and UPE, the sources simply do not go into depth about the subject. Just passing mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to a formal keep per Ldm1954's comments below. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in-depth because the sources just pass a claim. COI, not at all notable. Agreeing with Axad12, MrOllie, CNMall41. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 17:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extending based on review - more time may be of benefit here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. With an h-factor of 48 he just about passes NPROF#C1. Note that for NPROF we don't require extensive external coverage. If he had significant awards it would be a strong keep; at the moment he squeezes by. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
h-factor can be an indicator, but not proof of notability. We need to show "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here." I don't see that here unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41, it is very rare to find reviews of the work of scientists except when they receive major awards, in Feitschrifts or obituaries; hence that criteria is rarely used in the AfD discussions I have seen. He has two > 1K cited papers in high quality journals (Nature Reviews, Brain). As I said, I would be happier if there were awards to back up the case but I will argue that he just makes #C1. Please also look at his citation history which has had a rapid growth in 2022-2023 which looks to be continuing in 2024. That does strengthen the case slightly. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and I respect your points. I understand it may be rare but if they don't exists then they don't exist. The coverage in reliable sources is what we need. If the citations pick up in the future, maybe he will meet the threshhold but I think we are even lower than low hanging fruit to say he meet #C1 based on two papers with 1K+ cites. Maybe a redirect to Meatable would be appropriate until such time as he meets the threshold. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Let me be more definitive; coverage such as reviews of their work is not a viable criteria in almost all of science. There are many scientists without them who already have WP pages. If people cite the work, and it is in a high impact journal that is a strong indicator. Note that this is not HEP where citations are massive.
If you believe 1K is not a significant number of citations I really think you should post a question at WT:NPROF to get more opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking, I just looked under one of his GS areas remyelination. The highest cited person has 3 articles with > 1K cites, the 2nd has 1, 3rd 0, 4th 2 and he is fifth. I see no indications this is a very high cites field (e.g. HEP), it is comparable to physics, albeit much higher than math and most arts. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the disagreement which is why we are discussing. I never said it was not a significant number of citations. I said that #C1 would not be satisfied with two papers of 1K+ citations. If it was, we would have a ton of pages for people who would otherwise not be notable. I agree that a significant number of citations is an indicator of notability, which is why I said "h-factor can be an indicator;" but, it is just that...an indicator. There would need to be an agreement that the amount of cites he has is significant enough to pass the #C1 criteria and I don't think we do. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If we agree that the subject passes WP:PROF (and I'm not claiming that we do) then GNG arguments are moot. And unless I'm mistaken, outside a few hot-button topics, research papers with >1000 citations are still very rare. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are close. I don't believe this would meet GNG so the only thing I think we differ on at the moment is if his citations would meet the threshold of #C1. I wouldn't be opposed to requesting other editors with experience in that space to chime in. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that was what I hoped for when I first commented. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do see an open discussion from September but it doesn't look like there is headway one direction or the other. Personally, I hate WP:PROF standards as everything is subjective in cases like this.
Interpretation of whether GNG is met is also surprisingly subjective. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be, but we have guidance based on discussion and consensus what governs things such significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent coverage. That makes GNG fairly easy at times and subjective in fewer cases than not. Whereas, we don't have guidance (at least none I can find) that helps with PROF, hence the reason for the discussion I guess. Even the September discussion doesn't see to have clarity unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, clear consensus usually arises from PROF-based discussions in AfD, while I have seen endless debates over precisely what constitutes adequate coverage under GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your contention. We will have to disagree on that as well. Different lens I guess. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PROF#C1 is tricky as you will see from the often (very) extended discussions at WT:NPROF. There are a range of methods for h-factors/citations, but they all boil down to a check of:
  1. Journal reliability, impact factor, notability, e.g. "Nature" versus pay "Pay to play" (predator).
  2. Some disciple scaler. For instance as a crude metric for 3 topics I would equate h-factors as mathematics:15 ~ condensed matter physics:30 ~ High-energy physics:75
  3. The base number. My minimum requirement (45-50) for physics/materials science is quite high, I have see others claim that 30 is notable.
  4. A comparison to others in the field. This matters.
  5. Place in article, e.g. first (did the work), last (managed everything), other (never obvious) and the number of co-authors.
  6. High single paper cites, which indicates that the community considers the work important.
  7. Experience. I changed my scaling for what is notable in mathematics following several AfD discussions and WT:NPROF.
N.B., I steer clear of academics in the arts as I don't know how to judge them unless it is a no-brainer (e.g. FRS, MacArthur). Ldm1954 (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to get more commentary on whether NPROF 1a is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Kotter&oldid=1255936497"