Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Chun (professor)

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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chun (professor)

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

I prod-tagged this article on a professor emeritus, saying "Low h-index, in the teens. Article makes no particular claim of notability." User:DGG deprodded, noting that he has 68 papers published. My contention is that there is no particular contribution to his field to be found, so there is no need for an encyclopedia article on this person. If secondary or tertiary sources exist to show that Dr Chun made a discovery that warrants an encyclopedia entry, I could not find them. Abductive (reasoning) 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence there is no contribution to his field from the wikipedia based searches above --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have followed WP:BEFORE to the best of my abilities. Have you any sources? I suspect not. Abductive (reasoning) 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I'm not going to call you ignorant just because you disagree with me. The topic is still the deletion of the article. Try to get back to it. If you spent time reading about Chun you might learn something, and it wouldn't require more time than searching up a wikipedia essay to call me ignorant for disagreeing with you about this deletion. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice job baiting. But I didn't call you ignorant, I characterized your argument as fallacious and specified the fallacy as an argument from ignorance. In other words, you came up with a bizarre evidence of absence argument that cannot be refuted, but you are doing it in an environment (a BLP AFD) where such an argument cannot be accepted. Abductive (reasoning) 01:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, now my arguments are not only from ignorance but bizarre? Nice. Anyway, back to Chun's h-index. What is it? How was it calculated? Your searches above are based on "Paul Chun (professor)." Suprise, that's a low return even for some well known professors with sky-high h-indexes.
      - So, my ignorance, my bizarre arguments, my baiting aside. And, back to Chun. What is his h-index? How does that compare to Gould's? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With this extensive a publication and presentation/symposium record, burden must fall on nominator to prove that subject's contribution to his specialized field aren't consequential. No breakout "discovery" is required, any more than an actor must be top-billed in a film to be notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given his decades as a researcher, his low h-index is evidence of low impact in the field. Abductive (reasoning) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comparing one person to another to see which one should have an article is one of the classic arguments to avoid. We have probably some articles on those we should not, and lack a great number of those we ought to have . Full professors at research universities are usually notable, and he is no exception. Web of Science shows about 100 articles (there are some in other fields--it's a common name) The highest citation counts are 100, 50, 38 36, 33, I consider that sufficient to show citation as a major figure in the field--even one paper at a level of 100 is very considerable distinction. I find h index = 15, but there is a great difference between someone with 15 articles and 15 citations each, and someone with a distribution like his. The reason I distrust h factor is that it is incapable of telling the difference. Judging professors by h factor is a little simplistic, as one needs to consider the actual record. (indeed if someone had 14 articles with 200 citations each and the next one had 15, the h index would still be 15.) I wish the nom. would stop relying on it. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also look for an statement (in the article and elsewhere) of what the person has done or discovered. I'll continue to believe that an encyclopedia entry requires context, not some citation count (as DGG uses) or an h-index (as I mention in my nominations). Every professor is an expert in something, and every professor publishes. But why should encyclopedists care, if they cannot be embedded in a network of cross-references to other articles? Abductive (reasoning) 23:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Top GS cites are 21, 19, 18, 16... h index = 12. WoS does much better as shown above. Borderline case appropriately brought to AfD after deprodding. Some indication of context can be found easily by anybody at GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 2 November 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.