Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Falk (academic)

Add links
Source: 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. Procedural Keep after nomination was Withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Falk (academic)

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

Raphael Falk (academic) (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)

No indication of notability. Falk does not satisfy any of the eight notability criteria at

WP:ACADEMIC (or whether he otherwise was notable). Nothing in the article indicates that that is the case. Struck, see comment below. Jeppiz (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep, obviously. Falk was a noted geneticist. Contrary to the claim, it is easy to find more than 2000 citations for him at Google Scholar. He also wrote at least two books which were repeatedly reviewed and often cited. This more than enough to satisfy "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Furthermore, it is definitely NOT common for academics to receive obituaries in academic journals; in fact only a tiny fraction receive that honor. Zerotalk 15:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that is factually incorrect. A bit over 2000 citations for a whole academic career is very modest. Few colleagues in my own department are below 6000 citations (and only one has a WP article, and he is above 80.000). Globally, most academics with 10.000 - 20.000 citations do not have articles on Wikipedia. It might be the overall criteria for academics are too strict (I am very open to that discussion) but that should be discussed under
    WP:ACADEMIC. As the criteria stand, Falk obviously does not meet them. Jeppiz (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • PS, I want to qualify my response to Zero above to state categorically that I wish we would apply the criteria Zero introduces. For many years, I've found it to be anti-academic bias that, for example, football players only need to play in a fourth division team that few would know and still qualify for notability, whereas not even being a Professor at a good university and have more than 1000 academic citations is enough for an academic. I have no argument in principle with what Zero writes. However, those are not the current guidelines. If anyone wants to start a discussion that academics such as Falk should be considered notable, I'll support it 100%. But in the meantime, we just cannot apply entirely different criteria to Falk than to other academics. Jeppiz (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So go and write articles on the fine academics who don't have them instead of trying to delete an article on someone who does deserve one. The problem with "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" is not present in its wording. You claim to dislike how high the barrier is in practice, but there is nothing at all forcing you to interpret this rule as a very high barrier. Instead, you are doing exactly what you complain about. Also I think your little warning in tiny type is rather outrageous given that you came here as a protagonist in the debate you mention. Zerotalk 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I did "go and write articles" they would be swiftly deleted as per
WP:ACADEMIC you think Falk met. I do take your point about the obituary as being relevant, though I don't think it's enough in itself (obituaries are not for all academics but neither are they that rare). Still, it's a valid point. Beyond that point, what notability do you see and for which criteria? Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep: Daft nomination and frankly a bit tasteless and disrespectful to the recently deceased. Almost every paper by Falk on Google Scholar has dozens if not hundreds of cites, making the case for his impact self-evident. Also, see criterion 1.c. of
Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It isn't a memorial volume but a 4 page obituary in the Springer journal Biological Theory. As I noted this is an honor that only a tiny fraction of scholars receive when they die. Zerotalk 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iskandar323
    , exactly everything you say is wrong.
1. No, Falk is not "recently deceased", it's been more than 'two years. Not that it matters one bit.
2. "Dozens of citations" is like saying it's an athletic achievement to do two push-ups. Are you familiar with the H-index? Even the most junior faculty quickly gets an H-index of 10-20. An academic article with "dozens" of cites is not even remotely notable. In previous discussions over academic notability, we have looked at whether the academic has any article with more than 1000 cites. Even that has not necessarily been enough. .
3. I assume good faith in thinking that your claim that there was a memorial volume to Falk is not a deliberate lie (false though it is) but just another indication of your lack of knowledge of a academia. A journal published an obituary for Falk. That is not the same as a memorial volume.
In short, not one part of your comment is correct. Perhaps you refrain from calling others "daft"? Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, got confused over the in memorium piece, but no, it's still a daft nomination, and Zero is absolutely right that you are raising needless illusory barriers here, and you would be better off adding content instead.
Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • WP:PROF#C1. Quite the contrary, his absence settles the matter of citations, we now know that (in WP's eyes) Falk is not widely cited. You may of course have refered to a different part of those criteria, would you mind explaining what part of them you think Falk fulfills. Jeppiz (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:BLUDGEON. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks, and I have no intent to
WP:BLUDGEON, apologies if you felt that way. As I told Zero, I am genuinely interested in the criteria WP uses for academics; it interests me much more than if the article on Falk is kept or not. If, for example, the standard you propose of three articles with three-digit citations became a general standard, I'd be very much in favour of that. So again, my intent was to hear your argument (not to impose mine) and I appreciate the argument you made. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That is only a rough guideline and not applicable to all fields. Some knowledge of the citation patterns in different fields is necessary. In this case, in a not-particularly-highly-cited field with single-author publications, it works ok. In other fields, other thresholds would be needed. It cannot be reduced to a simple formula. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see where you are coming from Jeepiz: abstract wiki criteria, almost observed only in the breach, and your own experience as an editor. If, rather than singling out Falk, who happens to have written the only technical book in English on the parlous misperceptions governing a subject careless scholars make productive careers out, a book without which a few wiki articles cannot be adequately rewritten according to scientific standards, you applied your technical objections, there would be a
    Encyclopedia Judaica
    , and cover everyone of historic interest. The EJ runs to 20 vols. Were those criteria applied to it, we'd have 4 vols, and people like myself spotting some minor figure without adequate coverage, running to it for illumination, would be frustrated and remain ignorant.

I once had occasion to work for two months on Nicolai A. Vasiliev, a seminal figure for some varieties of modern logic. For decades, he was neglected, and wikipedia would not have covered him, despite several very important notices in obscure journals. We must cater to very wide appetities and curiosities. All sorts of transient figures in the infotainment business get massive coverage, because they can rally any number of journalistic sources, and will be forgotten in a decade or two. Scholars who work at the forefront of their disciplines and write germinal works, should be covered. That excludes vanity bios of academics. They aren't written as often as not because no one has the time or passion to improve stubs or even note them. It's not sexy. I now recall citing David Dean Shulman on the herders of the Hebron hills. An admin challenged the detail and reverted my edit and simply redlinked the name with an edit summary, 'Shulman who?!'. No one had noticed him, despite him being one of the world's foremost Indologists. So I had to write his bio to justify restoring my edit. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Zero, David Eppstein, and

WP:ACADEMIC will be improved. This complete randomness is farcical. Jeppiz (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2023 (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/Raphael_Falk_(academic)&oldid=1139079386"