Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Knutson

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 no consensus, although I would agree with the delete arguments that this article inherently fails WP:BIO. However, as an academic it is possible that he would not be the main subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. But his work and research has been mentioned in multiple sources as illustrated by the article. There is a proposed guideline which has not achieved consensus as yet, but sums up good reasons why professors and other academicians should be included into the Encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Knutson

Brian Knutson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This guy is only an assistant professor and does not have many publications. The publications he has are not well cited and not influential. Not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed, per nom. Unless some influential sources can be cited, I have to go with delete. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Edeans 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Mr.K. (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Brainsynth 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed that Assistant Professors are not usually notable scientists at that stage in their career. But I have checked his publication list, which is very strong--he has published approximately 40 peer-reviewed articles since receiving his doctorate, including 5 in Neuron, the highest ranking journal in his field. These publications have had a total to 1041 references to them from other peer-reviewed scientific journals, four of them having over 95 citations. That's way more than average, since average is one or two cites each and his average is 25. I did not expect to see this--in fact I had written delete before i went back and checked in Web of Science. The numbers speak for themselves. Allowing for those who have cited more than one of his papers, several hundred published scientists have found his work notable enough to cite. Mnemopsis, could you recheck your count--Web of Science is usually the most reliable source. DGG 01:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pubmed indicates he has one publication in Neuron, which is not the highest ranking journal of any field btw (Nature, Nature Neuroscience, and Science all rank much higher than Neuron). He has a couple of dozen publications, which is not that many by any standards. Prominent neuroscientists typically have over 200 publications. Furthermore, he is not the recipient of any notable awards, nor do his publications indicate any significant new findings that are in any way notable. Nor does he appear on ISI Highly Cited Researchers. He seems like your typical neuroscientist who falls on the lower end of the publication spectrum. If he has done something significant, I'd like to know what it is. Mnemopis 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• 'isi highly cited includes publications only through 1999, and is thus not relevant here.'DGG 02:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

you're right, my bad, it only covers 1981-1999. Mnemopis 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect: This is the second time in recent days that I have seen someone propagate the false belief that ISIHighlyCited.com is based upon 1981-1999 citations. The first version was based on those years, but they continually shift the 20 year frame of reference forward with each full year's contributions according to their own website: To identify Highly Cited Researchers, we begin with all articles indexed in the Thomson Scientific Citation Databases in a 20 year, rolling time period; the first dataset used for analysis comprised articles and their citations in the years 1981-1999, the second dataset included 1983-2002, and we will continue with 1984-2003, etc. Each article in the data is assigned to one or more of the 21 categories in ISIHighlyCited.com based on the ISI classification of the journal in which the article was published. ju66l3r 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's strange. I checked the site and you're right but when I checked it earlier, I could have sworn it said it covered only 1981-99. Maybe they updated the site? Mnemopis 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep He has some publications and is cited, so he is a little notable. mrholybrain's talk 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• it would be interesting to compare standards. He is perhaps in the top 10% of his field--(among those who have acquired the minimum credentials, a PhD) but not the top 1%, (perhaps everyone could agree on that?) .

Then do we include the top 10% or the top 1% in other areas of human work? Do we include the top 10% of rock musicians who have acquired the minimal credentials of producing one generally released recording?--or only the top 1 in a hundred? Do we include the top 10% of novelists, among those who have published at least one novel? or only the best 1 in 100? Do we include the top 10% or the top 1% of professional football players, among those who have ever played a professional game?

Some of the guidelines say more notable than the average (whatever): That's the top 50%. All associate professors in any research university are within the top 50% of those with doctorates in the field. In fact, so are all assistant professors in a research university--at least half of new doctorates never get a tenure-track job in a research university. Included in the top 50% are all associate or full professors in any four-year college and up, and all full professors at 2-yr colleges.

If we think the standards are those whom we could write a meaningful article about, then anyone who has obtained these minimal distinctions count, for it could be done by analyzing their work in connection with their field, their advisor, where they publish, etc.

What I do not think is acceptable is to say those about whom a good article is written--we are judging the subject. If the article is inadequate, by all means we should stubbify it, and then protect it indefinitely against deletion. The point of having rules is equity--judging by a fixed standard, applicable to all. DGG 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's close to passing WP:BIO, but not close enough.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. I'll add also this guy is working at Stanford University, not some itty bitty 2 year college. Which in my mind strengthens his case ontop of what has already been said. Mathmo ^Talk 04:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - 40 peer-reviewed articles is damn good for an Assistant Professor. Leave as stub and tag for expansion. In addition, numerous mentions in news articles. The individual is unquestionably notable in his field and for WP. -- Black Falcon 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I would not go so far as to say we should include all full professors at all 2-year colleges, as DGG seems to be saying, but that's very different from a rising star at a top research university. I would like to understand the discrepancy between DGG and Mnemopis' citation numbers but a quick check of Google Scholar (ignoring the similarly named B.L. Knutson) seems to lean more towards the DGG side of that equation. —David Eppstein 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per DGG. Lankiveil 12:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete in my opinion this definitely fails WP:BIO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per DGG, this professor appears to be notable based on his publications and community referencing. (jarbarf) 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Director of research group and lead author on many of the publications coming out of the group[1]. John Vandenberg 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity pageSlideAndSlip 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Sources added: I have added to the article 5 news reports that discuss Knutson and his research. Some cleanup and expansion still needs to be done (I will work on this when I get the chance), but I think the subject definitely passes WP:BIO now. -- Black Falcon 01:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Id say this even fails the pokemon test. TSMonk 03:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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.