Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olaf Karthaus
From 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 no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Olaf Karthaus
Violates "notability" guidelines: the subject does not appear to have *any* (let alone two) reliable and independent academic or journalistic secondary sources written about him to justify inclusion as a notable contributor in the field of chemistry or the Otaru Onsen lawsuit as stictly outlined in the WP guidelines. -- J Readings 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. He has a publication trail [1] but the text here suggests notability only because of some spa conflict. The page was likely created just to turn a red link to blue in Aldwinckle's article. Nullify this vote if someone changes the text into regular article about a notable scientist. Pavel Vozenilek 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: The article has been modified to focus more on his academic contributions and the hot springs issue has been sidelined. -- Black Falcon 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, No Guru 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. He doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for professors at WP:PROF, which leaves his status as suer of onsen to be his lone remaining claim to notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Full professors at research Universities are N, having gotten there by rigourous peer-review, but Chitoise University was established only in 1998, and therefore probably does not yet count as a major research university. (as distinct from Hokkaido University, which is a notable research university of very high quality). Therefore it would depend on his publications. He has 44 peer-reviewed publications, according to Science citation Index, mostly in the top chemistry journals. The most cited one has been cited 116 times, the next highest 72 times. This is high for a physical chemist. This may not have been the reason the article was added (& lnone of the work seems to bear directly upon hot springs), but he is N. as a chemist. DGG 04:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: One needs to keep in mind that the article was created, not because of his work in chemistry, but because of the hot spring issue. He is simply not notable because independent, reliable third-party sources failed to write about him (emphasis on the pronoun "him") in either capacity. That said, the article would need to be entirely re-written from a chemistry-biography perspective in order for it to make sense to the general reader. DGG's edits only compound the puzzle. In layman's terms, what did he specifically discover? How did the contribution affect the field? The fact that the 152 entries for "German chemists" do not usually rely on the number of index citations (and, by the way, relative to what subjective benchmark?) to justify an article tells us that we either need to re-write the article or delete it entirely. My vote: Delete. J Readings 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Criteria He may have gotten noticed here because of the hot springs. Having been noticed, it turns out he's an important chemist & I dont see what's wrong with that. I added information tending to show that the chemistry aspect was sufficient, because its much easier to be objective about things that can be counted. Articles about chemists are not intended to teach chemistry. The importance of chemists for WP purposes is measured by their relative importance as compared with other chemists. Those who wish to find out about polymer chemistry should read the WP article on the subject. Those who want to find out about the career of Dr. K, should read the article about him. The article on Ringo Starr is not intended to teach about drumming. It is intended to describe his career.
- The use of subsequent citations is not necessary for an article. In the case of a professor at a less-known university, it seemed advisable to offer additional evidence, since it was a questioned article. (It also technically meets the old N requirement--each article citing him is necessarily about his work. Scientists are N for their work, not for their bio details.) Each field is judged by its own standards, which can be see by examining other AfD'd articles. DGG 03:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: One needs to keep in mind that the article was created, not because of his work in chemistry, but because of the hot spring issue. He is simply not notable because independent, reliable third-party sources failed to write about him (emphasis on the pronoun "him") in either capacity. That said, the article would need to be entirely re-written from a chemistry-biography perspective in order for it to make sense to the general reader. DGG's edits only compound the puzzle. In layman's terms, what did he specifically discover? How did the contribution affect the field? The fact that the 152 entries for "German chemists" do not usually rely on the number of index citations (and, by the way, relative to what subjective benchmark?) to justify an article tells us that we either need to re-write the article or delete it entirely. My vote: Delete. J Readings 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable--Sefringle 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:PROF point 3 (also possibly 4): The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature. He has co-authord at least 5 article that have been cited 365 times. An average of 73 citations for such works and 116 citations for the first is very high. The hot springs issue is secondary and has, in any case, been minimalised in the article. -- Black Falcon 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Since May 2005, virtually no material edits have been made by knowledgable persons in chemistry who care to improve the article. As it stands, unfortunately, it reads like a substandard resume. It's my sincere hope that those who vote to keep this article know (or intend to research) what exactly his contributions to the field are, and intend to improve the article, before they vote to keep it on a technicality. Regarding point 3, has he written a textbook? Is it the subject of multiple, independent works? More importantly, on the third clause (index citations), are they aware of what ideas are actually being discussed? The caveat to the third clause specifically states: Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page. Have the editors in favor of keeping this article actually read the works in question to know the answer? I would be willing to withdraw my delete nomination tomorrow if someone actually read these articles and can articulate their substance for Wikipedia readers in the form of a well-written article. If not, my vote remains: Delete.J Readings 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. I am confused as to why you consider DGG's edit a non-material edit. More broadly, a lack of people caring to edit an article has no weight on the notability of its subject. As regards WP:PROF, please reread the full text of point 3. A "textbook" is only one of the examples given, and the other is this: if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature. This is how those 5 works meet point 3. I agree that the format in which the article is written is substandard, but for that there is {{wikify}}. I will attempt to address some of the points you've raised, but I will not read the 365 works that cite these 5 articles to determine the extent to which they are about these works. The fact of having written something that is widely cited in a literature is itself a factor. -- Black Falcon 01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Since May 2005, virtually no material edits have been made by knowledgable persons in chemistry who care to improve the article. As it stands, unfortunately, it reads like a substandard resume. It's my sincere hope that those who vote to keep this article know (or intend to research) what exactly his contributions to the field are, and intend to improve the article, before they vote to keep it on a technicality. Regarding point 3, has he written a textbook? Is it the subject of multiple, independent works? More importantly, on the third clause (index citations), are they aware of what ideas are actually being discussed? The caveat to the third clause specifically states: Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page. Have the editors in favor of keeping this article actually read the works in question to know the answer? I would be willing to withdraw my delete nomination tomorrow if someone actually read these articles and can articulate their substance for Wikipedia readers in the form of a well-written article. If not, my vote remains: Delete.J Readings 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- delete - he is a self-described proponent of intelligent design. :-) If being a vaguely notable professor involved in a racial discrimination lawsuit covered in the press is not sufficient to sway the AfD debate one way or another, maybe being an ID proponent will? (I'm joking) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In order to keep I would want to see not just a list of articles by him, but articles that say something about what he has done and describe what he's contributed. A complete review article or an article totally about him isn't needed, but a mere cite isn't enough. A sentence or two in an independent article that indicates he's done something notable which has influenced subsequent work is the barebones minimum for what's missing, and multiple such articles (at least two) would meet policy requirements. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply Precisely, Shirahadasha. This has been my position from the beginning. DGG's edits (supported by Black Falcon) are appreciated, but far too mechanical. What exactly is Karthaus' contribution to the field of chemistry (in layman's terms) that makes him notable? This is not a rhetorical question; it's a genuine attempt to write articles for the benefit of the WP readership, and not for the sole benefit of the WP editors. J Readings 07:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Counterpoint. The sole benefit of the WP editors? Exactly what benefit am I or DGG getting out of this article? I admit that my basic knowledge of chemistry and my complete ignorance of the academic field do not afford me the capacity to discover the particular nature of Karthaus' contribution to the field nor to express it in layman's terms if I knew of it. But if your concern is the "benefit of the WP readership", let me assure you as a reader of WP for over 2 years before I became an editor that readers would prefer to find the few details available in this article over the absence of an article. -- Black Falcon 20:28, 16 March 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.
