Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Fuchs (sociologist)

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 delete, disregarding the overly long and unintelligible contribution of Crscrs (talk · contribs). Sandstein (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Fuchs (sociologist)

Christian Fuchs (sociologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Also nominating Internet and Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I suggest removing the nomination of the subject article Internet and Society, which should be nominated separately. It is the title of one of his books, but it is not altogether about it. DGG (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Struck through. I'll leave it to others to decide what do with that one. Prolog 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an autobiography with no reliable sources. Fuchs has also gone around the project adding essay-like paragraphs of his rather non-notable views (especially in context of websites such as YouTube, MySpace etc.) sourced to his upcoming book, [1][2] so there is a definite COI spam problem also. Prolog 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteNot sure about the autobiograhy part, but the sources are not independent so not WP:RS. His publications are normal for a prof. Thus this article fails WP:PROF and fails WP:NOTE.Obina 13:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources, is a COI, and is non-notable. STORMTRACKER 94 14:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As stated on the talk page Fuch seems to be a very productive young scholar addressing broadly important topics. He published already six books and dozends of articles, in notable journals, in the field of systems science. I think it is a extra dimension that Wikipedia also tells about these kind of contemporary scientists. I write this from the perspective of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. I am glad that among the some hunderd systems scientists mentioned also some young and promising scientists are mentioned. I realize though, that he still has to prove himselve some more the years to come. What counts is that respectable publishers and journals seems to have faith in him. I am amazed that this doesn't seems to count at all. - Mdd 19:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All professors publish in journals from respectable publishers. Web of Science mentions that Fuchs' works have been cited by a grand total of 195 articles. His h-index is 6. This guy looks to have a promising future and some years from now may meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia. At this moment, he obviously does not. --Crusio 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Correction Almost all cited articles mentioned above are on psychiatric disorders and from another "C. Fuchs". Only one paper cited just 4 times remains when these have been removed. Obviously non notable. --Crusio 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Fuchs isn't a professor yet, which makes it some more special. - Mdd 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing for notability on the grounds that the person lacks better professional status? No. Doczilla 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Put simply, this is not a very impressive record. Neither the most important publishers, nor the journals. Since Scopus is much more inclusive than WoS for European work in the social sciences, I checked there, but found nothing much more substantial: only 10 citations total. If this is notable "from the perspective of the WikiProject Systems," the WP articles in that field need some objective examination to maintain WP standards. But in all subjects I tend to translate "promising" as "not yet notable." DGG (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I invite any examination in the field of Systems to maintain WP standards. In fact I am glad with any activity here, even this discussion. I'm learning here about Scopus and WoS, and the (for me new) ways to establish notability, and the rule to eliminate all scholars whose citating rate isn't high enough. I haven't read that yet in the notability guideliness or heard it in any discussion. But I am still learning. At the moment I'm wondering if I can check those rates myselve? - Mdd 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Mdd, you are right that a low citation rate does not disqualify someone as non-notable. However, for an academic it is a way of establishing notability if they are cited very highly. In the absence of other evidence, a high citation rate would establish notability. In the present case, there is no evidence of notability and the citation record shows that these works have not (yet?) received much attention from people working in the same field. Fuchs may become notable in the future, but then again, he may not. It's too early to say, so notability is not established at this point. I agree that it is unfortunate that both Scopus and WoS are subscription-based services. However, from your userpage I guess that you live in the Randstad Holland. There are many universities there and you most probably can access both services if you visit one of their library sites. --Crusio 13:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I'll take a look next time. I now understand that the original creator user:Crscrs is probably "Christian Fuchs" himselve, or somebody closs by, and here is a conflickt of interest. And the spamming as 121.44.15.103 mentioned, doesn't look that good eighter. - Mdd 14:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article in question has been posted in several articles with only a minor relationship to this one, possibly encroaching upon WP:SPAM. Furthermore the articlee is a vanity piece. Other highly notable scientists, both dead (Enrico Fermi) and Alive (Peter Grünberg), have considerably shorter publication lists. 121.44.15.103 13:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable spammishness. Doczilla 18:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keeplow citation rate isn't a formalized ruled for deletion of an article in wikipedia. in the social sciences, citation indexes are considered rather unimportant because so much publishing is done in the form of books. routledge is a top-social science publishing house, books published there are peer-reviewed which guarantees quality and importance standards. as the person in question has published a book there, shows a certain quality and relevance of his work, as the book has undergone peer-review. furthermore if you take a look at the publication list, you will find a whole bunch of peer-reviewed articles, which is also a quality measure of the work. if the logic of "low citation rate under ISI => deletion in wikipedia" is applied to one scientist, then it must be applied to all scientists mentioned in wikipedia. this will result in a heavy deletion of social scientists, because SCI is much more used in the natural and engineering sciences than in the social sciences. COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion". The material added was balanced out by adding the views of other authors in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore it is not a commercial spam, but a contribution to the representation of the state of the art in a specific field of research. Guideline on citing oneself: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." This rule says that an editor is even required to cite his own sources if he includes his knowledge. NPOV: Concerning the specific passages in question that were described as spam by one users and repeatedly by others, first the views of other authors (Tapscott, Williams) were added. Then the other views in question were added in order to allow the reader to compare these different views. The style of presentation wasn't biased. Probably it would be good to have a moderator mediating in this conflict. I have reduced the size of the article in question to a minimum, which would allow resolving the conflict discussed here by simply agreeing that as notability is in conflict here, such a reduction could be a consensus. ? Please also consider the following aspect of the deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". So another suggestion would be that all those involved in the discussion here, actively edit the article or discuss how to edit the article in order to find consensus.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crscrs (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 November 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.