Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Berger
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 Delete. Fails WP:BIO – no secondary sources. KrakatoaKatie 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Douglas Berger
Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Subject has published a small handful of articles in some journals of low to middling prestige, but the same could be said of most tenured college professors. Douglas has received zero coverage in secondary sources. Note: a related article is being debated for deletion a little further down the page. Ford MF 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Page lists 33 publications in journals from the extremely well known (Science) down to a number of well-respected Japanese-language journals. I don't see what more is necessary to establish a scientist's notability. JulesH 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Coverage in secondary sources; there is none. Notability is not inherited. He might have published in notable publications, but that doesn't mean he is notable. Ford MF 17:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Such coverage is rare for a researcher is an unglamourous field like clinical psychiatry. However, repeated publication in well-known publications such as Science (journal) and the American Journal of Psychiatry is, in my opinion, a notable achievement in itself. Being published in such selective publications is a significant achievement in itself; doing it multiple times is more than enough to justify the existence of an article, IMO. JulesH 20:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. If you look closely at both of the American Journal of Psychiatry references, you'll see they're both published in the magazine's letters column. They are not articles. In fact, 1/4 of the citations given are just letters to the respective journals. The citation from Science is 1) 2 pages long, 2) 11 years old, 3) something on which he is only a co-author. The citations look more impressive than they are; they're pretty much all for trade journals like "European Eating Disorders Review". It's basically just a CV, not an article. Ford MF 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Such coverage is rare for a researcher is an unglamourous field like clinical psychiatry. However, repeated publication in well-known publications such as Science (journal) and the American Journal of Psychiatry is, in my opinion, a notable achievement in itself. Being published in such selective publications is a significant achievement in itself; doing it multiple times is more than enough to justify the existence of an article, IMO. JulesH 20:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Coverage in secondary sources; there is none. Notability is not inherited. He might have published in notable publications, but that doesn't mean he is notable. Ford MF 17:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It would seem to me that you couldn't get this many articles published if you weren't regarded as an important figure by independent academics in this field, or if you did, all those articles would make you important. Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable...2: The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field." It seems to me that this passes the notability test. Nyttend 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Not to sound like a dick, but you are perhaps unfamiliar with how academia works? Publish or perish. Having obscure trade journals publish your essays is de rigeur for pretty much anyone with that sort of job. It is NOT unusual. Just perusing the CVs of random professors at the local college, you can see how even the most minor and non-notable of academics often has a ridiculous number of publications to their credit. It is not (necessarily) proof that that person is regarded in any way as important in their field. Just a few samples of non-notable people with CVs matching or exceeding Berger's who work just across the street from me: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Ford MF 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore aside from getting two letters printed in American Journal of Psychiatry, and co-writing a two-page article ONCE for Science, none of the other sources are "notable", despite assertions here to the contrary, i.e. there isn't a wiki article for a single one of them. By my reckoning, this guy fulfills NONE of the criteria for WP:PROF. Ford MF 22:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Not to sound like a dick, but you are perhaps unfamiliar with how academia works? Publish or perish. Having obscure trade journals publish your essays is de rigeur for pretty much anyone with that sort of job. It is NOT unusual. Just perusing the CVs of random professors at the local college, you can see how even the most minor and non-notable of academics often has a ridiculous number of publications to their credit. It is not (necessarily) proof that that person is regarded in any way as important in their field. Just a few samples of non-notable people with CVs matching or exceeding Berger's who work just across the street from me: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Ford MF 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The articles in Major contributions to the field of psychiatry alone make this person notable. The "prestige" or "notability" of the journals used as references is irrelevant and purely a matter of opinion. Lists of other persons that don't have articles written about them are not good arguments for deletion. The fact that a related article has been nominated for deletion is not relevant here, and the nominator here has voted for deletion of the other article. This could be marginally construed as a conflict of interest. The nominator needs more familiarity with "how academia works" particularly as pertains to the field of psychology. Secondary sources would certainly add to the artcle, but are not absolutely necessary for its existence. Further it may be decades after the death of the subject that secondary sources become available in large numbers. Some may exist now and are just not in the list. I certainly wouldn't go out on a limb and claim they don't exist. Further, the non-existence of wiki articles about the referenced journals is also hardly relevant. There are uncountable subjects in very specialized fields that there are no wiki articles on. Authors in specialized fields probably spend a lot more time working in professional, peer reviewed journals than they do writing about journals for wikipedia. As to WP:PROF, an easily applied criteria here is "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known." Aspenocean 00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The "prestige" or "notability" of the journals used as references is irrelevant. Uh, it's kinda not, if you're arguing that those publications alone are what make the guy noteworthy. Take for example two fiction writers: one's published about two dozen short stories in Playboy, the New Yorker, GQ, Zoetrope, and similar publications &c. The other has published twice as many stories in local literary zines and college digests with a circulation under 1000. Which one is notable? The mere fact of publication--in any form--does not confer notability. There are clinical psychologists who have written entire books all by themselves, on notable publishers, who are not themselves notable. This guy doesn't even qualify as a wikipedia footnote. Ford MF 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment and as far as "how academia works", you can find at least fifty people as notable as this guy teaching at even the crappiest, most podunk college campus. Ford MF 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment and since you're bringing up WP:COI (which I think you need to read through more thoroughly if you think voting on two related AfD constitutes conflict of interest), it's worthwhile to point out that this article was created by the same single purpose account as the related article on one of Berger's theories, an editor who has ONLY edited the Berger and Berger-theory article, so I don't think it's totally unreasonable to wonder if this isn't a vanity create by Berger himself. Just because someone says their contributions to the field are "major" doesn't mean anything. Ford MF 16:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also you haven't actually explained what makes this guy any more significant or well known than any other academic in his field. Ford MF 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Again, the notability of the references is purely your own opinion. Fiction is not at all the same as non-fiction. Again, just because some other person doesn't have an article here doesn't mean they or this guy shouldn't, and the relative crappiness or podunkness of the institutions they might work for is also irrelevant. And since you want to further comment on WP:COI my exact words were "could be marginally construed as." You are not just a voter, you are the nominator here are you not? Also it is not required for me or anyone else to explain to your satisfaction why this guy is more notable than some person who is not and consequently has no article written about them. The significance of the body of work is self evident. Aspenocean 01:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying anyone else's article (or lack thereof) should be used as proof that this guy shouldn't get one, I'm saying if the threshold for professional notability is this low, virtually every aged college professor, from Yale on down to humble CUNY schools, ought to have a wiki article too, which is clearly an absurd statement. Also, Afd is a debate, not a vote or a straw poll, and I'm not aware of any requirement that says I must refrain from participating because the AfD was my idea in the first place. Ford MF 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Call it whatever you want; I've made my recommendation on a course of action to be taken and I've given my reasons for it. You may "not saying anyone else's article (or lack thereof) should be used as proof that this guy shouldn't get one," but you keep bringing up other hypothetical subjects for articles in your arguments. It sounds like that's what you're saying in your nomination and several comments including the one above. Afd's don't exist to "set the bar" or create precident. Each one has to be considered individually. Aspenocean 10:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment and since you're bringing up WP:COI (which I think you need to read through more thoroughly if you think voting on two related AfD constitutes conflict of interest), it's worthwhile to point out that this article was created by the same single purpose account as the related article on one of Berger's theories, an editor who has ONLY edited the Berger and Berger-theory article, so I don't think it's totally unreasonable to wonder if this isn't a vanity create by Berger himself. Just because someone says their contributions to the field are "major" doesn't mean anything. Ford MF 16:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment and as far as "how academia works", you can find at least fifty people as notable as this guy teaching at even the crappiest, most podunk college campus. Ford MF 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The "prestige" or "notability" of the journals used as references is irrelevant. Uh, it's kinda not, if you're arguing that those publications alone are what make the guy noteworthy. Take for example two fiction writers: one's published about two dozen short stories in Playboy, the New Yorker, GQ, Zoetrope, and similar publications &c. The other has published twice as many stories in local literary zines and college digests with a circulation under 1000. Which one is notable? The mere fact of publication--in any form--does not confer notability. There are clinical psychologists who have written entire books all by themselves, on notable publishers, who are not themselves notable. This guy doesn't even qualify as a wikipedia footnote. Ford MF 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or at best gut it until it is little more than a stub. This is little more than a résumé. --mordicai. 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is a CV designed to create notability and possibly work. It was created by one account, that is traced to Japan, and this guy's practice is in Japan. It is written in similar format and tone to his personal/work page listed as a link. Off topic question, don't biographies usually have a DOB?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.113.184 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per Mordicai Adam Cuerden talk 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:01, 9 June 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.
