Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Kaplan (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Revision as of 08:40, 7 August 2014 edit Truth or consequences-2 (talk \| contribs) 1,611 edits →‎Andreas Kaplan ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:01, 8 August 2014 edit undo DGG (talk \| contribs) 316,874 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 15: '''Keep'''. Highly known academic in the field. [[User:Benjaminvermersch\|Benjaminvermersch]] ([[User talk:Benjaminvermersch\|talk]]) 11:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)<small>— [[User:Benjaminvermersch\|Benjaminvermersch]] ([[User talk:Benjaminvermersch\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Benjaminvermersch\|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account\|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> '''Delete'''. Even with one very highly cited piece on social media, the record is unremarkable per [[WP:Prof]], and the individual does not have [[WP:GNG]] worthy coverage.[[User:Truth or consequences-2\|Truth or consequences-2]] ([[User talk:Truth or consequences-2\|talk]]) 08:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC) *'''Keep''' the citation data is objective, and sufficient to show notability. Multiple papers with over 100 citations is notability in any field whatsoever, and the only exceptions to that in afd decisions here is when we have some degree of dislike for the field or the individual. Such bases of judging notability represent institutionalized prejudice. :And contrary to what is said above, it is not true that the number reported by GoogleScholar of "multiple cites to [[Science Direct]] merely demonstrate that one paper was downloaded repeatably,". Rather, as the article of [[Google Scholar]] will explain, it is a count of ''the number of different published works that the article in Science Direct was cited in.''--you can see them all listed by clicking on the words "cited by 3267" at the top of the Google Scholar result. . (the number of times it was downloaded is usually estimated as somewhere about 100 times that for papers of a purely academic interest, much higher for those with a popular interest. It's like the difference between the number of times a WP page was edited, and the times it was read. And contrary to what was said, such a citation record is indeed "remarkable per [[WP:Prof]]", and therefore proof that the person is an authority in his field,'''[[User:DGG\| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG\| talk ]]) 04:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)