Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

This project page was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This discussion was begun at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nicholas J. Hopper, where the early history of the discussion can be found.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

See Wikipedia:Notability (academics)/Precedents for a collection of related AfD debates and related information from the early and pre- history of this guideline (2005-2006) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators/archive, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators/archive 2 for lists of all sorted deletions regarding academics since 2007.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raffi Indjejikian

Hello folks -- Not sure if this is the correct venue, but I have started the above deletion discussion on Raffi Indjejikian, the Robert L. Dixon Collegiate Professor of Accounting at the Ross School of Business of University of Michigan, at the request of an IP claiming to the subject of this article, and would welcome experienced eyes in the debate. It's far from my area, but I see no obvious objectionable content in the article, and I'd say the citations are adequate to support an article. However it was started by a single-purpose editor who hasn't edited since, so there might be something odd that I am missing. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watchlisting the AfD. @Espresso Addict: This is a strange place for me to say this, but I think posting it at the AfD or at your talk would be more likely to be seen by the IP who contacted you. I've noticed that the IP address is not consistent with someone at the page subject's institution. Could be traveling, I guess, but I'm a little uncomfortable about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tryptofish -- That's worrying. An IP has already entered the AfD discussion, so here is probably a safer place to discuss concerns. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone (me I suppose) should contact Professor Indjejikian by e-mail to confirm? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Yes, you (not me, wink). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-mailed. (Though it occurs to me if I hear nothing it's most likely my e-mail has got spam-tagged, so perhaps it will be necessary for someone with an academic e-mail account to follow up.) Espresso Addict (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Indjejikian has responded to me by e-mail confirming that they request deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2a

This criterion says, in part, "Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies ...". I've started a conversation on the WP:NORG Talk page re: the challenge of establishing that an academic society is notable, even when people in the field would say that it's a key society in their field, as there's seldom significant coverage in independent RS's about the society itself. This has implications for whether any of their awards can count towards criterion 2, so I invite participation there. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

question about independent sources

I know that the issue of independent sources has been discussed here more than once (e.g., here and here), but I'm still seeking a bit of clarification about the necessity of independent sources and what counts as independent.

At the top of the guideline, it says that "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable, ... as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources," indicating that independent sources are always required. But under the General notes, it says "Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes..." (emphasis added), which suggests that independent sources aren't necessary for establishing notability if there are RSs that demonstrate that the academic meets one or more of the specific criteria. Am I understanding the General notes correctly, or do we always need to have a few independent secondary RSs with significant coverage, per the note at the top of the page?
In some cases, I'm clear that some relevant info is not independent (e.g., if a university states that a professor has a named chair). But in other cases, I'm uncertain about determining what constitutes an independent source, in part because professors may be members of the societies who give them awards, may have co-authored publications with people who decide to honor them with a festschrift, are clearly associated with a society that they've been elected president of, and so forth. For example, are either of the following considered independent sources for the NPROF: a highly regarded professional society's website stating that they've given a prestigious award or named someone a fellow (if that's highly selective)? When relevant, should I always add something like "NPROF's work on Research Topic is widely cited," with a link, e.g., to their Google Scholar citations page, since the citations are generally independent? Thanks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fear there's a significant conflict between the material in "This page in a nutshell", which I've not read recently, and the rest of the guideline, which is what editors generally follow. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the nutshell appears inaccurate to me, and is not the definitive part of the guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I understand that definitive part, and it was really the discrepancy between the "in a nutshell" description and some of the rest that had me confused. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the US (and probably elsewhere) an official university page that states that they are XYZ is fine. The reason is that these are curated sites, and there are consequences if they are fake. Similarly a major society page. What is not independent, but I would think is in the "also add" category, is their personal or group web page since nobody else curates those.

"Named chair" is far, far more complex. The criteria were written for when any Dept might have 1-2 named chairs. Many top universities in the US & UK (maybe elsewhere) have found that donors like to give $$££€ to create a chair. Hence now often 1/3-1/2 of full Professors have chairs at least in the sciences. IMHO how to handle this is not as yet settled. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the recent update to change "a named chair appointment" to "a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement" [to a distinguished professorship]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of NPROF, "independent" coverage -- typically, the cumulative coverage of the subject's research across many publications by independent academics -- isn't what is being used to write the article (though I would argue we should try to highlight the subject's research contributions based on their descriptions in IRS). Universities, award-granting societies, orgs they're members of, etc. are not independent but are acceptable for verifying that the subject does meet NPROF criteria.

As for your last question, I would not include anything about their citations (especially evaluations like "widely cited") unless it's been explicitly noted in IRS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the last point, I would definitely not quote being in the Stanford top 2% of scientists. Maybe we need a brief RfC or just debate on this here since I have seen it many times of late -- to add a comment to the main page that the Stanford list is not a proof of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to me that this sort of claim is used more often to push paper-mill authors than for academics who have more significant accomplishments to describe. (A quick search seems to show I am listed there. I don't think it means much.) I wouldn't even use this for trying to evaluate whether someone passes WP:PROF#C1 let alone including it as content in an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notes say "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work," referring people to the citation metrics section. So that's only for checking that someone meets Criterion 1, but not for demonstrating it in the article's text? (With the few NPROF articles I've looked at/added to, it hasn't been an issue, as they have more significant accomplishments, just trying to get clear in my own head that I understand what kind of evidence to present.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has been the way I handle it. I will often put a link to a Google Scholar profile in the external links as a nod to #C1, but I usually don't discuss the level of citations in the article text. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FactOrOpinion I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to assess how highly the academic has been cited, even if they happen to be an expert in that field because it is original research, although you can quote others stating this in festschrifts or obituaries. You might occasionally find comments about citations for individual papers in reviews. I agree with linking the Google Scholar profile (if there's a curated one). You can also list a few of their highest-cited research papers (per Google Scholar if you don't have access to anything else) in a Selected publications section. DGG used to advise stating the GS citation count explicitly, but I don't think that's often done. I sometimes put it in a hidden-text comment in case anyone questions why those particular papers were selected. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We kind of have to assess it for AfDs, but I agree it is inappropriate to add our own judgements to the text of articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; I meant in the actual article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you put it in external links if it's already in an authority control section at the bottom? FactOrOpinion (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to, yes; there's often a lot of miscellaneous links in that box, most of which are of only marginal value. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are uploaded letters RS for NPROF

In a page I reviewed as part of NPP there were a couple of mentions of visiting appointments which were not sourced. In response to me request for sources the editor received letters from an academic at each of the two sites and has uploaded these as pdfs. I would like opinions on this, I cannot decide if this is OK or not. (Please ignore the COI flag this raises, that is a seperate issue.) Ldm1954 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a private communication satisfies WP:V. But for a minor thing like a visiting appointment, I think we can source to CV, per WP:BLPSPS. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor clarification, they are both signed letters on an official letterhead from academics in Europe that state that the person visited and collaborated. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that degree of digging, it sounds like something too WP:PRIMARY or at least not WP:DUE if the best documentation is unpublished letters (even with letterhead). KoA (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KoA that this kind of documentation is not generally acceptable. I'd prefer the CV of the academic, if it were hosted at their university, though I know that can get questioned. Are the appointments significant for notability? I generally strip that kind of material out unless it looks important for some reason. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't think a visiting appointment would be DUE anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think this could be fine. I think if the PDFs are hosted publicly on an appropriate domain, we can treat them like other self-published sources (generally okay for verifying uncontroversial claims). This seems trickier if the files are uploaded anonymously on some random domain, such as at Commons or here on English Wikipedia. Unless the editor uploading the file is attesting to their own identity (or their ability to act as an intermediary for the self-publishing institution) directly, I don't really think we can use these as sources. Might be easier to ask this question at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Suriname0 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that unless the editor has made these available through a reputable publisher, or are themselves an WP:EXPERTSPS in this context, they're not RS because there's no real way to assess their authenticity. On the broader point I agree that if you have to go to this kind of length to verify something, there's no way that it's WP:DUE. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic notability questions on Teahouse

An academic notability questions was raised by RomanaVilgut at the Teahouse here on Nov 25th after I tagged the page Leonhard Grill for notability on Nov 21st. I was not informed about the opening of a new discussion at the Teahouse after several questions and responses on Talk:Leonhard Grill. Maybe a few others experienced in academic NPROF could comment, particularly as I nominated the article for a deletion discussion here before I became aware of the second, hidden discussion. The central question is whether an award of a prize by a smallish private foundation (Foresight Institute) in a specialized area qualifies for #C2. Mike Turnball claims it does, I have reservations. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology was first awarded in 1993 and our article on it has existed since 2007. We have biographies of many of its prize-winners. I take the simple view that the award of such a prize confers notability on its awardees, under our NPROF criterion #2. Others may disagree but I'd like to hear policy-based arguments if so. Leonhard Grill is a full professor at a reputable institution, so other criteria may well apply to his specific case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull I am also interested in other opinions about the prize; I do not agree with you about its stature. On your other point, being a full professor is not enough. This has been discussed before here, although some more wordsmithing on the project page may still be needed for #C5. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for other comments. Interestingly, I found via TWL this 2023 article in Scientific American which discusses Grill's work. I'll be adding it to his biography later. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article helps. To put my uncertainty about the award into context, compare him to Michelle Simmons (Feynman 2015) and James Tour (Feynman 2008) as the two that bracket him who have pages. Both are highly notable, high pubs and awards all of which is missing for Grill. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the Feynman prize has itself become notable, and thus confers notability to its recipients. Qflib (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic notability for Germany (law-specific)

I'm having a bit of a hard time adding applying Criteria 5 to German law professors, where such a structure does not exist (to the best of my knowledge). Is there a past discussion about such criteria for Germany/central Europe, or can I suggest/add my own? FortunateSons (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen, C5 is generally assessed on a case-by-case basis, not a country-by-country basis. This makes sense to me, since the range of possible ways that C5 might be applied probably cannot be easily granularized this way. I would recommend if you are having trouble with specific cases that you just discuss those specific cases with other editors. Qflib (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good idea, thanks; do you mind if I ping you for that? I have some broad ideas (perhaps their own faculty with staff at a significant university?), but it seems to end up being very “vibes-based”, so I would like some feedback once I know who I want to write about. FortunateSons (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes individuals are brought to this page because a specific technical question arises for the application of a specific notability criterion to a specific professor, so that’s what I was referring to. Pinging me may not get you the more valuable breadth of perspective needed. Qflib (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, makes sense, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]