Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Riedacker

{{notavote}}

:{{la|Arthur Riedacker}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_Riedacker Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Arthur Riedacker}})

Strangely [https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/ not listed] as a nobel prize (co-)winner. Fails WP:GNG. Sources mentioned are hardly independent. Kleuske (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm. I've dug and dug trying to find specific reference to Riedacker being connected to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. His connection to it does in fact exist, in his role as one of the (many) reviewers of the IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report from 2007 (see [https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex4sannex-iv.html# list]). I don't know that I would claim he won the prize per se, but I don't think the claim is exactly false. Really on the fence about that. Regardless of this, this academic has made an impact in his field. [http://icsafei.ir/index.php/keynote-speakers/ This] (scroll down for him as one of the keynotes) is worth a reading. Perhaps most compelling is ResearchGate showing him being [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arthur_Riedacker cited 243 times]. That seems significant to me. Google Scholar also has [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Arthur+Riedacker%22 considerable entries on him]. Is there enough to pass WP:NACADEMIC? Hmm. Perhaps, perhaps not. Some of this is complicated by his work being largely reported on in French speaking circles. I'm on the fence here, but wanted to put what I found here so others could evaluate. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

::The article actually claims he won the Noble prize. 😊 Agricola44 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

::* And that might be a legitimate claim. It was given to a group, and he was part of the group that did the work. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

:::*Sorry, the joke was lost (Noble, Nobel, heh-heh)...tough crowd. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

::::* And you're here all week, or at least until the AfD ends, right? :) Sorry, I really thought it was a typo :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Seriously, there doesn't seem to be much to go on here. Not sure about "group Nobel". Will try to do some checking. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Any claim to a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is spurious. According to the award citation, IPCC received the prize for the totality of its efforts over several decades: "Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming". Moreover, in science, having reviewed/refereed an important article does not entitle you to a credit for that article. GScholar citations appear to be fairly low, even for a field like agronomy, with h-index around 7, and the top-cited article having only 30 citations. I am not seeing anything else here to justify passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep He is notable Scientist and academician. His contribution in literature is also remarkable. He is writer and public speaker, motivating young generation and he is guiding torch in his specialised area.2405:205:312F:5E4C:67D9:6CEF:709A:D3C3 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — 2405:205:312F:5E4C:67D9:6CEF:709A:D3C3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Please see WP:PROF for the notability requirements for Wikipedia articles about academics. You need to provide specific verifiable evidence of the subject satisfying some criterion/criteria of WP:PROF. Your personal expressions of appreciation don't count. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Given that his published papers have been [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arthur_Riedacker cited 243 times], I think an argument could be made of passing the WP:NACADEMIC standard. People are ignoring that though. Meh. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• No, we are not ignoring it. You are quoting the grand total number of citations for all of the papers he has written (which, according to his ResearchGate profile that you linked to above, is about 34 papers, plus 3 book chapters, and 1 book, with an average number of citations per publication of about 6.4). The total number of citations is never a proof of notability. Note that WP:PROF is quite specific about how to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 on citability grounds: ``either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Neither one of these two requirements is satisfied in this case. The subject's h-index is low, and the top cited paper has only 30 citations, which is also a low number. Nsk92 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not suggesting a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I've seen quite a few other WP:NACADEMIC discussions where the traction of their papers was considerably less, and equally had little else to go on. I'm not suggesting a keep here, nor a delete for that matter. As I noted above, I wanted to get what I found onto the discussion. But, people are focusing on the Nobel prize discussion and not elsewhere. Again, meh. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• I don't know whom you mean by "people" in "people are focusing". There have been only one actual delete !vote here (mine) thus far, and I did not ignore the citations, but did address it. Please read my original delete comment again. To repeat: the citability data here is very unremarkable, with the h-index being low (in single digits) and the top-cited papers (30, 28, 18) having rather low citation counts as well. Nothing else in the record indicates passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Looks like a clear-cut 'delete' case to me, unless somebody brings up some substantial new information. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable educationists and chair professor. Chair professor are notable. He is expert on climate change issues.157.36.214.220 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — 157.36.214.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Whatever do you mean by "chair professor"? Where? When? No evidence has been presented of him holding a faculty appointment at any university, let alone of a named chair appointment, which is what would be required for passing WP:PROF#C5. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Citation counts are far too low for WP:PROF#C1, and I can't find evidence to support a pass on any other point of WP:PROF (or any other guideline). XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• :Oh, and an entire section was a copyvio. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• keep He is eminent Scientist and authority on climate change.171.79.157.226 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)— 171.79.157.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep He is author, scientist and french speaker.115.113.72.204 (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)— 115.113.72.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. does not meet the GNG, or WP:PROF. WP:PROF is based on being an authority in ones field. This is normally judged in the academic world by citations. He has a number of published papers, but the highest citations as shown in Google Scholar are 30, 28, 18,15. Environmental studies is a field where important papers are cited much more than this. We do not add up the total number of citation--that shows more than doing a lot of insignigificant work, which does not make anyone an authority in their subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. He appears to be merely a researcher at INRA, not (as our article says) "the director": [http://www.iddri.org/Iddri/Intervenants-auteurs/Arthur-Riedacker this page] lists him as "chercheur" and he is nowhere to be found on the [http://institut.inra.fr/en/Organisation/Organisation-Chart INRA org chart]. And his citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1. Likewise I can neither verify the claim of being "chair of Oikos Food Security" nor is it clear that even if verified it would be enough for notability. So we have no evidence of any kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.