Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Kaiser

:{{la|Marcus Kaiser}} ([{{fullurl:Marcus Kaiser|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Kaiser}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Self-advertising commented list of publications, not a proper biography of a scientist. --Langec (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:Sorry, hadn't looked at the discussion page of the article before nominating it. User:DGG was already taking care of this… --Langec (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::You may think so, but no-one has touched this article since 26 January when the talk page comments were made. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, no. Nothing has changed since it was written in January, really. It is self puffery written by the subject in the main. Not referenced and suffers form major issues. If even the eponymous creator can't be bothered to reference it then, well, Delete Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete His only claim to notability appears to be the membership of two editorial boards. Those are, however, boards that are rather easy to get on to, so that doesn't really mean much. Apart from that, there's nothing else in the article. GScholar lists one articel (in Trends in Cognitive Sciences - a rather highly regarded journal) that has been cited a large number of times (201 times), but Kaiser is third among 4 authors, the least prestigious position. Not yet there, but no prejudice to recreation if he gets over the bar in the future. --Crusio (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment. Crusio, your analysis is compelling. Also, his Ph.D. is recent (2005). On the other hand, he has received some non-negligible [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=marcus+kaiser&as_oq=neural+brain independent news coverage], although most of it seems to stem from the same news release. As for his contribution to the research, this [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=204722§ioncode=26 THE article] lists him as: “Lead researcher Dr Marcus Kaiser of Newcastle University”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Yurken (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

::*comment I think one has to understand what a lead researcher is. In a huge project this will be quite an important person, perhaps a giant among men. In a small project, someone has to be lead, and we may never have heard of them now nor will again. Now I have no idea if this is a mega-project or a micro-project, but I am going to suggest that a relatively recent doctorate is unlikely to be leading a mega project. This is unlikely to be the Large Hadron Collider scale of things. If it were it is probable that many WP:RS items would be covering the gentleman. The massive COI also leads me to suggest that he is not (yet) notable, even though we can verify him. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:::*It is indeed unlikely that a new Ph.D. will be leading a major project, but it does look like this is the case here. See also this [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060820192259.htm Science Daily] news article. I cannot explain the authorship order pointed out by Crusio though; perhaps deference to his advisor Hilgetag. A quick look at [http://www.biological-networks.org/cv.pdf his CV] suggests that he has been publishing since 2004, in places like Neuron and Physical Review E. He is [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sauthors=%22Marcus+Kaiser%22 also listed] as the senior author in some publications.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

::::*Comment His CV linked to above by Eric Yurken does not indicate (as far as I can see) that this is the "lead researcher" on some mega project. He has a few grants and is co-investigator on some big ones. The CV also contains a link to "ReseacherID", which is very useful. It shows the citation history of his articles in the (at least for life sciences, much more reliable) ISI database, showing that his most cited article has been cited 30 times (disregarding the TICS paper -here cited 131 times). This is a solid and good CV and this person will mors likely become notable in a few years. However, he does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC for the moment and as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I stick to my delete !vote. --Crusio (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete not yet notable. According to Scopus, 18 published papers--Citations 146, 30, 29, 23, 21. The one highly cited paper is a review article in a major review journal, which always gets abnormally high counts. He wasnt the principal author, so we cannot even say it was a tribute to him being asked to write the review. Hilgetag was the principal author and the senior figure--the others just helped in the writing. Almost all his other cited papers were done with Hilgetag as joint author -- presumably his advisor. DGG (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment I think this is a prime example of why it is unwise to create an autobiography. One presumes the gentleman will become appropriately notable one day, perhaps even soon, but the effect of early self publishing has been to have that notability picked apart. While this process probably should run its course it also seems to me that it would be a pragmatic kindness to choose a swifter closure. The gentleman is obviously a potentially notable scientist, just not notable yet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Well, this seems like a borderline case where Fiddle Faddle’s point makes a lot of sense. Indeed, perhaps the article has been created too early (often the case here with autobiographies, it seems). The author/subject does not seem all that interested in improving the article or even participating in this deletion discussion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG and Crusio. THF (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2009 (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.