Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Erevelles (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Sunil Erevelles}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sunil_Erevelles_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Sunil Erevelles}})

Fails notability, due to no reasons for being notable which are supported by sources. At least, it should be incubated IMHO. But since the article has existed for over 5 years without sources, my suggestion is it is deleted. 1292simon (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, and for failing to say anything that distinguishes its subject from any other academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Massively short of WP:PROF, no distinguishing accomplishment.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Can someone clear this up for me: I see in Google Scholar that his papers are cited, but I have no idea what the threshold for citations is. In the previous AfD {{user|DGG}} makes good points and I respect his views on article deletion a lot, so a 'weak keep' for him is tantamount to a "burn this thing to the ground" (I kid), however that was two years ago. Is the consensus here that what I'm seeing in Scholar is not enough to get this person past WP:PROF? §FreeRangeFrog 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

: That is a fair question indeed. Per WP:PROF: '"high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure."' As a business scholar who is has long been eligible for promotion to full professor (PhD from 1992, see http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Erevelles%20Sunil.pdf?osu1272294352), one would expect a citation track record of multiple publications papers with, say, over 12 Google Scholar citations per year (one per month) since publication. How many publications is not obvious, but this person has none.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The article is inadequate, but the citation record in Google Scholar makes the notability clear. His paper "A comparison of current models of consumer satisfaction" (Journal of Consumer Satisfaction 5) has been cited by 199 articles. His paper "The Role of Affect in Marketing" (Journal of Business Research Volume 42, Issue 3, July 1998, Pages 199–215) has the remarkable number of 158 citations. Use of th h factor shows its limitations: he has only 10 papers with more that 22 citations, but the one he does have are very important. Publishing lots of mediocre work does not make an expert; publishing highly significant work does. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

:T &C 's argument that counts per month are relevant makes no sense to me. notability here is permanent. By use of his method of analysis, a person who after 5 years of work is notable, but who publishes nothing further, and whose work was important to the research front at the time, but has since become incorporated into standard knowledge, would 10 years later not be notable. All that is required for notability of anyone is that one be notable once. One just has to be a major contributor to the knowledge of the subject at any time. The most cited papers are from '92 & '86. The college has probably decided not to promote him because he has stopped publishing, and that makes sense for them, because they want someone who will continue to be actively notable till the end of his career, and for their purposes, notability is not permanent. Using this sort of standard is like saying that only albums that continue to be on the charts count for notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment DGG's argument makes no sense to me. First, 199 citations is hardly notable for a marketing article from 1992. That would put this article in the bottom half of citations to publications in tenure-caliber journals for that year, and nowhere near tenure-making criteria at major research institutions. Likewise, 156 citations is hardly remarkable for a paper from the Journal of Business Research in 1996; alas there is no foundation for calling this number "remarkable" in DGG's note. Furthermore, DGG's argument would make a mockery of notability, since massive numbers of academics who publish at some point would qualify by the lowly standard implied, even though many would not make tenure at a major research institution let alone satisfy other academic notability criteria. Relative to my reply to his query on my talk page, DGG's argument here ignores the fact that notability at any point in time cannot be established positively from cumulative data except perhaps if a paper has exceptional total citations (though it can be established negatively). In my reading, the sub-argument about "notability at any point in time" is spurious and dilutive: The number of "rich people" would surely spike if based on account balance at any point in time, but that would only make the concept meaningless (you had a lot of money in your account for a short while if you ever took a mortgage, but so what - ask the millions who lost "their" home in recent years?). I also showed in reply to DGG's query (at my talk page) that the publications of the subject are of such vintage that the argument I gave plainly applies, since tenure-caliber articles are benchmarked to a cited half-cite exceeding 10 years. Practically, an exceptional marketing paper from this subject's era would have many hundreds of Google Scholar citations, and a notable track record through tenure at a major research institution for someone who graduated twenty years ago would add up to over 1000 GS citations. This subject's cumulative citation record actually proves that they were never notable, even if one follows DGG's road to dilution. Remember, academic notability is a matter of awards, editorships and the like, all of which the subject fails completely; or of a rather exceptional citation record, which this subject also fails as a last resort.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I have great faith in DGG's estimation of scholarly worth. His analyses are always on point and often conservative. If he says that this person has written enough influential articles in several well-known peer-reviewed journals, I believe him. Also, neither tenure nor tenure qualification are required to be notable.  The Steve  10:19, 4 December 2012 (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.