- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sunil Erevelles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable academic, four passing mentions in local paper via lexis-nexis, nothing much in google books, everything I've found is a quote from him, works by him, or short bio-blurbs related to appearances at conferences. Seems to fail GNG and PROF --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete although gets a GS h index of 9 with several hundred cites. Why did the nominator miss this? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, still not finding sources. Xxanthippe, the nominator didn't miss the h index, the nominator just doesn't think it is a good indicator for someone who specializes in marketing. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did the nominator miss the several hundred cites? Is he saying that they aren't important either? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I did not miss the cites. I'm not sure how you mean important, but if you mean do I think the cites and h index value indicate notability, no, I don't, else I would have !voted differently. As I am sure you know, citation rates vary widely with the discipline, I suppose I expect that rate to be high in the fields of marketing research. If you want me to consider something, tho, post links and I'll be glad to take a look. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Prof#C1 states the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. If you do not agree with this policy you should discuss it on the policy pages. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy until it is changed by consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I believe I am. If you think I'm violating policy, there are a variety of noticeboards on which you can complain about me. Use of the h index as a criterion is, I believe, somewhat controversial and not universally accepted, and, as I have noted, citations rates very with discipline, and I believe PROF acknowledges that well. I took the time before nominating and again before !voting and again tonight to look over some of the publications citing him, and stand by my judgement. Now, if we can find some additional sources covering him, I'm happy to reevaluate. And I think we've talked about this issue enough, and we've wandered off the topic for this particular venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Prof#C1 states the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. If you do not agree with this policy you should discuss it on the policy pages. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy until it is changed by consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I did not miss the cites. I'm not sure how you mean important, but if you mean do I think the cites and h index value indicate notability, no, I don't, else I would have !voted differently. As I am sure you know, citation rates vary widely with the discipline, I suppose I expect that rate to be high in the fields of marketing research. If you want me to consider something, tho, post links and I'll be glad to take a look. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did the nominator miss the several hundred cites? Is he saying that they aren't important either? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep The g factor is not a good discriminant except with in the fields with fairly high citation density, and marketing research is not one of them.. He has about 8 papers with 20 or more citations , which is a modest but respectable record. The total number of citations is a very poor discriminant for one can get that by publishing a large amount of thoroughly mediocre work. We need not look for additional sources covering him in the conventional sense, which typically do not occur for a scholar unless they take a pubic role in a major controversy, or after they retire, or are actually famous. Notability is less than that. Even so, I think its borderline at this time . A few very highly cited papers would make the difference. ?The record is typical for his rank, Associarte Professor, and in terms of the level we normally expect, they are only sometimes notable DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ervelles seems to be a dominant figure in his field, so that would fulfill one of the possible reasons for inclusion for academics. Academics only need to meet one criteria, and he seems to be a significant enough figure in his field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence do you have that he is a dominant figure in his field? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- 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.