Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim E. Crusio

Wim E. Crusio

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 delete this BLP for now, by request, perhaps to be started again later when more thorough sourcing can be found and an encyclopedic article on this topic can be written, following Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it might technically be possible that the subject of this article (myself) meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (in particular #8, although being only 8 years old, Genes, Brain and Behavior is not yet "a major well-established journal"), there are no reliable, independent sources on which to base a bio. Crusio (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Crusio (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Notability issues and subject request. Verbal chat 14:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ACADEMIC & subject's request (particularly relevant as limited, fragmentary, information often leads to a distorted biography). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Irrespective of criteria 8, W.E. Crusio easily meets WP:ACADEMIC Criteria 1, 2, and 3. There are independent means of verification:

Editors Eric Reeve, Isobel Black] included Crusio's BEHAVIOURAL AND NEURAL GENETICS OF THE MOUSE in the Encyclopedia of Genetics. Taylor & Francis, 2001. ISBN 1884964346.
A listing in Graduate Programs in the Biological Sciences 2004. Peterson's Guides Staff. Peterson's, 2003. ISBN 0768911435. p.1422.
An advanced scholar search currently yields 200 articles (many of which are cited by other articles, including those )
Taking just one paper as an example: "Gene-targeting studies: new methods, old problems" is cited by a well-cited paper appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (Similar importance can be shown for dozens and dozens of other papers in 200 member list).
He is a research director at the French National Centre for Scientific Research [1] --Firefly322 (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: ad #1: this is simply a book chapter and as far as I know, not many people have ever paid any attention to it. Ad #2: Peterson's Guide is all inclusive. I was included because at the time I was a faculty member at UMass Worcester. They don't select, so it really doesn't mean anything else than that I worked there. Ad #3: Just shows again how unreliable Google Scholar is. I wish I had 200 publications, but I have much fewer than that! Ad #4: the fact that a PNAS article cites one of my papers is really nothing out of the ordinary. All academics publish and list some references at the end of their articles. As an aside, I take it as a compliment that you created this page for me, but I don't think I belong here. ~~Many much more notable people have no bios yet, let's work on those.~~ --Crusio (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: Ad #5: "Research Director" is just a job title. It does not mean that I am the research director for this whole agency (which would indeed be huge: the CNRS has over 20,000 employees). In our institute here alone, we have 17 CNRS employees, 6 of them being research directors. --Crusio (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your modesty is commendable. But arguing that there are more deserving scienstists in need of a page isn't a reason to delete per WP:Otherstuffexists. WP:ACADEMIC Criteria 1, 2, and 3 have been met. But just for the sake of argument, let's say thisWP:Otherstuffexists argument is acceptable, then there are still many ppl who have pages far, far less deserving than this one. So even WP:Otherstuffexists can count in the articles favor. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the otherstuffexists argument was not very effective, I have struck it. --Crusio (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although GS cites give a respectable h index of 17 I suppport subject's request to delete this recent article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete While I respect that it is a stub, there seems no reason to believe that much further will be found. While I do not know the authenticity of some of the above comments, it does seem very reasonable to believe that in fact there is nothing significant to be found. The only refs are very superficial; one of the external links just points to an article written by the subject leaving the reader to judge whether it is significant or not. That is, there is no verification of the notability of the subject, and the requirements of WP:PROF are not met. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the editorship. It's clearly sufficiently important of a journal to count--its 2008 impact factor is 3.890, in the top 10% of the behavioral science category & the top 25% of Neurosciences,.. That it's relatively new and yet has this factor makes it more, not less important. ( I agree that the other arguments for notability in the Wikipedia sense are not solid enough as presented here). I really regret not deferring to my colleague Crusio's opinion, but I think the importance of asn editorship such as this one is established. Itg's a key factor in the guideline which we use frequently, since it makes it unnecessary to consider less obvious factors. DGG (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One can't build an encyclopedia article on vague pronouncements of "importance" made by an unreliable source such as you. Please pay attention to what is actually at issue at this AFD--the existence or lack of independent sources that discuss the subject or his work. 128.59.183.194 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's probably better to everyone decide for themself what they think is at issue, and I wonder if you've fully understood DGG's point.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with DGG about the importance of the guideline, and I'm very anxious to see that that particular guideline is not eroded. But as a stronger consideration, I support deleting an article that makes its subject uncomfortable unless the said subject is of primary importance.
I'll go with delete per subject's request, but I'd ask the closer please to say specifically that in this case, WP:PROF was ignored because of the subject's request and this consensus does not create a precedent.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he may meet WP:PROF, I believe that the subject of an article should be able to request deletion unless they clearly meet WP:GNG. Quantpole (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I strongly agree with the view expressed so succinctly above by Quantpole. (To my knowledge) there is no requirement in WP policy that a topic that passes WP notability criteria MUST have an article on it. If editors on an AfD page decide, as I and some others have in this case, that it is appropriate to concur with a subject's wish to not have an article, then these views can form a legitimate consensus and there is no need for special dispensation. Of course, there are plenty of rogues in the world who would prefer that their activities were not scrutinised by Wikipedia, but the present case is clearly not one of these. As well, there are plenty of cases that are so notable that the lack of an article would be detrimental to Wikipedia, despite the wishes of the subject. Again this is not one of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Quantpole. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think an (at-best-marginally-notable) person nominating an article about himself would count as a "common sense" reason for an "occasional exception" (I certainly wouldn't expect it to happen too often) to the notability guidelines, as envisaged under {{guideline}}, giving more than sufficient cover for Quantpole et al in their opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin As the subject of this AfD, I respectfully request a courtesy blanking of this discussion after closure. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2009 (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.