Talk:Karim R. Lakhani

Summary of April 2010 Edits
This article was prod/deprod, however, the evidence of notability is rather sketchy. He has been the primary author of a reasonably-cited paper on free software and a secondary on another, but the corpus of his research doesn't go much beyond that. This is not unusual for entry-level professors. WoS shows only 6 papers with an h-index of 3, which is a statistic far short of the typical 10-15 to satisfy WP:PROF #1. Very little WP:RS, except an NYT piece that is supposed to have a few quotes from him (per the article). Article also tries to establish notability by reciting notable people on his dissertation committee, which is usually another sign of weakness (WP:NOTINHERITED). I've tagged the article to give some more time to flesh it out such that notability is not in doubt. Please do not remove unless substantive evidence thereof is added. Otherwise, this should probably go to AfD. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC).
 * I've retagged this article for notability because there are potential issues, as I note above. There was a recent flurry of activity here, e.g. 2 prods/deprods and it seems like the notability tag got lost in the shuffle. Again, I think it's worth some time to try and add to this article, otherwise it should probably go to AfD. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks for helping with this. From a bibliometric analysis I once saw presented, Lahkani is one of the two most highly cited people in the academic literature on free and open source software and his work on motivation in these communities is seminal. I'll try to take the time to gather some additional sources. I have no doubt that Lakhani meets WP:PROF and I appreciate some time to help it get there. — m a k o ๛  15:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should definitely gather more material because my sense is that claiming notability strictly on the assertion that he's "one of the two most highly cited people in the academic literature on free and open source software" won't fly. First, we're talking only about 2 articles, not a significant body of work (goes to the "h-index" argument, which you can be sure will be put forth in an AfD discussion). Second, you can easily demonstrate other people (papers) more highly cited than him, for example by querying "Title=((free OR open AND source) AND software) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" in WoS and then ordering by citation count. What I would suggest is trying to gather significant sources (i.e. not some blog entry) that themselves substantively discuss him and how his work is considered by the larger community to be important. That would be a good defense against deletion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * My claim about the centrality of his work on free and open source software comes from the fact that I saw a bibliometric presentation at a conference on last year and saw that he was one of the three most central individuals in the literature (by far). As I'm sure you know, the number of papers matters far less than the impact of the work. Many very highly cited academics are not known for more than a couple papers. That said, I'm having trouble finding the paper from the presentation I saw and I suspect the bibliometric work has not been published. As a result, I think we will have to rely on citations counts until that happens. — m a k o ๛  15:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a whole bunch of references from reliables sources. At the moment I've got articles that quote Lakhani as an expert and refer to his work from Wired Magazine, Inc. Magazine, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Science, and the Wall Street Journal. There are more similar articles on the press page that I found on the HBS website that I've added to the external links. Folks should go through and more if they feel that they're necessary. I also added information about the MIT Press volume he was an editor for which was omitted previously. I'm confident that this sufficiently establishes notability under WP:PROF and WP:BIO.— m a k o ๛  15:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the notability tag. These sources are good and may be enough to satisfy WP:BIO. I qualify that statement because they all seem to be in the context of quotations ("blah blah", said Karim Lakhani) rather than substantive material about him. I doubt he would satisfy WP:PROF, judging from how interpretations of the criteria have trended over about the last year or so, but hopefully it is solid enough to stay. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC).
 * I'm more confident about the articles status in regards to WP:PROF and at least one other person seemed to agree with that even before I added all those refs. In any case, we can cross that bridge if we get there. Thank you so much for all your help! — m a k o  ๛  04:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)