Talk:Ralf Reski

Notability tag
I've tagged the article not because I necessarily think that it should be deleted, but because I still don't understand the arguments for notability. The article is very detailed and provides a lot of information, but (to me at least) does not really provide any arguments for WP:PROF notability. I'm sure Ralf Reski is a great scientist, but why is there an article on him? (ex-IP129.67.76.184) 109.152.8.146 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the article tag as practically all criteria listed in WP:PROF are met (which, by the way, is a guideline, not a rule). Cheers, --AlGordo (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ralf Reski may meet the criteria, but if he does, there is no evidence of that in the article. If he indeed does meet the criteria, please add the evidence for this to the article. While it is true that these are just guidelines, and that exceptions may exist where the person is notable in spite of not meeting any criterion, the case for notability nevertheless needs to be made. I’m not trying to prove that he isn’t notable, I’m trying to determine if he is.
 * As far as I can see, none of the criteria are met:
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * I’m not a fan of citation metrics, and they’re not the final word, but the h-index is 30, which is pretty average. The most cited paper does have over 300 citations, but that’s the moss genome sequence, where he’s one of many authors. Genome sequences always get lots of citations.
 * 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * This may be true, but the article does not mention it. I don’t think a Heisenberg fellowship counts as ‘highly prestigious.
 * 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).
 * Again this may be true, but isn’t mentioned in the article.
 * 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * No major textbooks or other examples of this are given in the article.
 * 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
 * No evidence for this is given in the article.
 * 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * From what I can see in the article, the highest position he has held was dean of the Faculty of Biology.
 * 7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * No evidence for this given in the article.
 * 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * Only normal editorial board memberships given in the article.
 * 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
 * Does not apply.
 * If you can show that the criteria are met after all, I’m happy to go along with it, but just being a professor does not satisfy WP:PROF. Cheers! 109a152a8a146 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to revise and elaborate the article, this might take some days though. Regards, --AlGordo (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! 109a152a8a146 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you AlGordo done any updates? The article still reads pretty much like its not notable, self advertising, most refs seem to originate from the person itself, possible COI edits as well. prokaryotes (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)