Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Haché


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Alain Haché

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * Delete. Neutral. Notability guidelines not met. I am with ¢Spender1983 on this one: I think I just had a more conservative view of what the notability guidelines represented. With loose interpretation, notability might be satisfied. ¶ However, I think if we agree that a national chair suffices for inclusion, we might as well make an article for each of the 1 852 current Canada Research Chairs : that's 10MB worth of this article in text, assuming similar article size for each of them. And again, that's just for Canada. ¶ For the papers he co-authored, let's put that into perspective: in the last few years, over a million scholarly papers are estimated to have been published annually . To me, that means that the number of articles (<100) co-authored hardly justify notability. If such a number is proof of anything, it is that the authors exist; to me, it doesn't imply that notability is satisfied. Every author and co-author that is published in Nature (Highest impact factor? Highly prestigious.), for example, doesn't need an article for himself. ¶ I personally think it's folly to justify notability so easily: I think issues like this are important to address, because in my opinion they compromise the integrity of the notability guidelines. But you're free to think otherwise. I see everyone else is pretty much on the same page, so I apologize if I have wasted someone's time. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 05:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: Please refer to this page for additional comments — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowball keep, obviously notable, holds the Canadian Research Chair in Photonics for 7-8 years now, well-published, well-cited, wrote Physics of Hockey a well-received and notable popular science books on hockey, plenty of coverage in third party sources, routinely holds interviews on the physics of hockey (such as here for The Washington Post), etc, etc, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the article, he is the author of only one paper. As for being well cited, I'm not aware of those references you hint at. "Routinely" is quite a rhetoric term, and it is uncertain what you mean by et cetera. Look, I appreciate that we disagree on the subject, but if you think you can provide with good counter arguments, please try and take the matter seriously... — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Google Scholar, Alain Haché has co-authored about 62 publications. In addition, the publication, has been cited 124 times after subtracting self citations. An additional 10 publications which he co-authored have been cited by others more than 10 times each.  Boghog (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Passes WP:ACADEMIC, and if that wasn't enough, he's been repeatedly cited in third-party sources as per WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines for academics are hardly satisfied; I think the main debate is regarding the strength of third-party sources supporting the criteria for notability. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 22:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A paper cited 124 times and a national chair is more than satisfactory. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. He passes WP:PROF because of the high impact of his publications (five papers with over 100 cites each) and #C5 because of the Canada Research Chair. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral. He holds a "Tier 2" national chair, which is defined here as being for "exceptional emerging researchers, acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field." To me that says, "you have the potential to be notable, so we'll invest in you." This makes meeting WP:PROF questionable and not definitive. Also, I don't read WP:PROF to mean that if your research is cited enough times, you are determined to have made "significant impact in your scholarly discipline." So it is not definitive that Hache meets that criteria either. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - David Eppstein is completely correct. He passes WP:PROF and WP:PROF, as such is worthy of inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - According to WP:PROF if an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, then the professor is notable. Alain Haché arguably meets WP:PROF (publications cited by others, see Google search above), WP:PROF (national chair), and WP:PROF (physics of hockey).  As others have noted above, one or more of these achievements may be borderline, but collectively they establish beyond any doubt that Alain Haché is notable.  Boghog (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Re:"However, I think if we agree that a national chair suffices for inclusion, we might as well make an article for each of the 1 852 current Canada Research Chairs : that's 10MB worth of this article in text, assuming similar article size for each of them."
 * Yes we might as well do it (see both WP:NOTFINISHED and WP:NOTPAPER). Also, as a general remark for chairs, or equivalent positions, these are not given to simple Simons fresh out of grad school. They are given to researchers with well-established research histories, who made significant impacts in their fields. You'll have to look pretty hard to find a chair who doesn't have a decent list of high-impact papers, and who doesn't do a few interviews per year about their field. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the list of Canada Research Chairs would be a very good starting point for finding Canadian academics that aren't already included that we should add. As a fraction of all academics, 1852 is actually not a large number. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2010 (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.