Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eamon Fulcher


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Eamon Fulcher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Web of Science lists 19 articles for "Fulcher E", that have been cited 172 times for an h-index of 7, which is rather far from meeting WP:ACADEMIC (even assuming all these articles are his, which they are not). No evidence that subject meets any other criteria for inclusion. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP -- the cited information is incorrect/incomplete, & i am left wondering why the nominator (who had previously *co-prodded the same article) is so insistent on this article's removal?


 * see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=eamon+fulcher


 * and: https://www.google.com/search?q=Eamon+Fulcher&num=100&newwindow=1&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&hl=en&prmdo=1&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=pQ8fUtGuLbO72QXF94GICg&ved=0CAwQ_AUoBg


 * that seems a like a lot more than 19 articles "(even assuming all these articles are his, which they are not)" to me.  also; i'd like clarification on what the nominator meant by that comment, please?


 * finally, i will note that the relevant wp guideline clearly states that h-index ratings ARE NOT decisive criteria, are not entirely accurate or reliable, & should only be used as a "rough guide" in forming any opinions re: academic notability.


 * aside from the papers, the subject has authored & co-authored multiple textbooks in his field, widely used in course work.


 * Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * that said, i do agree that the article would benefit from a good, thorough revising.


 * Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Before responding to this, I'd like Lx121 to try and give WP:AGF a good read. Thanks! Now to the issue at hand. Not all 19 articles listed in WoS are from this E. Fulcher, I don't see what the problem is with that. And indeed, nobody contests that this person has published. What is asserted is that neither the citation rates nor the h-index indicate that his works have made any significant impact, which is what WP:ACADEMIC is about. Yes, a low h-index does not prove that the person is not notable, but that is something that is impossible to prove anyway (there always is a possibility that somewhere there is a source showing notability). All that I am saying is the opposite, that I do not find evidence of notability (and a high h-index would prove notability). Publishing (articles or books) is what academics do, in and of itself that doesn't make them notable. What we need is proof of notability (as evidenced by reliable sources) and I don't see that. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * hello, & i am sorry, but it seems to me that you are presenting inaccurate/misleading information in arguing for the deletion, & then pushing for it rather hard. to me, that makes it hard to agf.


 * as regards h-index, i quote you this section from wp:academic:


 * "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution since their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others."


 * as regards notability, i invite you to examine the links i have provided above.


 * when the subject has written basic course textbooks, which are WIDELY used, has contributed material to other textbooks, is cited, thanked, etc. in yet other textbooks, AND has the number of papers & the "cite scores", for what are highly specialized topics,  as shown @ google scholar, i think that person meets the "minimum requirement" for academic notability.


 * any decent directory of people working in c-b psych would include an entry for him as a top-level expert. google his name, & he comes out as the top & most-frequently mentioned individual; google his name with "phd" attached & he's the ONLY person who comes up.  i'm not really clear on what more is needed, to meet with your approval?


 * Lx 121 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read and try to understand what I wrote before casting doubt on my motivations. A high h-index is a very good indication of notability. A low h-index does not prove absence of notability, but it certainly isn't proof of notability either. So when mentioning a low h-index, all I intend to say with that is that I don't find an indication for notability in the h-index. When I cite the low citation counts, that doesn't prove absence of notability either, but it does show that this person is not notable because he's highly cited either (WP:PROF#1). Cognitive psychology and brain sciences are a high-citation density field, by the way, so we'd expect a lot more citations than for, say, a mathematician. I have no idea why you think that googling somebody's name and that person then coming out on top means anything (I have a rather unique name myself and if you google it, I come out on top. So what?) The GS citation counts are a bit higher than those obtained in WoS (as expected, because GS is much more inclusive than WoS), but nothing spectacular either. They are insufficient to establish notability. The only thing I see that possible could establish notability would be the text books. However, just the bare fact that he wrote these books is not enough. You have written several times now that they are "widely used". I'm perfectly willing to believe that, if there are reliable, secondary sources that show this. I, too, wrote a textbook with some colleagues. About 400 copies were sold. Big deal. Significantly more is needed for notability to be established. So before citing more from WP:PROF, try to understand what it says first. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 *  Delete as per clear exposition of Randy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular the citation counts do not make a convincing case for criterion C1 and the other criteria as well do not seem to be there. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2013 (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.