Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddy Zemach


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Eddy Zemach

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not established for almost 6 years.  Puffin  Let's talk! 14:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Appears to pass WP:ACADEMIC #1 (heavily cited, as shown by GBooks, GScholar, and Questia searches) and #5.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most sources are bound to be in Hebrew: "עדי צמח"&lrm;. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. GS h-index of 12 is high for philosophy and passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep. Philosophy is a low-citation field making the citation counts difficult to evaluate but the pass of WP:PROF seems clear enough. I added some sources to the article (book reviews); this Google scholar search finds several other articles by others directly about Zemach's work, so I think the case for WP:PROF#C1 can be made in this way without having to resort to bean counting. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't depreciate bean counting by means of citations. It provides a yardstick for comparing the wide variety of BLPs that come to these pages. Over time it has evolved into a fairly sophisticated form of analysis as shown by this present AfD where citation patterns between different fields of scholarship are taken into account. We will always want to know how many beans there are to count but we don't always base our decisions on them. Nobody has suggested that there should be an algorithm with input beans and output decision. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC).
 * As you know, there are plenty of other AfDs where I've used bean counting arguments in favor of or against the subject. But I think that, when we can get a clearer picture by examining a smaller number of sources that go into much greater depth than just a citation (as in this case where we have some eight long book reviews and three paper-length responses to some of the subject's papers, not even counting whatever sources may exist in Hebrew), it is preferable to do so. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This deeper analysis is very welcome and strengthens the case for WP:Prof made by the citation data. This work should, of course, have been done by the nominator under WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep Per Xxanthippe and David. --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2014 (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.