Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Ecker


 * 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. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Gerhard Ecker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

(All 10 refs are primary (1-7 published papers, 8,9 do not mention person, 10 is OK but primary) = No secondary sources)
 *  Not Notable  Arguably now notable as this (currently) fails to meet any of the thresholds Notability (academics):
 * 1) The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. No independent reliable source
 * 2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. None listed
 * 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). - I would argue that EFMC is not a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (no wikipedia entry), but seems more notable than this biography, so if anything, he should be in that article rather than his own 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.
 * 5) The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
 * 6) The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. - Is EFMC considered a major academic society?
 * 7) The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * 8) The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. Arguably as joint editor of Molecular Informatics
 * 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. Widefox (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Widefox (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I cannot follow the counting argument (also http://www.sfb35.at/ger/mitglieder.html does mention him). Substantially, I think there is little doubt that Ecker's research has significant impact and is highly cited. Vigilius (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I spelt out the criterion above to help. reason 1. the "significant impact" you claim has a threshold of "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". There are none, and your link is not one either. Widefox (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The link listed by Vigilius just indicates Ecker is a member of a group of researchers and indeed does not do anything to establish notability. It is also difficult to figure out how much his works have been cited, because there are multiple people named "G Ecker". However, Ecker is editor of a well-established scientific journal, Molecular Informatics, meeting criterion #8 and is president of the European Federation for Medicinal Chemistry, meeting #6. (That this federation has no Wikiarticle is immaterial, it suffices to read their "about" page to see that this is a major organization). --Crusio (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree your reference might satisfy #8 as he is joint editor (not head editor though), good, added to the article now, and removed notability tag. Agree #6 is arguable yes. My point about wikipedia is one of "notable national or international scholarly society" which is the criterion Widefox (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Citations are a reliable independent indicator of impact, they are the currency of the academic world. Drdee (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about what you say about citations. But as I stated above, I can't really figure out how much this person was cited and none of the other participants in the debate have said anything about citations either, so I'm curious on what you base your "keep" !vote here. Could you please explain? --Crusio (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, academic citations, and/or secondary sources for this academic are lacking, and should be added. Drdee, do you know any to add? Widefox (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Scopus, this author has a h-index of 20 and has 2169 citations in total. Drdee (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2011 (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.