Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katsunori Wakabayashi


 * 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) Tim Song (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Katsunori Wakabayashi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was PRODed by RHaworth with the comment, "no evidence of notability." Article creator NIMS MANA contested the PROD with no comment.

According to the article, Wakabayashi has published two books and at least 5 articles that have been frequently cited. He also won the Japan Physical Society's best paper award in 2003. It is not clear to me whether this constitutes notability per WP:Notability (academics). Cnilep (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The award from the notable organization Physical Society of Japan would on its face satisfy the standards of WP:ANYBIO. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I must point out that the article is a little deceptive in that under the heading "Books" there are only book chapters by the subject, rather than whole books. I'll fix that. However, if the citation numbers given in the article can be confirmed, it would seem that the subject might well pass WP:PROF criterion 1. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), primarily based on the citation impact of his two top cited papers – 402 and 216 cites in GS, of which he is second and first author, respectively. The overall picture is a bit borderline, with a grand total of 981 citations and an h-index of 10 in GS. Still, one single paper with more than 400 citations is impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Web of Science gives 546 and 279 cites for those two articles above (not to mention others), which I believe is a more accurate count. The topic is related to graphene - a hugely popular material nowadays. Thus, yes, not extraordinary, but well above average, and IMO passes WP standards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep These are extremely high counts, and show the person to be a significant authority in the field. As materiascientist shows, this article is an excellent demonstration of the irrelevancy of using bare h-factor as a measurement: h-factor is irrelevant as shown here, h=10 is non-notable if it is 10, 10, 10, ... but not when it is 100, 100, 100, 10, 10, ...  let alone a count like here.    DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, it is so difficult to get the h-factor in some cases (that is I do doubt that his h is 10): there are dozens of scientists with the name K Wakabayashi, who are moving between different institutions in Japan (that's the Japanese reality) and changing collaborators. I simply don't know how to get h-values in such case. Off course one could search K Wakabayashi AND Fujita (his past supervisor), but that would only give selected past articles. Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, there are  more than 10: Although the Author finder of Web of Science  was not able to establish a unique identity, Scopus Author Search uses a different algorithm, and was able to establish one--their author ID is 7402087980; and found 43 papers with an h of 12, and the highest counts 543, 280, 89, 81, 58 -- about 20% more than Google Scholar. GS usually gives higher results, but  this result reflects that non-English sources are very poorly represented in G Scholar. (not that they are that great in Scopus, either, so the actual count is probably yet higher).   (checking the individual papers, the counts in Web of Science were almost identical to those in Scopus)     DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The h-index of 10 certainly should not be the deciding factor in cases like this. I would not say it is irrelevant though; simply not the deciding factor. And, as noted by Materialscientist, it may not be the correct h-index for this particular subject.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep First ten cites in GS are his so he passes WP:Prof #1, but in a much narrower field than is usual for candidates here. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC).
 * it what sense it it a narrow field? No field that has a paper that can be cited 543 times (the citation count for "Peculiar localized state at zigzag graphite edge" in Scopus of Science) is in a very narrow field. Essentially all scientists study a particular group of narrow topics within a field.     DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Electronic transport in graphene is a rather narrow field but none the worse for that. I guess it depends upon one's perspective. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Snow Keep. No question this is a keep, so let's spare other editors the waste of time of reviewing and voting here, and free them up to do something productive.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on there, speedy. Is the current state of the article not resume-like?  Do any independent sources exist that can be used to improve it?  These are proper questions for afd.  Wp:prof's criteria are non-functional and irrelevant to these questions, and no editor above has addressed them.  There is something productive that can be done at afd, but nobody is doing it. 160.39.212.108 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny AfD. Always good for a laugh, that wikipedia didn't have an article on Katsunori Wakabayashi in the first place, gets one, and is now in the process of deleting him for lacking notability. Very entertaining AfD. Nice to see a sense of humor in the AfD department. I rethink this, though. Wakabayashi is not that uncommon a name, maybe there is more than one Katsunori Wakabayashi and this could be about another one, not the notable one. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstracts of the five "most cited papers" all associate the author with the National Institute for Materials Science: . The fourth of those shows that he also spent some time at the Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter (ADSM), Hiroshima University, which links him to the book chapters: (scroll down to page 279). This leaves negligible doubt that everything in our article is about the same, notable, Katsunori Wakabayashi. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmed also by the fact that the cites in his first GS page all refer to papers in the same narrow subject of electronic transport in graphenes. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep, seems that the strange falloff in cites is the only holdup and may be an artifact. When one searches by the term nanographite, Wakabayashi's paper comes up first. Ditto with zigzag ribbon. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep please the physiscyst is notable and has awards to show yuckfoo (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (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.