Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth A. Bollen


 * 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth A. Bollen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no references proving person is notable SefBau : msg  15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (creator). External links are sufficient references for biographies. They are reliable, and states that he is "ISI he is one of the World's Most Cited Authors in the Social Sciences". This recognition seems to make him notable in the light of WP:PROF (criteria 1 and 2), through I am unable to find an independent verification (the claim is repeated on a number of pages, but most of them seem related to the subject; I could add a book cite -  - but he is the author, so it's hardly independent). He is a H.R. Immerwahr Distinguished Professor of Sociology, which should satisfy criteria 5. He also has some publications in one of sociology flagship journals, and they are mentioned in the (biiig) list at, I am not sure to what extent this helps (his CV puts it in a nicely self-promotional way as "Bollen (1980), Bollen (1983), & Bollen an d Phillips (1982) named as “ASR Greatest Hits” by Jerry Jacobs, editor of American Sociological Review (ASR). The list includes the most cited papers in the history of the American Sociological Review since its inception in 1936. "). To what extent we should care that he is widely cited (: two of his works have over 10k citations!) - PROF is of little help, but perhaps we should revise it. Let's ping User:DGG - I'd like to hear his opinion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, or remove unsourced claims, if referencing is not improved - Notability is, I believe, satisfied by his professorship at a University. However, there are assertions in the article which should be verified by inline independent reliable sources, since this is a WP:BLP.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't BLP for potentially libelous info only? Since the content of the article is referenced from his bio entries, which he probably wrote himself, I don't think there is a problem with revealing information that the subject would not want others to see... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that he passes notability by being a professor, but WP:MINREF says that the statements don't have to be negative to need inline citations. It's reasonable to ask for a source more independent than the person's own profile before stating that he is "one of the World's Most Cited Authors in the Social Sciences."  If these exist, why not just cite them? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. SefBau : msg  17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just look at GS for heaven's sake. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC).


 *  Delete  Keep Being a professor does not make a person notable. See Notability (academics). Article is currently 100% unsourced, the authors bio page isn't reliable due to WP:COI. For example:
 * Bollen claims in his CV that in 2002 he was cited as being "one of the World's Most Cited Authors in the General Social Science". If so, there must be others who have received the same recognition since 1) the recognition is capitalized like a proper noun and 2) he says "one of" implying there are others (that year or other years). Yet a Google search shows he is the only person in the world making a claim for this award. Strange, and not notable.
 * The "Paul F. Lazarsfeld Award" is not clear how notable it is: a Google search on the award with Bollen's name confirms he received it but there is zero discussion about it, no articles or comment by third (or first) parties.
 * The article says he is the "Director" of the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, but the website does not list him as a director - in fact he is not listed on the staff at all.
 * -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I double checked his CV - he was a director from 2000 to 2010. I guess he (nor others) didn't bother to update his bio to the past tense. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looked into his CV more closely and Bollen exceeds notability guidelines by way of the paper cited 14,000 times, multiple elected prestigious fellowships, and other things. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Stunning cites on GS give clear pass of WP:Prof, also in other categories. Nominator is reminded of WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep First, it is not actually accepted here that all professors are notable. What is accepted here is that allfull professors at major research universities are notable, and the evidence that it's accepted is that not one has been deleted in the last 5 years except if they're in a field against which we have prejudice, such as education, or they there is specific prejudice against them for having supported creationist or anti global warming or other views that are not popular here. There is furthermore a specifically stated rule in WP:PROF that   all holders of a distinguished or named professorship at a major university are notable, and he holds such a chair at UNC Chapel Hill, so the only reason for doubting notability is if one isn't aware of that guideline.An official web page at a university is reasonably authoritative for the actual career of somebody,; tho it does not intrinsically prove notability, what is found there might well prove notability   In 7 years here I found one and only one specific degree on one that   couldn't be verified.
 * He doesn't claim to be merely "highly cited," in a general sense; he claims to be one of those on the ISI list of highly cited researchers, about which there is information in WP, at ISI Highly Cited, (it needs updating -- see ) -- and we even have a corresponding category, Category:ISI highly cited researchers  He can in fact be found on the ISI list: the exact reference is here ; just put it in the article. Everyone on that list is notable, because notability as  a researcher is being highly cited, and ISI is the standard for citation analysis. I'm going to make a guess: which is that nobody thought of looking for "highly cited" in WP.     DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. He passes WP:PROF (highly cited, and much better sourced as highly cited than most passing academics), likely #2 (the sociology award), #3 twice over (AAAS and ASA fellows), and #5 twice over (this is his second named chair), at least. Any one of these would be sufficient for keeping the article. Not even close to a plausible academic deletion candidate. I can only conclude that the nominator is unfamiliar with WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 15 August 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.