Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas de Genova


 * 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   no consensus. Courcelles 20:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas de Genova

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't meet WP:PROF (anthropologist/ethnic studies research professor without tenure whose top article is cited ~200 in Google scholar, in a field were notables get cites in thousands). The claim to notability is based on a statement that is notable only in the minds of a few political organizations and veteran groups. How do I know? As an alternative to deletion I though about moving this article to A million Mogaishus and sourcing it properly, and then realized I would have AfD'd that too. There is no reason to have an attack WP:COATRACK on a BLP, specially one with such serious WP:UNDUE and WP:N issues. Cerejota (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Nicholas de Genova is certainly notable for his comments (i.e. A million Mogaisudus) as well as other statements and his current work in Europe. Your statement that his comment "is notable only in the minds of a few political organizations and veteran groups" is a hard to accept. De Genova was criticized by a huge number of Americans and organizations of all strips, not just veteran groups or "a few political organizations" - in fact, his comments drew nation-wide outrage, and was even criticized by opponents of the Iraq war. Also, keep in mind that De Genova was a faculty member at one of the most presitigous universities in the United States when he said this (this is why his statement go so much attention). The sources for this article appear to be valid - and De Genova's subsequent statements in which he defends himself are also provided here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Some, apparently yourself included, confuse notability with notoriety. If we had a wikipedia article for every twit that managed to piss off a significant section of the population, it would never end, we would have moral outrage on daily basis. This is not Ward Churchill who is both notorious and notable. This is some professor who ran his mouth. BLP1E clearly applies. However, the event itself is non-notable, just another filler outrage. SOmeone has to convince me this event meets WP:GNG, caus eI am not seeing, and I see GNG everywhere :) --Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

keep aside from valid reasons given by hyperionsteel, de Genova satisfies WP:PROF criterion 5, so should be prima facie keep: He held the Swiss Chair in Mobility Studies during the Fall semester of 2009 as a visiting professor at the Institute of Social Anthropology at the University of Bern in Switzerland. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Marginal for WP:Prof with an h-index of 11, may pass WP:Prof (although this claim seems rather weak) and some WP:GNG for reactions to his extreme views. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC).
 * If the comment meets WP:GNG, then perhaps we should have an article on the comment, not him. It makes no sense to have a BLP that is just a COATRACK for the comments.--Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His million Mogadishus statement isn't the only statement he's notable for. He has also stated (among his other insightful comments) that anyone who's an American Patriot is a white-supremacist; that Columbia President Lee Bollinger is "an apologist of war crime and apartheid;” and that "the only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military." (i.e. he has made numerous controversial statements in public for which he has been criticized for). Likewise, he has also defended his statements. Thus, his desire to see 18 million Americans to die in the Iraq is not the only issue that he is famous for or which is documented in this article. Also, given statements like this, it is not surprising that numerous Americans (not just conservatives and veterans) were eager to express their disapproval.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Again, you miss the point. Those are not claims for notability. There are websites on the interwebs full of declarations of disapproval for similar statements, should we make articles about them all? Is offending the a set of the US population grant you notability? I don't think so.--Cerejota (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This guy was named by many as "The most hated professor in America". Yes, many people have made similar statements, but De Genova isn't just an everyday nut or an anonymous; he was (at the time) a professor at a prestigous university who made public statements which infuriated numerous Americans. In response, many Americans responded by telling him exactly what they thought about his statements. The result was coverage across the nation and was featured in numerous TV shows and newspaper articles. I would argue that all this together meets the requirements for notability.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC))
 * I understand that, but they are not. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SENSATION and WP:BLP1E--Cerejota (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * De Genova has made other controversial remarks (before and after the million Mogaisudus remark). But more importantly, he is still a professor (he continued at Columbia for several years before moving to Europe now) and has published several books (for which he has won at least two awards) since 2003. Yes, he is certainly best known for his wish for 18 million Americans to die in Iraq, but he is notable (albeit not as much) for his other works and statements.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC))
 * I'll ignore your false hyperbole (were did he wish 18 million Americans die?), but he fails WP:PROF h-index 11 is not notable for a Anthro/Ethnic studies, and the Chair he held is not a notable chair, at leas tnot in the sence PROF 5 means, this is a temporary visiting professor chair, not a Distinguished Professor chair. --Cerejota (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * how in the world can hyperbole considered false? it's neither true nor false, being figurative.  in this case, though, the figure 18,000,000 isn't hyperbole, but quite accurate description of what de genova said: 18 people dead in the battle of mogadishu times a million in the dude's quote.  next, i think that h-index is a fascinating measure of academic impact, but from what the article about it in our beloved wikipedia says, no one seems to be claiming that it's definitive for any field for any purpose, and it seems to be agreed that it's only been discussed in detail for physics.  also, it's clear from the formula that length of career is a confounding variable to some extent, and this guy is (a) not that old, and (b) has a career trajectory that might tend to lower one's h-index.  i mean, who wants to cite the most hated professor in america?  how much time does the most hated professor in america have to publish and then politic to get cites?  anyway, it seems to me that if we're going to keep using h-index in these discussions in this way we ought to do some external discussion of what number means what in which field, no?  the inventor of the measure says that 11 is good enough for tenure in physics at a major research university.  do anthropologists publish and write in ways which distinguishes them from physicists?  i have no idea, and i suspect that most of us in this discussion don't either, so maybe let's don't fling the number back and forth like it settles something once and for all.  it's just one piece of evidence, and no one seems to be sure if it means anything and if it does, what it is that it means. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Find three reliable source that say that this is the "most hated professor in America" in a report, not opinion piece, and I will change my !v. I follow war controversies quite closely and and had not heard of this guy until someone who was in Columbia U at the time told me about this in the context of discussing another Columbia professor. The WP:BURDEN of proving this reason for notability rather than notoriety is not met. While it is true that WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason to delete, neither is WP:EXISTS a reason to keep. Your argument that none one will cite this professor because of notoriety is probably true, but it speaks about why he fails WP:PROF. Again, I see a borderline argument for an article on the comments controversy, but I do not see enough notability for a biography. Wikipedia is not a coat-rack to hang controversies, they need be notable, this isn't at least according to the RS I have seen. Am willing to be disabused of the notion but the WP:BURDEN lies who those who want to keep this crappy article. --Cerejota (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to my above statement (i.e. 18 million Americans dead), it is simply an interpretation of De Genova's wish (18 Americans died in the raid on Mogadishu in 1993 (18 x 1 million = 18 million). I'll admit that this is a very literal interpretation of his remark, but it is certainly not "false" and, in this intepretation, is not "hyperbole." Please be more careful before you accuse me of posting false information.
 * With regards to the "most hated professor in America", it appears the original source was this article in The Chronicle of Higher Education The Most Hated Professor in America - this line was then repeated by other news outlets and across the internet, such as, , (some of these are not the original articles but are copies that have been reprinted (this event is almost decade in the past)) De Genova himself gives his version of events here.
 * With regard to your description of this as a "crappy article" I have to disagree with you. This article accurately covers a nation-wide controversy that generated strong emotions from countless Americans. In addition, the article also covers De Genova's other works (e.g. books, academic positions, research) as well as his other highly insightful comments (e.g. his charge that anyone who's an American Patriot is a white-supremacist, etc.). I agree that his million mogadishus remark is what first drew attention to him, but he is still notable for his books, academic and research positions, as well as his other remarks.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Delete -- in my view he does not meet WP:PROF. The visiting position in Amsterdam doesn't do it, and his h-index is less than 11 (Xxanthippe has apparently overlooked some overlap in the GS entries).  There is, then, insufficient evidence of his notability as an academic.  The coverage given here to the comments he made that led to "notoriety" undermines the case for an article; at the very least, there is WP:UNDUE weight on them at present, and given his lack of notability as an academic I am persuaded by the BLP1E argument.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment &mdash; ok, the more i think about it, the more i am convinced that while a high h-index is sufficent for satisfying wp:prof#1, it can't actually be necessary. this guy has a book with 271 cites.  if he had 11 papers with 11 cites each, his h-index would still be 11, and yet these are quite different cases.  look at e.g. Frank Ramsey Frank P. Ramsey, with a GS h-index of 11 (possibly because he died at 26), who wrote one of the most influential papers in the history of combinatorics, as well as seminal work in economics.  in fact, GS possibly overstates his h-index, because it has the combinatorics paper listed under a bunch of different titles and seems to be counting it separately.  sure, so ramsey died at 26, but what if he'd stopped doing academic work at 26 and went on to become the most hated professor in america?  all these arguments would work towards the clearly wrong conclusion that his article should be deleted.  i am not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF here, but trying to illustrate why i think that the argument "low h-index implies fails wp:prof#1" is not a useful one without some more nuanced discussion.  &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:PROF/WP:AUTHOR as author of a much cited academic book ( h-index is not useful as a negative criterion: a person who wrote 2 famous papers and 2 only would have a h index of 2 -- its use as a negative criterion is a failure to understand the meaning.), meets the GNG also--the Chronicle article among the many others is sufficient to show that. Sufficiently important to pass ONEEVENT also)   DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 2 September 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.