Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Krug


 * 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Krug

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author of page is the subject himself. The page shows that he has published research papers and some receive about 80 citations. He also helped discover a species. However, WP:SCHOLAR says that "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." He has received no prestigious awards, is not elected to a highly prestigious society, holds no named chair, has not been appointed to a high level post, and his research has not make "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." There is no mention of (this) Krug in Google news. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF point 1. It is not the number of publications that makes Krug notable, but the number of citations to his work, which attest to the impact that his work has had on the field of study. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could someone please add this page to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators? For some unexplained reason an edit filter is preventing me from editing that page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep . h-index of 21 may give borderline pass in very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. GS citation data is always inflated, so the actual h-index is somewhere lower. Even according to GS, the highest-cited paper has only 82 citations, which for such an active field strikes me as kind of low. The total number of publications (39, with a PhD from 1998, according to the subject's CV), also seems on the low side for such an active field. The CV itself indicates a reasonably successful but fairly ordinary career. No significant awards, no elected fellowships of scholarly societies, no journal editorships, nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Given that, as the nominator notes, this is a WP:AUTO case, the bar should be higher, not lower here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Web of Science with "AUTHOR: (Krug PJ*)" gives an h-index of 19 with the highest cited paper at 65, so it doesn't seem that Google Scholar inflates his results as much as it often does. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I think the GS/WoS difference is pretty typical. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC).
 * I don't agree with your second sentence. In this case the difference between Google Scholar and Web of Science is so small as to be pretty well negligible. As regards the h-index it could be made up by just a couple more citations to articles for which Web of Science reports fewer than 19 citations. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey 86.17.222.157 Are you Patrick Krug or do you have any connection to him? CerealKillerYum (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, and no. How about looking at my contributions, and doing a geolocation on my IP address, before asking such silly questions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did. CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, either numbers doesn't mean his work has made an "impact ... on the field of study." If Notability were to be determined by meeting the h-index or Google Scholar citation count, then Wikipedia would be a list of people who've meet that threshold, which is something Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the notes to WP:PROF criterion 1, which say "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". The issue here is whether the number of citations meets this definition, but it's a little more difficult in this case than in most because the numbers are close to the border line for this field of study. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, definitely fails WP:PROF, H-21 is a pretty good index but is way so "common". --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's doing good research, especially for a non-PhD-granting university, but I don't see enough evidence for a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2016 (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.