Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Schonemann


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Schonemann

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for academics. Notability is based largely on publications in professional journals, which is very common for almost all academics. Most sources illustrating notability were written by the subject. Ward3001 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wouldnt publication in these peer-reviewed journals make him an expert in his field? Corpx 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was the case that publication in journals qualified an academic for notability, the vast majority of college professors would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you examine Wikipedia for articles about academics, they have acquired notability beyond journal publication, such as publishing a textbook (not just a chapter), or becoming known to the general public (such as Skinner). Think about your college professors; many are/were well published in journals. How many have Wikipedia articles, or deserve one? Ward3001 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Seems notable on its face per WP:PROF, though the article as written is pretty weak (long prose where a list of works would do, prose/lists-of-works seeming only for the purpose of propping up notability instead of talking about the person and his ideas. However, all claims of being an expert or being originator/major player for novel ideas are self-written (lack of secondary sources). If his ideas about IQ and racism are notable or novel (vs fringe ideas...not to belittle them, as even Nobel Laureats can have fringe ideas), surely someone else would have written review articles highlighting his ideas. DMacks 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nicely written, references given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A weak keep, but a keep. Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is no big thing - it depends on the journal, the field, and politics/friends. And textbooks are given too much emphasis by Wikipedia - textbook companies get hacks to write books or chapter in many fields. In fact, textbooks are often cut-and-paste jobs from other books. By the independent references, he does seem to have contributed to a contentious subject enough to make the cut. I think the article could be improved into a definite keeper. MarkBul 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What independent references? The article cites a few sources by writers other than Schonemann, but almost all are "Schönemann’s influences" or "Schönemann, in line with authors ...", etc. As DMacks states above, how many authorities in the field have written review articles highlighting his ideas? And notice the reference for the statement "a foremost expert on factor Analysis". Ward3001 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the primary contributor to the article removed the citation for "a foremost expert on factor Analysis" after the preceding comment was made. Ward3001 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even the person responsible for nominating this article makes a case for notability.  Burntsauce 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- important and notable academics are praising him as an expert in peer-reviewed journals. This is the definition of recognition by the community.  (an article or two probably isn't enough to establish notability, but 90+ articles is not anything close to what the average professor attains).  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I am unable to understand the basis for even suggesting this deletion. Obviously academics are notable for their academic work, which consists of publications in peer-reviewed journals and equivalent monographs. Artists are notable for their paintings, actors for the acting, and so on. I begin to wonder if its the tendency of some of the published work--see the article. DGG (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not my area, so correct me if I'm wrong, but 90 papers seems well above average for an academic, and a couple of his papers are highly cited according to Google Scholar: 'A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem' (227), 'Fitting one matrix to another under choice of a central dilation and a rigid motion' (100). I believe the subject meets WP:PROF for these reasons. Espresso Addict 22:57, 30 August 2007 (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.