Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Druyen


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Druyen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

"He is currently the most eminent scientist in Europe"? Hm, I think not. I think he's a typical academic sociologist and not notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep: Err ... there are 29 G-Scholar cites and a couple dozen hits on Google Books and Amazon. I'm unfamiliar with the field, but perhaps we should err on the side of tagging this to hell and gone, stripping out the hyperbole and choosing cleanup over deletion?   RGTraynor  07:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The first four, at least (they are the only ones I have read), of the Google News results linked above provide significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. And please note that the article does not claim that the subject is "the most eminent scientist in Europe", which must be one of the worst examples of selective quotation that I have ever seen. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep -- it's hard to see that his work is highly cited, but the articles in Die Welt are probably enough for WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS h index = 3. Far too low for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. The small number of cites in Google scholar for his work fails to convince me that he passes WP:PROF #1, and the small number of papers that even mention his supposed main research topic Vermögenskultur leads me to think that it is not a notable enough topic to make his expertise in it stand out as important. Of course, citation counts in Google scholar are a poor stand-in for academic impact, but we need evidence of impact to keep the article and we have none. So I don't think we can use WP:PROF #1 as a basis for keeping the article. But he may pass #5; the language in the article is unclear and I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Austrian university system to tell whether his appointment is comparable to a personal chair. And, as Phil Bridger observes, the articles about him in Die Zeit, Die Welt, SWR Nachrichten, Wiener Zeitung etc make a persuasive case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 29 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.