Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Otter


 * 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 -- JForget  22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Otter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Biographical Article with NO sources. Has not been improved upon in almost a month. Washburn mav (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. No sources?  I see, at minimum, a list of his publications, and a link to his department.  I am sceptical about whether marketing is properly an academic study, and there seems to be a bit of meaningless, spammy prose in the article:  The chair of Service Marketing supports marketing decisions. Motivated by practical problems we first develop candidate solutions using manager´s insight and marketing theory. The best solution is then identified through model based analysis of data supplied by companies and other sources. The best solution maximizes the expected improvement relative to the status quo.  I'd also question whether this particular academic is notable.  But the stated grounds for deleting this article seem not to be sustained by the text I saw on the page.  In any case, there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The above passage actually seems to be the only part not copied from his department's page. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's good to know.  I'd hate to think the good professor wrote like that himself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. Haven't checked notability, but the article is definitely a copyvio of the prof's own bio. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Article lists no references (persay) and I can't find anything external through G, GNews, Google Books, or Google Scholar that cover him as a subject. The name does however turn up n Google Scholar but, whether that in and of itself makes him notable enough for inclusion is debatable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have cleaned the article a little bit. It should be noted that the word "Chair" here is obviously used as a translation of the German "Lehrstuhl", which basically means "professorship". Otter does not chair a department in the US sense (as attested by his web site, he heads a group consisting of a secretary, a postdoc, and a graduate student). Given that his last US position was assistant position, it is likely that this Austrian professorship is more or less the equivalent of an associate professorship. I am not very familiar with this field, perhaps that somebody who knows more of it can comment on number of publications, citation levels, etc. For the moment this looks to me like a promising young researcher, but not yet notable. --Crusio (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Crusio's assessment. A good relatively junior academic who does not appear to pass WP:PROF for the moment. PhD is 2001, according to his CV, was an Assistant Professor until 2007. No significant post-dissertation awards or honors mentioned in the CV. A good publication record but nothing out of the ordinary. GoogleScholar gives top citation hit of 11 followed by several single digits.. No other indicators to show satisfying WP:PROF that I could find. Nsk92 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article was created by DanielaSch (talk • contribs)  and is the only contribution by this new User.  In this situation, undisclosed COI is a possibility.   Dolphin51 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think COI is most probable here. The photo of Otter was also uploaded by DanielaSch and marked as "own work". COI is not a reason to delete, however. Still, because nobody seems to be finding any other sources indicating notability, I come down on the side of Delete. --Crusio (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2008 (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.