Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Reimann (2nd nomination)

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. Weakly. I don't see any evidence that an additional relist would attract additional participation or change the outcome. Star Mississippi 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Reimann

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was already deleted once, in a version just different enough to not warrant speedy deletion. To repeat: non-notable academic, passes neither GNG nor NPROF, COI/promotional creation. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citation record, although respectable, I do not take to be a pass of WP:NPROF C1 in a very high-citation field. However, I think being founding co-chief-editor of the Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics might pass WP:NPROF C8. This is poorly sourced in the current article, but can be verified at [1]. Commenting for now, rather than !voting, as the apparent record of promotionalism gives me pause. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Russ Woodroofe writes, the editorial proves that he was co-editor in chief of this journal in 2008; so he narrowly mets criterion 8. To allay the justified fears of promo, I'd suggest that the article be trimmed to a verifiable stub if it is kept. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable, independent sources are cited. Peer-reviewed journal articles are not reliable or independent sources because they are self-published by the subject. The page is practically self-promotional/PR. Reliable sources need to be added for inclusion. Multi7001 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll be aware of the supplementary information at WP:NPROF which refutes your argument: For documenting that a person has held such a position (but not for a judgement of whether or not the journal is a major well-established one), publications of the journal or its publishers are considered a reliable source. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modussiccandi, yes, the vast majority of journal articles are reliable, only some are not, depending on retractions or refutations made by scholars. But in general, peer-reviewed journal articles cannot be used to establish notability about a subject because the subject themselves submit their own body of work for publicity and often get published with minimal oversight. In short, while most journal articles are reliable, they are neither independent or able to establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about two different things? My point was in support of Russ Woodroofe's discovery that this subject was the co-editor of a scientific journal. If you consult WP:NPROF, you'll see that editorship of a journal is one of the criteria that may make an academic notable. In the supplementary notes that I cited above, it says explicitly that the journal itself is all the proof needed for this criterion. In short: notability is established by the editorship of the journal with the journal itself as verification. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multi7001, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the subject meets WP:BASIC. The question is whether he meets WP:NPROF, which is an independent notability guideline. Being editor-in-chief of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area is Criteria 8 of NPROF, which specifically says that publications of the journal or its publisher are reliable for determining who has held this position. Now, the journal has been picked up by the APA as publisher, which does suggest it is major. Reasonable people could differ on whether a journal started in 2008 is well-established, and as to whether it is still a little WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modussiccandi and Russ Woodroofe, what you both are referring to involves subjects who are at the highest capacity of a notable academic journal. Generally, subjects who are editor-in-chiefs or founders of reputable journals tend to have organic mass media coverage just from obtaining such a role. I don't believe just being a co-editor of a journal is sufficient notability for its own page in the articlespace, however. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe criterion 8 is based on a different idea: mass media coverage is non-existent in most disciplines. In my own discipline, even the editors of the most prestigious journals have no coverage whatsoever in mainstream media. In fact, NPROF tries to address this very lack of mass media coverage. (This point is explained by the introductory section of NPROF.) Academic impact can be measured in different ways and the editorship of a good journal is one of them. So it seems that you are trying to bring this discussion back to the coverage-based WP:GNG, which circumvents the application of NPROF. In short, I feel you're questioning the validity of NPROF as a gauge for notability, for which an RfC would be a more suitable venue. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Russ Woodroofe, this seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. It looks like all users in favor of the page are actually making a case of notability for the journal that the subject co-edits and not the co-editor itself. From many pages of this sort that I've looked at, notability looks like this: A subject with at least one or two mass media articles; or award coverage in their academic journal or by their affiliated university or academic institution; or mentions in other journal articles independent of the subject's byline as an author in it. In my opinion, the co-editor should be merged into the page of the academic journal with its own subsection for the time being. Multi7001 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. I question whether the founded journal is exactly well-established yet, and I basically think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON. But the journal was picked up by the APA, which indicates something, and it now appears to be (mostly) independent of the subject. The citation record (while a bit short of what I'd look for in a very high citation field) helps support somewhat. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe, while the APA inclusion of the journal is impressive, it only strengthens the case of notability for the journal itself and not the co-editor. Notability is not inherited. I am in agreement with you that it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multi7001, you appear to be disregarding WP:NPROF C8, even after having it pointed out to you. That guideline is clear that chief-editorship is indeed a pass of notability, provided the journal measures up to "major" and "well established." Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe, I just checked WP:NPROF C8; it fails to meet any of those guidelines. First, the page states "Martin Reimann helped found," this does not necessarily mean the individual is an editor-in-chief or of any top capacity of the journal. The person may have contributed very minimally to the creation of the journal but received no credit due to minimal contribution. Second, the APA has the journal in its website as Samuel M. McClure as the editor of the journal. In the editorial board, there is no mention of the subject. There is almost no evidence from a reliable, independent source without a byline of the subject, that shows the subject is even directly affiliated with the journal. [2] The subtle passing mention of only the last name and first initial of the subject in reference three is not grounds for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Multi7001 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That Reimann was co-editor-in-chief appears to be well supported by sources: in addition to the "from the editors" piece in the opening issue, another source from when the APA took over publishing is [3]. He does not hold this position any longer, but held it for a non-trivial length of time (according to his CV 2007-2010, the journal sources support at least 2007-2009). Notability is not temporary. Again, WP:NPROF C8 specifically says that a source from the journal or from the publisher suffices. Note also that the NPROF guideline is an independent alternative to GNG (per the NPROF lede). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep based on journal role, and a reasonably substantial number of news sources quoting Reimann for his subject matter expertise. BD2412 T 03:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As per BD2412. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.