Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Frese

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. WP:SNOW keep. There is overwhelming consensus that the subject of this article passes WP:NPROF. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Frese[edit]

[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)

I don't see any evidence the subject meets NPROF or GNG; subjective claims of citations and h-index are meaningless. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What about objective claims of citations and h-index? I'll add metrics on him compared to his coauthors shortly, but while this is a high-citation field, I'm certain his h-index of 63 puts him well above the average of other researchers, as do his 17000+ total citations and multiple papers with over 500 citations. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Scopus metrics for all 111 of his coauthors with 20+ papers: Total citations: average: 4470, median: 2767, Frese: 17343. Total papers: avg: 75, med: 49, F: 168. h-index: avg: 26, med: 21, F: 63. Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 702, med: 661, F: 1489. 2nd: avg: 425, med: 372, F: 802. 3rd: avg: 324, med: 257, F: 774. 4th: avg: 253, med: 197, F: 749. 5th: avg: 205, med: 160, F: 737. He's around 4 standard deviations above the average... JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. per GS citations and h-index. Clearly meets WP:NPROF#1 so the justification of the AfD is flawed. Yes, "subjective claims of citations and h-index are meaningless" but please do a WP:BEFORE and the minimum amount of research would have shown this to be an extremely highly cited researcher. --hroest 19:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof. This bizarre nomination deserves a WP:Trout. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. We often use 1000 citations as the bar for notability for an academic. This person has 61 times as many. The nom might consider to withdraw this nomination. The article needs work, not an AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Randykitty, FYI 1000 is waaaay too low for most fields, and especially in psych -- the median for Frese's coauthors (which include techs, grad students, postdocs, and assistant profs, all of whom are extremely rarely found NPROF-notable) is 2767 citations on Scopus (which excludes around 1/3 to 1/2 the citations GS captures). JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - I completely agree, nevertheless, this is the current practice. Personally I feel that our standards for academics (and academic journals) are much too lax. Consensus is different though. Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randykitty (talk • contribs)
    - I don't think it is current practice. These discussions typically look at the h-index first. The only times I can recall a citation count over 1,000 being treated as meaningful is when there were more than 1,000 citations to individual papers, which is a bigger accomplishment than 1,000 citations spread out over a whole career. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google profile with h-index of 111 and multiple papers with more than 1,000 citations passes NPROF C1.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a little confused by how citations can be subjective. This seems very notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, it's snowing... --Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Randykitty: And? NPROF C1 provides no numerical guidance on what "highly cited" means, so all the keep !voters are really !voting ILIKEIT and believe me, I'm taking down names. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, yes, do take down my name. An h-index of 111, even in GScholar which inflates citation rates, is something only very few researchers attain. Articles cited >1000 times are extremely rare, too. If that doesn't meet WP:NPROF#C1 I don't now what does. --Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please take my name too. Of course WP:PROF#C1 doesn't give numerical guidance, because the numbers are very different according to the field of study. All that means is that we have to take care in deciding whether any particular subject passes, not that we should ignore the guideline altogether. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what, in your opinion, would meet C1? Having five times the standard deviation of average citations in a subfield instead of just four? An h-index three times higher than the median rather than 2.9 times? JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take down my name. I have taken down yours[1], which looks like heading for a topic ban due to inability to edit in consensus with other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
"Providing numerical guidance" wouldn't actually make WP:PROF#C1 any more "objective"; it would just draw a "subjective" line that multiple editors agreed upon. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. C1 may require some subjective interpretation, but in that sense it is no different than GNG, which requires subjective interpretation of whether sources are "multiple", "independent", and "in-depth". The nominator's suggestion that subjectivity invalidates that criterion is ridiculous, unworkable, and tendentious. But setting all that aside, #C3 is not anywhere near as subjective as C1 or GNG, and is clearly satisfied in this case by membership in the Leopoldina. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Plenty of citations for WP:NPROF C1, even in a high citation field, and membership in the German National Academy of Science is a clear and unambiguous pass of WP:NPROF C3. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2021 (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.