234:
bio articles have started this way. A personal website is accepted as an RS for personal details; the official cv on a university site is accepted for degrees and so on, though they can be and generally are checked. But obviously there must be something objective besides that, and citation indexes do nicely. Opinion is also needed, and in the academic world the form of review is the tenured appointment. The people who prove ATT are the peers who cite him, and the peers who peer-review him for grants and appointments. They are the experts, they decide. We just record. It would greatly facilitate our work here if if other fields of human endeavor had such accessible measures.
202:
I know include accepted papers as forthcoming in their cv's--and Gely includes the journal name, so we know they're accepted. --The most austere journal editorial policies permit this. We usually trim publications lists to the most cited, and we would here, , but it doesn't reflect adversely on their notability. Those academic who publish less than the average in terms of numbers and citations are not notable; those who publish decidedly more generally are considered notable. We do not require the Fields medal, or its equivalents. (But I haven't looked closely at the record here yet, so I'm not giving a !vote right now.)
219:
professor. And so publications is a pretty bad measure to understand the notability of academics. Actually, to stick with the judges' comparison: every judge on any court writes decisions and these decisions are routinely cited by other judges. Yet this gives us no clue as to whether or not this particular judge is "notable". A supreme court judge is notable not because he writes decisions that are then cited by other legal experts. He's notable because, well, he's on the supreme court! Unless we have sources whose primary subject is Rafael Gely and the importance of his body of work, I see no way we can
201:
similarly with
Supreme Court justices. writing decisions is just the nature of their work. Let us hear the last of this nonsensical argument. Further, a surprising number of unambiguously notable people give the names of their spouses and children. We usually let that stay in. Almost all academics
223:
the material included in the article to a solid source. As for the names of his children, I thought it was pretty clear I was not holding this against the notability of the man... I'm just saying that there are good reasons to believe that this is either an autobiography or a bio written by someone
250:
I would disagree with you idea that only inactive academics publish a lot. It is all dependent upon your field of research. Some work that is highly notable will take a long time to develop and not many publications will occur during this time. Also due to patents and such, publication can be with
233:
WP:AUTO does not mean we never accept such articles- what it means is that other people can usually do this better than the subject, so when the subject does it we look at them closely to make sure they are sourced and well-balanced . They all end up rewritten, just as other articles do; many good
218:
Hmmmm... I don't think I made my point so clear so let me give it another shot. I am most certainly not saying that having been published disqualifies him from being notable. But because of their work academics do publish and do so quite a lot. They are also often cited, yes even the average
278:. Pascal.Tesson, you are correct that "because of their work academics do publish and do so quite a lot". However, this does not mean they are cited a lot. The vast majority of academic works are cited no more than half a dozen times. --
145:
academic (except the ones who are not active in research) publish a lot and get cited a lot. That's just the nature of their work. The fact is there is no evidence provided that this article can be built on solid sources as
168:
126:
17:
99:
94:
185:. I don't have an opinion on Gely, but I disagree with Tesson's reasoning: the "except the ones who are not active" clause is
103:
63:
52:
The only text that has been changed in a year and a half is the first sentence stating the names of his wife and children. —
189:, and it also doesn't describe why being "the nature of their work" should in any way disqualify it from being notable. —
86:
297:
133:
Not-notable professor. Probably an autobio (I mean, who else would throw in info about the name of his kids (!) and of
36:
137:(!!) publications?). Also, I'd like to preempt the arguments that his work has been cited and that he therefore meets
296:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
252:
282:
270:
256:
240:
228:
208:
193:
177:
154:
68:
90:
186:
190:
225:
151:
82:
74:
58:
279:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
138:
220:
147:
267:
53:
120:
174:
47:
236:
204:
290:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
251:
held for a lengthly time until the idea is fully protected. -
116:
112:
108:
224:
who does not have a critical distance to the subject.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
169:list of Academics and educators-related deletions
300:). No further edits should be made to this page.
46:Speedy deleted as a copyright violation from
8:
167:: This debate has been included in the
266:It's a copyvio of his homepage at UC.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
317:
271:12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
257:11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
241:02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
229:06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
209:05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
194:03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
178:23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
155:22:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
283:00:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
69:03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
50:from its very first edit.
293:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
255:- Synthesis for all
187:begging the question
172:
308:
295:
163:
124:
106:
66:
61:
56:
34:
316:
315:
311:
310:
309:
307:
306:
305:
304:
298:deletion review
291:
150:asks us to do.
97:
81:
78:
64:
59:
54:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
314:
312:
303:
302:
286:
285:
273:
260:
259:
253:Curious Gregor
245:
244:
243:
212:
211:
196:
191:David Eppstein
180:
159:
131:
130:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
313:
301:
299:
294:
288:
287:
284:
281:
277:
274:
272:
269:
265:
262:
261:
258:
254:
249:
246:
242:
239:
238:
232:
231:
230:
227:
226:Pascal.Tesson
222:
217:
214:
213:
210:
207:
206:
200:
197:
195:
192:
188:
184:
181:
179:
176:
170:
166:
162:
161:
160:
157:
156:
153:
152:Pascal.Tesson
149:
144:
140:
136:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
62:
57:
51:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
292:
289:
280:Black Falcon
275:
263:
247:
235:
215:
203:
198:
182:
164:
158:
142:
134:
132:
45:
43:
31:
28:
135:forthcoming
83:Rafael Gely
75:Rafael Gely
268:DrKiernan
221:attribute
127:View log
55:bbatsell
276:Comment
248:Comment
216:Comment
199:comment
183:Comment
139:WP:PROF
100:protect
95:history
264:Delete
148:WP:ATT
104:delete
48:uc.edu
175:Bduke
143:every
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
165:Note
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
237:DGG
205:DGG
173:--
171:.
125:– (
141::
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
60:¿?
129:)
123:)
85:(
65:✍
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.