- André Marchand (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:PROF. I'm having trouble finding secondary sources about this guy. -- Pingumeister(talk) 16:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. Probable paid editor too. — fortunavelut luna 16:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This page should not be deleted because this acaedmic person exist and is considered. Here are some proofs:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] --Wiwigald32 (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)— Wiwigald32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Have a quick glance at WP:E=N, "only" an essay, but relevant nonetheless. And, compounding the issue, the sources provided are very much in the main either primary sources, self-published sources, or providing slender coverage of only passing mentions; thus the subject has not received the required depth or persistence of coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources required to pass the most basic WP:ANYBIO, let alone PROF. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 17:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
If these 15 sources with news, articles, and photos are still not enough to prove the existence of André Marchand, here are even more sources for the most important categories for academics:
Lots of primary sources listed in article form- this is not the place! But editors can click 'show' and see them all the same |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
and much more...--Wiwigald32 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC) |
More off-topic discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Keep@Shawn in Montreal: Hi Shawn, what do you still need to know about him to make a decision? He has published in the globally highest ranked journal of his discipline (the Journal of Marketing, see http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jm.10.0537?code=amma-site). Most scholars in this field do not reach Andre’s current level of achievement in this regard in their entire careers. His remaining publications are in journals that are also highly regarded. And here is another source from Springer about his research: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-45596-9_58 and another one (see page 22) https://www.epi.media/download.f59095f4c61f67c63a42a700ecf9332e_1/ --Wiwigald32 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)- I have added the respective URLs for the selected publications to the article itself. --Wiwigald32 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- A final note from me for today: The University of Cologne is the largest university in Germany and clearly one of the most prestigous German universities. In addition, the Journal of Marketing (in which Professor Marchand has published) is the international number one scientific journal in the marketing discipline. See for example: https://www.ama.org/academics/Pages/AMA-Journal-Impact-Factor-Rise.aspx and http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1406&year=2015. --Wiwigald32 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)— Wiwigald32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Wiwigald32, I have struck out your "keep" because you already indicated the same opinion earlier. You should only provide a recommended outcome a single time in any AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Citation record [32] is inadequate to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC).
- Delete. Citation counts too low to pass WP:PROF#C1, no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- According to [33] "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." With the publication in Journal of Marketing, which is the highest ranked journal in the Marketing discipline, Prof. Marchand has developed and evaluated a ground-breaking new concept of a automated recommendation system for groups. Websites such as amazon.com will use this system probably in the future and the numbers of citation will strongly increase. One should also keep in mind that the citation count alone is not an appropriate measure for the impact a scientific breakthrough has. Usually, less innovative articles such as literature reviews get much more citations than a significant new concept. Moreover, he is a professor at the University of Cologne, which is ranked number 41 by a recent report: http://www.scmlist.com/home/university-rankings/analytical-report/ — unsigned, but from User:Wiwigald32
- For the specific criterion you just described, "in this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." If you can indeed do that, please modify the article such that it fulfills this requirement. -- Pingumeister(talk) 09:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- As I've already stated on your talk page, Wikipedia's purpose is to collate reliable information from existing secondary sources. The aim is to be as objective as possible. That is why these policies exist. -- Pingumeister(talk) 09:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Probably most scholars agree that it is a lifetime achievement to publish in the globally highest ranked journal of a discipline (with rejection rates higher than 90%) and clearly much more important than many citations from lower ranked journals. Quality matters more than quantity in academia today. Of course it may slightly vary over disciplines, but it is definitely the case in the marketing research discipline. Are there any actual marketing scholars in this discussion who are able to judge this? Please help. --Wiwigald32 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, let's judge the spammers by what other spammers have to say about them. What could go wrong with such an idea? Or instead we could, you know, actually apply the standards we have developed here that you seem to be unfamiliar with (a hint: you are required to declare your conflicts of interest.) —David Eppstein (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. If WP:PROF#C1 is applied, this site should be kept because the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. This university professor has published in the highest possible academic journal of this field and has won a best paper award — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaDeNCH (talk • contribs) — JaDeNCH (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:PROF. A paper in a (supposedly) well-regarded journal does not notability make. Publication is only the first step on the path to having an impact. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have added further information and references to the article. That's all I add here. I hope that better qualified scholars from the Marketing research discipline and not even more laity will add more information and comment on this article. I also kindly ask you to stop accusing me for personally knowing this person, using other accounts, or other things because it is untrue. By the way, this is my first self-created article in Wikipedia, before that I just have worked on existing articles, so please excuse my inexperience with the whole process. I have ideas for several more articles about other related topics to the Marketing research discipline, but first will wait for the final judgment of this case.--Wiwigald32 (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No PROF, no GNG, some CRYSTAL here on this page. EEng 11:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Strong delete nothing indicates his work has reached the point of having a significant impact, so he does not pass notability for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)