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. Procedural Keep after nomination was Withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Falk (academic)[edit]

Raphael Falk (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability. Falk does not satisfy any of the eight notability criteria at WP:ACADEMIC, and a look at Google Scholar and JSTOR confirms this. Academically speaking, Falk appears to have been one of the tens of thousands of academics who are Professors and publish a bit, but without meeting any of the eight required criteria. No obvious notability outside Academia either; a few obituaries when he passed away, but that is also common. In one minor publication, Falk appears to have made a claim that many users in the WP:ARBPIA field wish to repeat. This AfD is not a comment on that claim; academic findings in good journals are WP:RS despite the author not having a WP article, and, vice versa, dubious claims are not WP:RS despite the author having a WP article. Knowing how fraught with tensions the ARBPIA field is, I hope this AfD can focus on whether Falk met any of the eight criteria at WP:ACADEMIC (or whether he otherwise was notable). Nothing in the article indicates that that is the case. Struck, see comment below. Jeppiz (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Israel, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Zero^talk 15:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously. Falk was a noted geneticist. Contrary to the claim, it is easy to find more than 2000 citations for him at Google Scholar. He also wrote at least two books which were repeatedly reviewed and often cited. This more than enough to satisfy "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Furthermore, it is definitely NOT common for academics to receive obituaries in academic journals; in fact only a tiny fraction receive that honor. Zero^talk 15:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, that is factually incorrect. A bit over 2000 citations for a whole academic career is very modest. Few colleagues in my own department are below 6000 citations (and only one has a WP article, and he is above 80.000). Globally, most academics with 10.000 - 20.000 citations do not have articles on Wikipedia. It might be the overall criteria for academics are too strict (I am very open to that discussion) but that should be discussed under WP:ACADEMIC. As the criteria stand, Falk obviously does not meet them. Jeppiz (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• PS, I want to qualify my response to Zero above to state categorically that I wish we would apply the criteria Zero introduces. For many years, I've found it to be anti-academic bias that, for example, football players only need to play in a fourth division team that few would know and still qualify for notability, whereas not even being a Professor at a good university and have more than 1000 academic citations is enough for an academic. I have no argument in principle with what Zero writes. However, those are not the current guidelines. If anyone wants to start a discussion that academics such as Falk should be considered notable, I'll support it 100%. But in the meantime, we just cannot apply entirely different criteria to Falk than to other academics. Jeppiz (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So go and write articles on the fine academics who don't have them instead of trying to delete an article on someone who does deserve one. The problem with "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" is not present in its wording. You claim to dislike how high the barrier is in practice, but there is nothing at all forcing you to interpret this rule as a very high barrier. Instead, you are doing exactly what you complain about. Also I think your little warning in tiny type is rather outrageous given that you came here as a protagonist in the debate you mention. Zero^talk 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I did "go and write articles" they would be swiftly deleted as per WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps it would help discussion if you could indicate which of the eight criteria at WP:ACADEMIC you think Falk met. I do take your point about the obituary as being relevant, though I don't think it's enough in itself (obituaries are not for all academics but neither are they that rare). Still, it's a valid point. Beyond that point, what notability do you see and for which criteria? Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Daft nomination and frankly a bit tasteless and disrespectful to the recently deceased. Almost every paper by Falk on Google Scholar has dozens if not hundreds of cites, making the case for his impact self-evident. Also, see criterion 1.c. of WP:ACADEMIC, which notes that a memorial volume is qualification enough and low and behold (and the nom has already seen this): In Memoriam: Raphael Falk, 1929–2019. His works, such as The struggle of genetics for independence, are in 1,000+ academic libraries. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a memorial volume but a 4 page obituary in the Springer journal Biological Theory. As I noted this is an honor that only a tiny fraction of scholars receive when they die. Zero^talk 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Iskandar323, exactly everything you say is wrong.

1. No, Falk is not "recently deceased", it's been more than 'two years. Not that it matters one bit.

2. "Dozens of citations" is like saying it's an athletic achievement to do two push-ups. Are you familiar with the H-index? Even the most junior faculty quickly gets an H-index of 10-20. An academic article with "dozens" of cites is not even remotely notable. In previous discussions over academic notability, we have looked at whether the academic has any article with more than 1000 cites. Even that has not necessarily been enough. .

3. I assume good faith in thinking that your claim that there was a memorial volume to Falk is not a deliberate lie (false though it is) but just another indication of your lack of knowledge of a academia. A journal published an obituary for Falk. That is not the same as a memorial volume.

In short, not one part of your comment is correct. Perhaps you refrain from calling others "daft"? Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, got confused over the in memorium piece, but no, it's still a daft nomination, and Zero is absolutely right that you are raising needless illusory barriers here, and you would be better off adding content instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough book reviews for WP:AUTHOR. Likely pass of WP:PROF#C1. And additional notability through a reliably published obituary and through Oren Harman's eulogy [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• David Eppstein, would you mind expanding? WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF#C1 both refer to highly cited, which in turn links to Clarivate which has a very helpful database of what is defined as "highly cited researchers". Falk is not included, so he does not satisfy that part of WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF#C1. Quite the contrary, his absence settles the matter of citations, we now know that (in WP's eyes) Falk is not widely cited. You may of course have refered to a different part of those criteria, would you mind explaining what part of them you think Falk fulfills. Jeppiz (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AUTHOR is about reviews, not citations. "The primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The usual standard I use for this is at least four reviews and at least two reviewed works; we are above that. For WP:PROF#C1, the standard is citation counts, as seen e.g. by searching for the subject's name in Google Scholar. Three or more publications with triple-digit citation counts is often good enough, although it depends on field (history of science is not a particularly high-citation field, so that rule should work ok for Falk, but machine learning or high-energy physics would be different). The searches are complicated by results by a different Raphael Falk, a physician, but I see 302 citations for "The concept of the gene in development and evolution", 186 for "What is a gene?", 153 for "The gene–A concept in tension", 124 for "A potential for learning probability in young children", 140 for "Labellar taste organs of Drosophila melanogaster", etc., enough to be convincing to me. Other participants might have different standards for how much is enough. Being listed by some science publishing database with unclear inclusion standards and unclear indexing comprehensivity for this field like Clarivate is neither necessary nor sufficient. Also see WP:BLUDGEON. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I have no intent to WP:BLUDGEON, apologies if you felt that way. As I told Zero, I am genuinely interested in the criteria WP uses for academics; it interests me much more than if the article on Falk is kept or not. If, for example, the standard you propose of three articles with three-digit citations became a general standard, I'd be very much in favour of that. So again, my intent was to hear your argument (not to impose mine) and I appreciate the argument you made. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a rough guideline and not applicable to all fields. Some knowledge of the citation patterns in different fields is necessary. In this case, in a not-particularly-highly-cited field with single-author publications, it works ok. In other fields, other thresholds would be needed. It cannot be reduced to a simple formula. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can see where you are coming from Jeepiz: abstract wiki criteria, almost observed only in the breach, and your own experience as an editor. If, rather than singling out Falk, who happens to have written the only technical book in English on the parlous misperceptions governing a subject careless scholars make productive careers out, a book without which a few wiki articles cannot be adequately rewritten according to scientific standards, you applied your technical objections, there would be a Bonfire of the Vanities all over the place, beginning with 80 out of the 85 wiki Israeli academic bios listed here. Of the 13 I checked 12 failed miserably your wiki criteria. I've never cared for wiki guideline arcana, since arrogantly I think my formative training covers how to write encyclopedic articles. But here I am reminded of what Umberto Eco said in conversation decades ago, along the lines of: most of his research lent itself to publication for a broader public, but there were key topics that, though vital, could muster at best a specialist audience of dozens to hundreds, and there publication was not the point. Take the bio we have of a friend, the late lamented Danny Kane. He'd fail your test, but he was the Western world's foremost expert on two rare and extinct languages, Khitan and Jurchen, and wrote two important monographs on them that only specialists can read. When one studies medieval Chinese history, all sorts of trails lead you to those peoples, and at the end, you'll find Kane's work alluded to. Wikipedia should be as comprehensive as the redoubtable Encyclopedia Judaica, and cover everyone of historic interest. The EJ runs to 20 vols. Were those criteria applied to it, we'd have 4 vols, and people like myself spotting some minor figure without adequate coverage, running to it for illumination, would be frustrated and remain ignorant.

I once had occasion to work for two months on Nicolai A. Vasiliev, a seminal figure for some varieties of modern logic. For decades, he was neglected, and wikipedia would not have covered him, despite several very important notices in obscure journals. We must cater to very wide appetities and curiosities. All sorts of transient figures in the infotainment business get massive coverage, because they can rally any number of journalistic sources, and will be forgotten in a decade or two. Scholars who work at the forefront of their disciplines and write germinal works, should be covered. That excludes vanity bios of academics. They aren't written as often as not because no one has the time or passion to improve stubs or even note them. It's not sexy. I now recall citing David Dean Shulman on the herders of the Hebron hills. An admin challenged the detail and reverted my edit and simply redlinked the name with an edit summary, 'Shulman who?!'. No one had noticed him, despite him being one of the world's foremost Indologists. So I had to write his bio to justify restoring my edit. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Zero, David Eppstein, and Nishidani have all presented reasoned and relevant arguments. I'm receptive of their arguments, but more convinced than ever that WP:ACADEMIC needs to be improved. In previous AfD discussions I've been involved with, users leaned towards "Delete" when established academics had "only" some 10.000 cites, or when they only had one article above 1000 cites (and some 20 articles with 300-500 cites). I also saw a proposal to delete an academic with far above 100.000 cites (although it was kept). I agree with David Eppstein that a simple catch-all formula would not work, as different fields have different practices. However, some guidelines are needed. It is clear that the criteria about impact on WP:ACADEMIC means absolutely nothing. If 'we' can argue that a couple of articles above 100 is enough in one academic AfD, and in another 'we' (not the same persons) argue that 20-30 articles above 500 is not enough, then clearly we don't have guidelines at all. It's just pure random chance who happens to take part in an AfD. In the absence of any applicable guidelines for academics, I thus withdraw the nomination (and wait for it to be closed) but I hope WP:ACADEMIC will be improved. This complete randomness is farcical. Jeppiz (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all above. Also rename to Rafi Falk per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. gidonb (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2023 (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.