From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) MrClog ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Gérard Mussies

Gérard Mussies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC - the sources consist primarily of namechecks, sometimes literally just that. SCOPUS lists an h-index of 2, Google Scholar has no h-index. I cannot find any sources directly about the subject (per WP:GNG). Deleted A7 in January and tagged again as A7 in February but declined as also tagged G4 (which does not apply to prior speedy); it's unclear the claim of A7 was investiugated then. There's only one substantive editor of both the deleted and the current versions and most of the article consists of primary-sourced expositions of the subject's views. Guy ( help!) 12:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 15:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 15:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The subject doesn't have a Google Scholar profile, so it doesn't calculate an h-index for him, but this is a little misleading. From a casual perusal, it looks like his h-index is at least 10. His Koine Greek book has 86 GS citations. It may be that some of these are not showing up in Scopus because of their age. It's on the light side for WP:NPROF, but plausible. A WP:NAUTHOR case also looks possible, though finding reviews of works this old can be difficult (I didn't immediately succeed). I share some of your concerns about the current state of the article, and note that the main contributing editor seems to be pushing a POV. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 15:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- The subject appears to have been active 1971-2001. The Internet was in its infancy in that time. Furthermore, citation indices developed for science often do not pick up arts subjects, because they do not capture data from the relevant journals. This is likely to be particularly severe for theology. So not judge the past by to9day's standards. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The citations look reasonably solid, and this gives a marginal case for WP:NPROF. I didn't find reviews (probably because of the age of them), but some of his books are widely held according to WorldCat. The combination of the two looks like a reasonable keep case. I also considered a delete argument per WP:TNT, but I removed the primary-sourced bulk of the article, and what was left still seems to me a reasonable stub. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 12:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a non-notable academic. The lewvel of citations is not enough to meet academic notability criteria. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, because the fdensity of publication in the field is so much lower--there are many fewer than 1%as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable peson to be cited. Any book with as many as 86 citations in these fields is quite a bit beyond the usual, and sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: G. Mussies is notable due following reasons
  • Keep despite JLACO's ineffective and TLDR defense above. I found enough reviews on JSTOR alone to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR – Dio Chrysostom: [1], [2]; Morphology of Koine: [3], [4], [5]; Der lateinische Text: [6], [7], [8]; Studies in Egyptian Religion: [9]. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:57, 5 April 2020 (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.