Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christophe Neff

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 no consensus. David Eppstein has made a persuasive argument but none of the editors arguing keep have returned to revisit their positions and this debate has now been open for almost three weeks. As WP:RELIST discourages third relists, I'm going to call time. If someone wants to re-nominate this article for deletion in a couple of months they would be well served by taking some notes on David Eppstein's approach when they write the nomination. A Train^talk 08:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Neff

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

doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO on given sources CelenaSkaggs (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BIO, fails WP:CS and WP:PROF — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is the leading German academic on Mediterranean fire ecology, widely published and works in a relevant field. (pun not intended) I see sufficient evidence to show the subject passes NPROF. This is one of six German 'authors' the nom sent to Afd in 30 minutes, however IHO only 2 of those are worthy of deletion. --@EC Racing: WP:CS is not a notability guideline, what did you mean? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Links in the article don't demonstrate this. Under references we have 1) the subject's blog, 2) a page from a university that doesn't even list the subject's name, 3) a dead link to ARD with no page found and 4) link to the subject's blog (again). This is hardly sufficient to demonstrate one of the 9 points listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Furthermore, Google search turns up no independent coverage to satisfy general WP:BIO or notability guidelines. User has a Wikimedia page, if that is of interest? CelenaSkaggs (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The fact that the links in the article don't demonstrate notability isn't relevant at all. You should consider reading both WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST before you nominate any more articles for deletion based on your perception that the links that are presently in an article determine notability. It feels like you're wasting the community's time with many of these noms. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as User:Aguyintobooks said, Nef really does check out as a leading, well-known and eminently sourceable expert on fire ecology. User:CelenaSkaggs, I thik you need ot slow down and run WP:BEFORE you hastily delete articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To test the hypothesis that he is a leading expert on Mediterranean fire ecology, I used Google scholar to look up the top citation counts of papers on the subject. I found:
- 559 for Naveh, "The evolutionary significance of fire in the Mediterranean region", Vegetatio 1975
- 412 for Pausas et al, "Are wildfires a disaster in the Mediterranean basin?–A review", Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009
- 315 for Keeley et al, Fire in Mediterranean ecosystems: ecology, evolution and management, 2011
- 239 for Díaz-Delgado, "Satellite evidence of decreasing resilience in Mediterranean plant communities after recurrent wildfires", Ecology 2002
- 191 for Naveh, "Fire in the Mediterranean–a landscape ecological perspective", Fire in Ecosystem Dynamics 1990
- 187 for LeHouerou, "Fire and vegetation in the Mediterranean basin", Proc. 13th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf. 1974
- 157 for Moreno and Oechel, The role of fire in Mediterranean-type ecosystems, 2012
- 157 for Noy‐Meir, "Interactive effects of fire and grazing on structure and diversity of Mediterranean grasslands", J. Veg. Sci. 1995
- 153 for Gimeno‐García et al, "Changes in organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and cations in soil as a result of fire and water erosion in a Mediterranean landscape", Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2000
- 150 for Paula et al, "Fire‐related traits for plant species of the Mediterranean Basin", Ecology 2009

In contrast, among Neff's publications I find one well-cited one on general fire ecology in which he is in a middle position among six authors ("Reconstructing past fire regimes: methods, applications, and relevance to fire management and conservation", and note that without restricting to the Mediterranean the citation counts of other works are also much higher) and then other citation counts much lower (43, 33, 25, and then single digits). I conclude that the hypothesis is not confirmed. It may be that he is the leading German expert in Mediterranean fire ecology, but I don't see why his nationality should be relevant to his notability, especially since one would not expect Germany to be a center of research on this topic (it is not a Mediterranean country). Since that was the only plausible claim here for notability, and in general his citation counts do not show that he is a high-impact researcher in this area, I conclude that we do not have evidence for WP:PROF in general, nor for WP:PROF#C1 more specifically. Without evidence of notability, we cannot keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per Eppsteins's superb analysis.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:02, 6 October 2017 (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.