Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Raffoul

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 delete. Sandstein 04:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

François Raffoul

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

Not a full professor, not a terribly prestigious university, not many publications with many citations[1] - doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. For that the two books with the most citations, he was merely the translator.[2][3] Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites are 27, 8, 3, 1, 1; h index = 3. Not remotely anough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. WoS shows 8 pubs with citations: 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, ... for an h-index of 2 using the query "Author=(Raffoul F*) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". WorldCat shows that his book "Heidegger and the Subject" (1998) is held by ~200 institutions, while "A Chaque fois mien" (2004) is held by only about 30. This seems like pretty average impact for a (presumably) tenured professor. (His most recent book published in 2010 is held in only 4 libraries, but that number could increase in the future.) The article is unapologetic in its name-dropping attempt to try to link Raffoul to more famous figures like Nancy and Derrida, going so far as to actually recite who was on his dissertation committee. The obvious problem here is WP:NOTINHERITED. It's admirable to try to save this article, but the subject seems to satisfy none of the WP:PROF criteria. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, puffery cannot overcome failure of WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 09:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should consider importance relative to research area.Ehmhel (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? Agricola44 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

impact ratings need to be considered relative to other scholars within the same area, as significance of work in French philosophy is not apparent from general impact ratings. It is also problematic that many French libraries and publications are not included in such rankings. Further, translations are a central part of working on French philosophy in the English-speaking world. They should not be so easily dismissed as they shape and inform the reception of philosophers such as Nancy and Lacan. 98.216.66.197 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like special pleading. Can you source these claims? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Without some sort of evidence, I'm afraid that statements of the type "significance of work in ______ is not apparent from general impact ratings" are indeed nothing more than special pleading. The inclusion statement above is patently false. For example, WorldCat does indeed index books from libraries around the world, including France (hence the "World" part of the name). French journals are indexed as well. For example, WoS indexes >170 journals published in France (easy to check) and presumably a larger number that are published in the French language (apparently harder to check). If the commenter's argument were true, we might expect to find a similar "bias" against some of the other French philosophers that WP considers notable, but this is not the case. For example, WoS shows Derrida to have published 155 articles with citations counts of 83, 74, 63, 60, 56, ... plus an enormous number of books (listed in the article). WorldCat shows that holdings are also large, e.g. Derrida's "Acts of Literature" is held by >800 institutions and "Aporias" in >500. (The latter seems to have been a translation from French.) No, I think the true explanation is that Raffoul is not notable. May perhaps be one day, but not now. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (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.