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.
This biographical article was created by an editor who has an obvious conflict of interest, considering his/her username]] is almost the same as the article name. I tried to nominate it as a speedy deletion, but it was denied. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that subject satisfies WP:PROF. Hqb (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COI is not a reason for deletion, only cleanup (and only then if the writer of the autobiographical article didn't use neutral language - rare, but it happens). Being editor in chief of a scientific journal would satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, but I assume that the nom has checked this claim and couldn't find any sources for it. Is that correct? Perhaps the nom could also share with us what other sources he used to establish that the subject is not notable. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, WP:ACADEMIC says, "8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area", which hardly applies to the journal in question. And in any case, it's not the task of the nominator to provide sourced evidence of non-notability, if such a thing is even possible. Hqb (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to prove "non-notability", but usually a nom provides some information on the (failed) efforts that have been made to establish notability. In this case, the article contains what might be a valid claim of notability and I am a bit surprised to see a nom that only says: "COI". Why does #8 not apply to this journal? --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the link? Neither major nor well established: it's essentially local to Columbia College Chicago (though with a couple of external members on the editorial board), and has published just two issues so far. For the record, I did look the subject up on Google Scholar, but the results were also unimpressive. Hqb (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any non-trivial third-party mentions. This is one of the few third-party mentions at all I can find, but it doesn't really have anything to base an article on. --Delirium (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One publication without citations listed in the Web of Science. Assistant professor at Columbia College in Chicago (NOT Columbia University, which is a much more prestigious institution). According to his homepage, he obtained his PhD only in 2005. It doesn't help that the Dutch title of his "fieldwork project" contains a typo and is ungrammatical. As stated above by Hqb, Aksikas is editor in chief of a journal, but this is mainly a local Columbia journal, geared towards "undergraduate students, graduate students, and emerging scholars". Only 2 issues published, so the journal (and its editorship) are not notable yet (even though this seems to be a laudable initiative). No indication that the subject at this point fulfills the criteria for notability under either WP:BIOorWP:ACADEMIC. Despite the almost frivolous nom, I therefore have to come down on the side of delete, without prejudice for recreation once the subject meets notability criteria. --Crusio (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROForWP:BIO. As pointed out by Hqb and Crusio, not just any journal can be used to satisfy WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal).--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with all those who would like to delete this article. This guy is an editor-in-chief of a scholarly journal. The fact that it’s based at Columbia College does not make it local. Look at the submissions and the editorial process; it’s pretty rigorous. Many scholarly journals are based at universities and colleges, but that does not diminish their scholarly status/merit. Number 8 is clear “The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major journal in their subject area.” And major does not exclude a scholarly journal based at a respected/accredited university/college. Number 17 qualifies numer 8 very clearly: “Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8; their Editors-in-Chief may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.” There is no other qualification of “major” in the policies. And this journal is not devoted to any one marginal theory. Cultural studies is major field (ebc2i). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebc2i (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 January 2009
Keep. As ebc2i indicates, this is not just any journal. One of the people on the editorial collective is the well-known anthropologist Jean-Paul Dumont, the guy who inroduced self-reflexivity in anthropology. Also, the person in question has several publications, including 2 books [1]and a fieldwork research translated into Dutch, which is impressive. I do not see how a typo in a title would not help establish notability. That strikes me as rather shallow!
Comment. Dumont also happens to be Aksikas's former PhD advisor at GMU.[2] I see zero independent evidence that this journal is generally considered a "major well-established journal in the area of cultural studies", but you are more than welcome to present some. Hqb (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the journal is edited from Columbia College does indeed not mean that it is local, but the fact that most editorial board members are based there is a different matter. As for the journal being "major", we obviously have different interpretations of the meaning of that word. A journal that is geared towards student papers is unlikely to be major. The journal is not included in Scopus (which includes 16,000 scientific journals) or the Web of Knowledge (both Scopus and WoK cover many anthropology journals). As a matter of fact, no journal that I know of has been notable after only publishing 2 issues. That a well-known anthropologist serves on the editorial board is not very special either. Most new journals have multiple "VIPs" from their respective fields in their boards. The fact that there is only 1 here, again, reinforces the idea that this journal is far from "major". --Crusio (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Did you even read those three Google News links you posted? They are all from the same source, two of them merely list Aksikas by name and affiliation among the "guest readers" at a local event (i.e., completely trivial coverage), and the last one is an anonymous letter to the editor about that same event, and mentions Aksikas only briefly. How does that "meet WP:PEOPLE easily", exactly? Hqb (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An assistant professor, and it is quite uncommon that they have actually done enough work for notability as an authority in their field or otherwise. One major publication only Arab modernities : islamism, nationalism, and liberalism in the post-colonial Arab world and it has not quite been published yet, a/c WorldCat. [5]--the absence of page numbers in detail view and that the holdings are only LC is diagnostic. when the book is published, if there are major reviews, he might possibly become notable. Although humanities journals and those in the "soft" social sciences like anthropology are weakly covered in both WoS and Scopus as compared to other areas, Crusio's analysis of the nature of the editorial board is quite relevant. . The deciding factor here is that the gsearch cited by MQS shows nothing significant--the main hits are '"rate my professors" , internal college material and readings at the college. When one does a search, one needs to examine the results. DGG (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that as [6] and [7] show, this article meets WP:PEOPLE easily. I also agree that article might need WP:CLEANUP, but certainly NOT deletion. The profile of the personality we are talking about is pretty impressive; and it's not true that he has only one major publications; and it's true that one should check the hits, not just select a few. He has two books [8], a fieldwork ethnography, and a number of scholarly articles, including this one [9], which has been well-received and is cited in a major journal here: [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicklisa (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 January 2009 — Quicklisa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Interesting that apart from Schmidt, the 'Keeps' have only edited on this page. A Fan club? Peridon (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one, never heard of this fellow before the AfD. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Another member of the fan club here! In addition to all the evidence that this article should be kept, I should add that this guy is also Director of Education and Media of the Moroccan Congress in the USA, as well as a representative of this body. See [11]. Maybe, that should be added to the article, but I think this article should be kept. I do not understand the comment about his new book not yet published; you can already read parts of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.69.212.108 (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC) — 206.69.212.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: this IP traces to Columbia College. --Crusio (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Added it, as well as doing a bit of cleanup. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it can be shown that this is a notable organization, this does not add much to the notability of this person. --Crusio (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this organization not notable again? I assure the IP address does not trace to Columbia College, nor do I know this guy personally!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicklisa (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the result of an IP address lookup using this web service: Lookup IP Address: 206.69.212.108; Hostname: l4.colum.edu; ISP: NTT America; Organization: Columbia College. --Eric Yurken (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that my IP address does not trace to Columbia College; I do not care about others! So my question still stands: Why is this organization not notable again?
Quicklisa, the remark about the IP address concerns the "strong keep" vote by 206.69.212.108 above. If that is you as your preceding comments seem to imply, then you !voted twice and should strike one of them. As for why this organization is not notable, I think that is puttingthings on their head. Why is this organization notable again? Any independent references? PS, please sign your comments by using --~~~~ or clicking the signature icon above the edit window. --Crusio (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cursio--Let's be clear: I did not write the "Strong vote" entry, but I was simply asking a question about the satus of the organization that the entry introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicklisa (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm getting less convinced about the notability, and getting a faint whiff that could come from socks or such. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close Discussion I move to close this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebc2i (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (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.
