m →[3rd arbitrary break]: tweak |
|||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
::*Arthur: you forgot to mention that you were once audited at [[Climate Audit]]: [http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/23/arthur-smiths-trick/ Arthur Smith's Trick]. In a juster world, you'd be halfway to meeting GNG! <G>. Cheers, [[User:Tillman|Pete Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|talk]]) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC) |
::*Arthur: you forgot to mention that you were once audited at [[Climate Audit]]: [http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/23/arthur-smiths-trick/ Arthur Smith's Trick]. In a juster world, you'd be halfway to meeting GNG! <G>. Cheers, [[User:Tillman|Pete Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|talk]]) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
: Agricola44, I think your main point is just wrong. The first general note at [[WP:ACADEMICS]] says in part, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." In other words, some actual biographical information is required. Similarly, your mentions of Kramm's citation counts do not address the "Average Professor Test": "when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" There's evidence above that Kramm's citation count is not clearly more accomplished than others in his field; do you have contrary evidence? --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 21:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC) |
: Agricola44, I think your main point is just wrong. The first general note at [[WP:ACADEMICS]] says in part, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." In other words, some actual biographical information is required. Similarly, your mentions of Kramm's citation counts do not address the "Average Professor Test": "when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" There's evidence above that Kramm's citation count is not clearly more accomplished than others in his field; do you have contrary evidence? --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 21:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
'''Phil Bridger''', Professor Dr. Foken is engaged in micrometeorology, but not in theoretical meteorology. This means that he is engaged in the field of applied meteorology. Theoretical meteorology is based on theoretical Physics. Please take a look into the textbook of Zdunkowski and Bott (2003), Dynamics of the Atmosphere. This textbook stands for theoretical meteorology. By the way, Kramm and Foken published several papers together. I found that these papers are listed in the References of Foken's textbook. [[User:Mmarque|Mmarque]] ([[User talk:Mmarque|talk]]) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
'''Joel B. Lewis''', I wonder what your qualification is. If you are this post-doc at the [[University of Minnesota|UMN]], then it would be better for you to be quiet. According to MathSciNet, the number of papers published by a Joel B. Lewis is six. His field is '''number theory'''. Kramm is also mentioned in MathSciNet because he published some papers in the [[Journal of the Calcutta Mathematical Society]]. Kramm's fields are also listed in MathSciNet: '''Fluid mechanics''', '''geophysics''', '''quantum theory''', '''statistical mechanics''', and '''structure of matter'''. Kramm and Herbert (2006), for instance, derived various blackbody radiation laws using principles of dimensional analysis. One of them is Planck's radiation law. If you are this UMN guy, do you really believe that you are able to assess Kramm's work or his scientific reputation? Thus, tell me what your motivation is? Your behavior is that of an aisle sitter who only had assessed a nativity play of a middle school long time ago. [[User:Mmarque|Mmarque]] ([[User talk:Mmarque|talk]]) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
====[3rd arbitrary break]==== |
====[3rd arbitrary break]==== |
Revision as of 01:11, 17 October 2012
Gerhard Kramm
- Gerhard Kramm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
So there's been an informal deletion discussion on the talk page of the article for about the past week or so. Based on a thorough examination of the article and the arguments on the talk page, I've come to the conclusion that the article should be deleted and thus I'll make the formal nomination.
First, the article does not, I feel, pass the general notability critera. I can only find two good secondary sources: Senate Report News article on research. Both sources are independent of the subject, but neither is "significant coverage": the latter is only tangentially about the subject of the article and the former merely quotes from his writing, so again, not directly about the subject of the article. Of course, the other notability criterion is professors and academics. Let's go through these individually:
- 2-4,6,8,9: Not relevant based on the information I can find.
- 1:"significant impact in their scholarly discipline" - as Arthur Smith pointed out on the talk page, the subject's publication record is pretty middling: ranked 1666 of 3000-ish for citations
- 5:"named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" - Not passed: his own CV lists him as an associate professor, so not even a full-prof, much less "distingushed professor"
- 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." - Dr. Kramm has written a few letters to the editor and has been quoted in a Congressional report as mentioned above. However, this criterion somewhat duplicates the WP:GNG, and as such, is insufficiently supported as described above.
With all of the above evidence, my inclination is to delete, but I welcome the input of better sources I and others may have missed that would save the article from deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- weak delete - google h-index of 12, for a current scientist, is pretty low. One paper in google scholar is cited by 100+ (see scholar.google). My inclination is delete also. --Lquilter (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
[Arbitrary break]
In there paper "Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact" Kramm and Dlugi (2011) stated:
"The example 2.1 of Halpern et al., for instance, which is dealing with two heat reservoirs at different temperatures that exchange energy and entropy by radiation is falsified because the magnitude of the entropy flux emitted by a black body is given by Js = 4/3 σ T3 [5], where T is the actual surface temperature and σ = 5.67 • 10-8 W·m–2·K–4 is Stefan’s constant. Halpern et al. not only ignored Planck’s [5] results, but also those of many peer-reviewed papers published during the past four decades (e.g., [6-9]). In addition, even the wrong units for irradiances and entropy fluxes used in their 2009-version and already criticized by, at least, one of the reviewers were not replaced in their printed version by the correct ones. If it is possible to publish such a physically inadequate comment, we have to acknowledge that the discipline of climatology has lost its rational basis."
Arthur Smith was a co-author of Halpern et al. (2010). Thus, it is not surprising to me that especially Halpern tries to attack Kramm under the belt line.
On the talk page, Smith argued in a manner that is typical for him. He cited Prall's work even though it is rather senseless. Kramm is a theoretical meteorologist. His work is mainly related to the physics and chemistry of the atmospheric boundary layer and atmospheric energetics, but not to climate. From this point of view it plays no role whether he is listed by Prall or not. Prall claimed that Kramm has written 29 papers to climate. This is highly incorrect. To my best knowledge, his first peer-reviewed paper on climate was published in 2010.
According to Google Scholar, Kramm's h index is 19, but not 12 as reported here. In his PNAS paper J.E. Hirsch (2005), a professor of physics at the University of California at San Diego and the father of the h index, argued:
"Based on typical h and m values found, I suggest (with large error bars) that for faculty at major research universities, h ≈ 12 might be a typical value for advancement to tenure (associate professor) and that h ≈ 18 might be a typical value for advancement to full professor. Fellowship in the American Physical Society might occur typically for h ≈ 15–20. ........ Scientists working in nonmainstream areas will not achieve the same very high h values as the top echelon of those working in highly topical areas."
In my opinion, theoretical meteorology is such a non-mainstream area. Although the scientific impact cannot easily be assessed by such measures like h and g indices, these measures are, by far, more objective than the highly subjective meaning of Halpern and Smith. I must assume that Halpern and friends try to re-establish "Deutsche Physik" (it means Aryan physics). Mmarque (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- The h-index is 12 on isi-web of science (no link, since subscription required), which is more reliable than google scholar, as google scholar is known to overcount citatations (it's not restricted to peer-reviewed literature), so it's nothing too special for a tenure-track professor. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note that there was some discussion on the above-quoted talk page which has been (I expect accidentally) deleted in the discussion there. If you go through the history of the talk page you'll note a couple of additional comments - one suggested that wikipedia ought to err on the side of including this along with the thousands of other well-cited climate scientists. I'm certainly sympathetic to that view, but I can understand with limited editing resources it might be best to have stricter notability criteria. Either way I don't think this page should be kept without some effort to balance with a good fraction of the many much more notable climate scientists who are currently missing from wikipedia. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Um, when did it become acceptable to come this close to calling another editor a Nazi on an AfD discussion? --JBL (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete quibbling over h-index is silly if we don't have verifiable material to write a biography. I don't like that there seems to be a recent targeting of scientists that have challenged mainstream science on climate change at AfD, but there's not much for keeping this one. Gigs (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete with feelings similar to those of the nominator. It seems unlikely to me that Kramm satisfies the notability criteria as either an academic or under GNG, but I thought it was possible that discussion on the talk page would lead to some useful reliable source that could justify a keep. Unfortunately the arguments in favor of keeping seem mostly to be driven by an ideological insistence that climate science denialists not be removed from Wikipedia, rather than a desire to write a good article. (There seems to be a lot of silly focus on the subject's not-unusually-impressive citation record; e.g., after the question of notability was raised the article was edited to refer to Kramm's "commendable citation index ranking".) Since there seems to be no verifiable RS material from which to write a biography, we probably shouldn't have a biography. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
[Arbitrary break, as editing is getting clumsy]
- Delete. Kramm's citation record is not strong enough to pass WP:PROF criterion 1, and theoretical meteorology is very much a mainstream discipline, so the get-out-clause claim above is spurious. For an associate professor to be considered notable we would need extraordinary evidence to claim that Kramm has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline in contradiction to his employer's failure to grant a full professorship. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, you are completely wrong. Theoretical meteorology is, by far, not a mainstream discipline. The only journal, for instance, dealing with dynamical meteorology is Tellus Series A, a Swedish journal. This journal also publishes papers in dynamical oceanography. What theoretical meteorology means is reflected by the textbooks of Riegel (1992), Dutton (1995) and Zdunkowsky & Bott (2003). I do not believe that you have an adequate education to understand these textbooks. Thus, what is your motivation to make false claims? Mmarque (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh good, we've graduated from vague Nazi comparisons to direct personal attacks on other users. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and knock it off. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to Thomas Foken, Professor of Micrometeorology at the University of Bayreuth, "Meteorology is subdivided into branches. The main branches are theoretical meteorology, observational meteorology and applied meteorology."[pb 1] It doesn't take much education, or questionable motivation, to understand that one of the three main branches of meteorology is not an obscure field. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Criticizing someone's wrong claim is not a personal attack.Mmarque (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right -- that's why you should have stopped writing before you got to your last two sentences. As a show of good faith, you could always go strike them out. --JBL (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. A few matters should be clarified. First, this debate is strictly about whether to keep the article based on the subject's notability, not whether there's enough material supported by biographical sources to write an article. If there aren't many of latter, the article can always be stubbed using minimal information from published papers, like history of employment and areas of expertise. Second, there's no precedent of limiting notability to one kind of ranking, as implied above using this list. The overwhelming majority of academics pass on WP:PROF #1 and there are many accepted ways of demonstrating this, including h-index, book holdings, total number of citations to published work, etc. Here, WoS shows that the subject has an h-index of 12, which is in our historically "borderline" region of 10-15, but the citation list is more telling, e.g. 45, 42, 36, 34, 32, ... (total >350) and Kramm is the first or corresponding author on most of the well-cited papers. As one would expect, these citation numbers are somewhat higher on GS. Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC).
- BTW, I'm always uncomfortable trying to divine why someone may or may not have been promoted within the academic ranks, as my esteemed colleague Phil Bridger has done above, because these matters are usually fraught with internal politics that cannot easily be known by folks outside of that institution. Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC).
- I'm not trying to divine why, but merely noticing the fact. Wherever possible we make decisions on notability by reference to what the outside world considers notable rather than by our own subjective judgement. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Phil, my point exactly. As I see it, what the "outside world considers notable" is the checkable objective statistic of >350 citations and what I think would be more "subjective judgement" is speculating on the internal and presumably confidential personnel affairs at an institution where someone was passed over for promotion. By itself, 350 citations is a sufficient clincher here. Agricola44 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC).
- Hey, I have a Google scholar h-index of 14, 885 citations total, 7 papers with over 50 citations (according to Google, don't know what WoS says). And I was only an active researcher for 10 years, over 16 years ago. I have certainly never thought my work in physics justified a wikipedia page for myself. If that's the justification, as I noted above, I'd like to see a commitment to adding pages for the thousands of similar or better qualified people currently missing... ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- You probably should have an article then:) As for commitment, that obviously falls to us, the editors. I've created 8 new bios in roughly the past month and am gathering background on about a dozen more right now. You're urged to do the same...there are many more deserving bios than there are editors, so please carry on. Agricola44 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC).
- Arthur: you forgot to mention that you were once audited at Climate Audit: Arthur Smith's Trick. In a juster world, you'd be halfway to meeting GNG! <G>. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- You probably should have an article then:) As for commitment, that obviously falls to us, the editors. I've created 8 new bios in roughly the past month and am gathering background on about a dozen more right now. You're urged to do the same...there are many more deserving bios than there are editors, so please carry on. Agricola44 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC).
- Agricola44, I think your main point is just wrong. The first general note at WP:ACADEMICS says in part, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." In other words, some actual biographical information is required. Similarly, your mentions of Kramm's citation counts do not address the "Average Professor Test": "when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" There's evidence above that Kramm's citation count is not clearly more accomplished than others in his field; do you have contrary evidence? --JBL (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, Professor Dr. Foken is engaged in micrometeorology, but not in theoretical meteorology. This means that he is engaged in the field of applied meteorology. Theoretical meteorology is based on theoretical Physics. Please take a look into the textbook of Zdunkowski and Bott (2003), Dynamics of the Atmosphere. This textbook stands for theoretical meteorology. By the way, Kramm and Foken published several papers together. I found that these papers are listed in the References of Foken's textbook. Mmarque (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis, I wonder what your qualification is. If you are this post-doc at the UMN, then it would be better for you to be quiet. According to MathSciNet, the number of papers published by a Joel B. Lewis is six. His field is number theory. Kramm is also mentioned in MathSciNet because he published some papers in the Journal of the Calcutta Mathematical Society. Kramm's fields are also listed in MathSciNet: Fluid mechanics, geophysics, quantum theory, statistical mechanics, and structure of matter. Kramm and Herbert (2006), for instance, derived various blackbody radiation laws using principles of dimensional analysis. One of them is Planck's radiation law. If you are this UMN guy, do you really believe that you are able to assess Kramm's work or his scientific reputation? Thus, tell me what your motivation is? Your behavior is that of an aisle sitter who only had assessed a nativity play of a middle school long time ago. Mmarque (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
[3rd arbitrary break]
- Weak Keep: I just added another 3rd-party cite, to a report and testimony Kramm prepared for the Alaska state legislature in 2007. For me, this tips the balnce to meeting the WP:GNG. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- In what sense is a report written by Kramm a 3rd party cite? (Am I missing something? It looks like the page you've linked has no information about Kramm other than a PDF of his slides.) --JBL (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Anchorage Presentations (third item), which documents Kramm's appearance at the Alaska state legislature (with a link to his report, published by the State). Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, Pete T..... GNG requires "significant coverage," and the document you list is inescapably trivial coverage rather than significant, since the only thing written by the 3rd party is his name and talk title.... I mean I appreciate your effort to find more sources, but that source doesn't really help to establish notability..... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Anchorage Presentations (third item), which documents Kramm's appearance at the Alaska state legislature (with a link to his report, published by the State). Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- In what sense is a report written by Kramm a 3rd party cite? (Am I missing something? It looks like the page you've linked has no information about Kramm other than a PDF of his slides.) --JBL (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The State of Alaska found Kramm to be Notable enough to testify to one of the legislature's committees, and published his report. Now, I'm not saying this is equivalent to a profile at a RS newspaper ormagazine, but these things do add up. Hence my Weak Keep !vote. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but "the State of Alaska found" is not supported by your source. It confirms that Kramm gave some sort of talk; it is not clear (at least to me) how he came to be invited to give this talk, and it's certainly not clear that "the State of Alaska" (or anyone who plausibly could be so-described) found anything about him at all, nor why they invited him. (Totally agree about "these things add up" in principle; still not convinced that they do in this particular instance, though.) --JBL (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd hoped to find a news mention of this, but failed. Nevertheless, someone at the Alaska legislature did pick Kramm to testify, and the Commission did publish his report..... --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think GNG is relevant anymore because >350 citations is sufficient under PROF 1. What Pete added is supplemental, but not necessary for the notability pass. News and other such would be supplemental too, but again, not necessary. Agricola44 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC).
- On another topic, I would draw your attention to Talk:Gerhard Kramm#Listing in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" as another potential (small) evidence for Kramm's wiki-Notability. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)