Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Spatzal

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. Given the apparent self-promotion at issue here, I'm disregarding the SPAs and the IPs, which results in rough consensus to delete. Sandstein 13:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Spatzal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am not seeing evidence that WP:PROF is met. There were a couple of high impact papers which look to have come out of his PhD but apart from that their publication record is pretty thin and whilst I can't accurately calculate an h-index, it does not look particulary high for a biochemist. The article makes lofty claims about how the research resulted in a "paradigm shift" but it is not supported by the references cited. This is probably best explained by the fact that the article appears to be an autobiography. SmartSE (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Germany. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author is a probable ref spammer. Nothing notable about his career except that he worked with some notable people. Self-promotion probably because he doesnt understand how dumb it looks. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-objective and none-fact-based comment. Please stick to "wikietquette" and refrain from comments like that. 83.135.55.83 (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are primary/papers he's authored, rest is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Very Weak Keep The article needs some work in terms of tone and it sounds a bit like WP:PROMO, but WP:DINC. Overall though with the citation counts, I'd say it is a pass of WP:NPROF C1. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe and Kj cheetham: Can you please expand on which sources you used to determine that C1 is met? SmartSE (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Thomas+Spatzal the "Evidence for interstitial carbon in nitrogenase FeMo cofactor" paper has almost 1000 citation (also noting https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1214025 says 697), and he has multiple first-author papers with over 100 citations. Quoting Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1, The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work, taking into account the note about Google Scholar at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cheetham, maybe you do not understand the workings of scientific publication. You are correct: that interstitial carbide paper is highly cited. It is a paper by Einsle et al. Einsle is the prime mover. Spatzal is one of several et al's. If we used that method of assigning publication glory to the (mere) coworkers on the paper, Wikipedia would be flooded with articles on dutiful students. We scientists often put good students at the front end of the paper as a reward for their diligence. Spatzal did that work under Einsle's direction while he was at Freiburg, as one can see from the attributions. In science, the prime actor is the "corresponding author". --Smokefoot (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That one paper is not the only reason I !voted to keep. I'm not going to get into a discussion on the order of paper authors here, but for that specific paper, the "corresponding author" is Einsle. Please also WP:AGF with your edit summaries. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is a comment from a person who is not a scientist. Here is how scientific publications are organized (see also "author requirements" at all major journals): First author (Spatzal in this case) is driving the research, performs vast majority of experiments and writes up the paper. Last Author (Einsle in that case) ist the PI. This is common scientfic practice. 83.135.55.83 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always interesting how many inexperts feel compelled to voice opinions on topics where they immediately demonstrate ignorance or naivite. This first author is just a student. Some of the commenters should talk to some grown-up who publishes in the sciences. But its an unimportant article so who cares?--Smokefoot (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editor Kj cheetham has said all that needs to be said about why the subject passes WP:Prof. I seem to hear the sound of axe-grinding. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The number of high impact (first author! and corresponding author!) publications seems high. The impact factor of the cited journals is high, too. Additionally, all the major publications have a very very high citation score. 84.62.154.99 (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to change my !vote to only "weak" as I'm less sure than I was. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep. The article needs some re-phrasing but the scientific impact on the fields of nitrogenase, nitrogen-fixation and bioinorganic chemistry clearly justifies this. 84.62.154.99 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That opinion voiced by German IP address, unregistered editor. Also notice that all of Spatzal's non-review papers are with big shots, Einsle and Rees. He's has nothing without these PIs.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement is factually incorrect. Please stick to Wikipedia guidelines. 2.206.81.109 (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To 1 edit spa: you need to prove your contention. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: less sniping, more policy please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep. Impact on biochemistry is demonstrated by high citation and independent secondary citations of the contributions. Reasons for deletion are not fulfilled and notabiliy passes. ApoptosisFlash (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— ApoptosisFlash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 15:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep. Notability passed. Impact is confirmed by independent second-source publications (in Science, see ref.) referencing the weight of the work. Subject also has several last author/corresponding author publications demonstrating independence of research from peers/mentors past PhD.

Side note: PhD work has to be credited to respective students, otherwise it would defeat the purpose (e.g. some students received nobel prizes for their PhD work). Analyna90 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Analyna90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 01:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing clear evidence that C1 of WP:PROF is met through this subject's independent scholarship, and C2-7 are not met at all, so there's nothing left. This person is early in their career. Sure, there are citations to papers coauthored with doctoral and postdoctoral advisors, but that does not seem sufficient without evidence that they themselves drove the work - and despite what others have said above, the order of authors does not provide this information infallibly. If this person's work shines enough to achieve a really notable academic career, their own work will gain a high citation rate and they will receive awards and other accolades to boot. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm increasing less convinced by my original !vote, in light of what Qflib said, so changing it to very weak. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2024 (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.