Talk:Georges Romme

Tags

Hi, I wikified the whole article, and considered the fact that this is about a respectable Dutch professor. I don't think there is a need to restore those tags unless the original editor starts making mayor changes again. -- Mdd (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I have added some of them back again. "a respectable Dutch professor" isn't the same as being being "notable" ... there are no citations here that suggest that anyone has thinks he's notable, just a list of publications. The various edit boxes contain links to discussion of the types of things required to establish notability. Surely if he is "notable" there is some citable source that says he's made an important contribution to something. There are some other possible criteria, but there should at least be some note on this talk page that someone thinks he meetes exactly what criteria. Melcombe (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There are three independent sources give in the article, which is normally enough to establish notability. There is no ground for any of those tags. -- Mdd (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Those source cited need to be independent and from a reliable source, but they don't have state exactly that "he's made an important contribution to something.". The fact that he is cited is normally considered enough. -- Mdd (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For example the extra reference I have added, see here, states:

"During last fifteen years QCA has become increasingly popular among social science research and has been applied to different academic subdisciplines: political Science (Ragin 1987...), sociology (Wickham-Crowle, 1991...) antropology (Lang 1993), management science, such as organisational management (Romme 1995), labour management .... " etcetra.

In an academic way this sources states that he has made "an important contribution to something". Now I haven't checked this any further, because normally this kind of sources are enough here to establish notability. -- Mdd (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is just a pretty ordinary academic. Discussion of notability criteria for this type of people is at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Clearly having one or two people cite his work is not enough. Melcombe (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me where you got the idea, that only one or two people cited his work? One look at Google-books and Google scholar and you find numerous citations. Google books is giving me 86 books, where "Romme AGL" is cited. And take for example the article Making a difference: Organization as design AGL Romme - Organization Science, 2003 - JSTOR which according to Google Scholar is cited 148 times. So please tell me where you got the idea this scientist is hardly notable? All you do is refer to Wikipedia rules? -- Mdd (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing. When I spoke of "respectable Dutch professor" I didn't mean his is automatically notable. I was refering to the fact that he is a professor at a respectable university. This is a fact that should have been mentioned in the article (or added by any experienced Wikipedian). I assumed he was notable because already two independent sources were given in the article. So again it looks like we are not at the same level here. Already four (independent) sources are mentioned in the article and you are still stating "Clearly having one or two people cite his work is not enough"? -- Mdd (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Please tell me where you got the idea, that only one or two people cited his work?" ... from the article, obviously. If the article doesn't demonstrate notability, then it doesn't meet Wikipedia's basic requirements for what should be included in Wikipedia ... for the topics to be included and for the information that should be included about them. Melcombe (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't understand. The current article gives four independent sources:

1. Ann Brown (2005). Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Academic Conferences Limited, p.252.
2. Paul Bate in: Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 43, 2007, p. 10; Jean Bartunek in: Organization Management Journal, vol. 5, 2008, p. 12.
3. Van de Ven, A.H. (2007), Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Garud, R., S. Jain & P. Tuertscher (2008), Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness, Organization Studies, vol. 29: 351-371.

At yet you say "Clearly having one or two people cite his work is not enough" These four sources are the obvious demonstration of the scientists notability. Now can't I count? Or do you mean "Clearly having four people cite his work is not enough"...?? I am used to the situation here, that an article like this should a least have two independent reliable sources? This is Wikipedia's basic requirement.

Also when there is a conflict about an article like this, you go beyond the Wikipedia article and check for your self if the scientist is notable. If you find these data I mentioned, you give the person the benefit of the doubt, and let it be. However, you still seem to be convinced this scientist is hardly notable, or at least I don't hear you say otherwise. -- Mdd (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So tell us, which of the nine explicitly-stated criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) do you think this guy meets? For citations of work to count towards notability, the criterion is "highly cited", with the interpretation The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure (and is allowed to vary with field). Melcombe (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)