Talk:Robert Schleip

Addressing page concerns

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. (July 2024)

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (July 2024)

1. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

This article contains text that is written in a promotional tone. (July 2024)

---

Responses:

• Notability Criteria:
  • 1. According to ResearchGate, Schleip's work of 193 Publications has garnered over 181,676 Reads and 4,487 Academic Citations.
    • • This is probably one avenue but usually a major contributor to an area would have wider notability such as articles on him in major publications, which I can't see?
  • 2. Received one national level award (2006 - Janda Prize for Musculoskeletal Medicine). "The accolade is given out every two years by the German Society for Manual Medicine (Deutschen Gesellschaft für Manuelle Medizin), the Society of Manual Medicine Physicians (Ärztegesellschaft für Manuelle Medizin) as well as the Physiobörse (Wittlich)"
    • • Don't get the feeling that this is a major academic award.
  • 3. Does not apply.
  • 4. Two major universities, Technical University of Munich and University of Ulm, with a combined 60,000+ students, created new departments in Fascia discipline, which Schleip spearheaded.
    • • Same comments as per 1. above.
  • 5. In Germany the highest academic title is 'Professor' or 'University Professor' (List_of_academic_ranks#Germany), of which Schleip has held at three universities.
    • • If he was made a tenured professor (i.e. a chair that he cannot be fired from), then that is automatic notability per WP:NPROF; a general professorship does not meet that test I'm afraid.
  • 6. Does not apply.
  • 7. From article: Schleip along with Dr. Werner Klinger played a leading role in initiating and organizing the first Fascia Research Congress, sponsored by the National Institute of Health and hosted at Harvard Medical School, which marked the breakthrough for modern fascia research.. He has served on the scientific committee for all subsequent congresses (2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2022) and chaired the 2018 and 2022 congresses.
    • • Same comments per 1. above.
  • 8. Does not apply.

• Biography
  • 1. From article: Science dedicated a two-page appreciative report to this congress and in particular to Schleip titled "Cell Biology Meets Rolfing: From Rolfer to Researcher" referring to Schleip's career shift.
    • • I could only read the first part of the Science article and he gets a passing mention. The Science article is WP:SIGCOV for the topic of Rolfing, which already has a Wikipedia article, but it is not really about him, and he is one of many researchers in the field.

• Promotional

• • I've personally removed any phrases that may exaggerate his expertise.
    • • That is very helpful. The article still does have a resume feel to it (e.g media appearances etc.), which again is a notability concern when it is hard to get clear sources to confirm notability (i.e. the Wikipedia BLP becomes the main "plank" of the subject's notability, which is the wrong way around).

EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to answer your questions above. I don't think that he is definitely not notable, or I would have tagged it for WP:AfD, however, I couldn't find the references (or technical things like WP:NPROF) that would confirm it. Sometimes notability built on WP:BASIC (or item 1 above and its related items), is harder to prove or dispute. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the Science article:

Pt 1: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.318.5854.1234

Pt 2: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.318.5854.1235 (this is the one speaking of Schleip)

There's also worth considering that because the discipline itself is new and relatively small. For example if you look at these metrics from one of the papers: https://badge.dimensions.ai/details/id/pub.1105965300 you'll see that the Field Citation Ratio (The Field Citation Ratio (FCR) indicates the relative citation performance of an article, when compared to similarly-aged articles in its subject area. The FCR is normalized to 1.0 for this selection of articles. An FCR value of more than 1.0 shows that the publication has a higher than average number of citations for its group) is extremely high in it's field with 45x ratio. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)