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 Keep, consensus is that he is notable. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pentland

[edit]

This person does not seem notable to me. All of the "references" are from the same website (his place of employment), and 3 of them are userpages from one of his employees. I don't see any 3rd party sources, I don't see anything at all that actually illistrates what he's done that has made him notable sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 11:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, as none is established, fails WP:BLP, reads on the lines like a "auto-bio".--S_RX 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete CSD A7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Change to Weak Keep Somewhat notable, nut needs more references Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Nut?" Perhaps you meant "but." Edison (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The refs provided do not quite make the case for notability, but if someone has access to databases of scholarly citations of his papers by others, that might make the case, and if the claimed recognition by a national news magazine is referenced, that would help. I would expect some general media to have taken notice of his "socioscope" which can track the wearers movements, social interactions, and conversations. Sounds like just the tool certain repressive authoritarian societies have been waiting for to monitor and control people. The article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and seems like a puff piece. Edison (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, notable as an academic. He's a tenured, chair professor at MIT. RayAYang (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article text is very similar to that in this link. The current article version was created by an anon in June with the edit summary "Plagiarised content removed", but the conference is recent and the article here is much older, so I'm reluctant to just tag this as a g12 — the conference may have used our text rather than vice versa. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Definitely notable as an academic per WP:PROF and probably notable under WP:BIO as well, although better sourcing is needed in the article. A quick GoogleScholar search shows that his work is extremely highly cited[1] with top citation hits of 4606, 1906, 918, 449, 415, 415, 398, 380, etc. I also did a WebOfScience search and got similar (but slightly smaller since WoS does not index citations in conference proceedings, but only in journals) numbers. Also he is frequently mentioned and quoted in conventional media as an academic expert: googlenews gives 121 hits for him[2] and there appears to be sufficient coverage there to pass WP:BIO as well. Nsk92 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A very notable academician. The article needs enhancing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92. John254 02:14, 6 August 2008 (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.