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 per consensus. The issues of potential self-promotion have apparently been resolved through the editing process. ^{(non-admin closure)} Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Fernandez (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)

This article was pretty obviously started as an attempt at self promotion. Not clear that this individual would meet notability guidelines for academics. I'm surprised this article hadn't come up for deletion earlier. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Arifer (talk · contribs) / Ariel Fernandez This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (COI determined at SPI here.)

The notability issues and the promotional issues have already been sorted out and the article in its current form has been mostly composed, edited and approved by senior Wikipedia editors. The current version is not considered promotional and the notability of the subject has been asserted by Wikipedia senior staff.190.16.58.196 (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Maureen (note, striking comment by one of ariel's socks; IP address is the same as one where Ariel self-identifies below. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick, I welcome your motion of deleting this article from Wikipedia on grounds of notability. In fact it should be tagged for SPEEDY DELETION. I concur with you in that I am certainly not notable and I am not an important person. I request and welcome the deletion of this article that has me as the subject. Please write to me if you need to verify my identity. Ariel Fernandez (ariel@afinnovation.com 190.16.58.196 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict)Reply to (first) IP comment above: I'm not sure you've entirely addressed the nomination with that comment. Unless the article's subject has suddenly met one of the criteria in WP:NACADEMICS since this article was nominated for deletion I can't see how the notability issues can have been resolved. For the record, "Wikipedia senior staff" are not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is well-known enough and there are plenty of sources to support WP:NOTABILITY, and I edited out the WP:PROMO aspects. The only reason I would support deleting the article is that Ariel, the subject of the article (who was banned for socking and then came back later with yet more socks, which continued to add self-promotional material) monitors the article and, as recently happened, over-reacts and makes legal threats via yet more socks. (And he continues to play games as one can see above, with the post from "Maureen" saying "keep" while he writes again as "Ariel" saying "delete") However, I don't think that a difficult article subject, is a valid reason to delete an article. Because Ariel has been site-banned, his posts above should perhaps be deleted, but since the one that he owned-up to is reasonable in tone and it is useful to have his voice in the discussion, I think we should let it stand. However, in my view we should delete future contributions if they become unreasonable or otherwise disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - re "plenty of sources to support" - You want to expand on that? Cause at the moment I'm seeing one piece in Nature that lends this guy any kind of notability. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) he held a named chair and 2) Nature News saw fit to publish a piece on the importance of some of his work and Scientific American saw fit to reprint that piece. That checks 2 of the boxes on WP:NACADEMICS. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - So I guess "plenty of sources to support" meant one source? Granted he seems to meet the named chair criteria 5, but what other criteria do you think he makes? NickCT (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Striking comment. Explanation below NickCT (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The 1st bullet in NACADEMICS is "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and please read what follows the "2" in my post above, which I think meets that bullet. Maybe you disagree. but meeting one bullet is enough. and i find the guy pretty disgusting, or i would add content about his journal editing, and his startup company, and other work outside of academia, which is pretty easy to source. this is a snowclose based on the named professorship. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - re "The 1st bullet in NACADEMICS is" - You're taking that one article as evidence of significant impact. Seems a little thin, no?

You know, I'm not even sure this guy technically meets criteria 5. Did he actually hold an endowed professorship? NickCT (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I already asked on the article talk page, what distinction do you think you are trying to draw? There is absolutely no difference in practice between a named and an endowed professorship. You might think that you could name something without endowing it, but that doesn't actually ever happen. In any case, it is the honor of the naming, not the money of the endowment, that the WP:PROF criterion is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: - re "not the money of the endowment, that the WP:PROF criterion is about." - Really? Because if you click on "named chair" under criteria 5, it specifically calls out that a named chair is paid for through endowment.

re "You might think that you could name something without endowing it, but that doesn't actually ever happen." - Not that I don't trust you, but are you sure this is the case? I'm not sure this was necessarily true at some of the academic institution I'm familiar with. NickCT (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some extremely rare examples [1]. Nevertheless I think you're trying too hard to read the literal words of the notability criterion and completely missing the point of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: - Am I missing the point? I'm familiar with a number of academic institutions where a named professorship simply isn't as prestigious as an endowed chair (i.e. less honor, less money with a named professorship). Regardless, the policy says "chair" and I can't find a good source saying that this guy technically held a chair. NickCT (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly the Karl F. Hasselmann Chair of Engineering now [2]. It's not impossible that it was changed, but given that Hasselmann has been dead for decades now, that seems unlikely. I think this is established not above all doubt, but above reasonable doubt... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: - Looking at how Rice treats this, they seem to call some people "KFH Chair of Engineering" and significantly more people "KFH Professors". I think there may be a distinction between those two things. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the named chair at Rice. And in view of both the history of sockpuppetry and apparent self-promotion in our article and the contentious retractionwatch material (see article talk page) continue indefinitely semiprotecting the article, as it is already. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein's rationale. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 19:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT: Sir, Here is the site where I have posted my diploma asserting that I am the holder of an endowed Chair at Rice University. You may validate with the provost office. This site may be used as reference in the article: http://www.academia.edu/3274858/Chair_at_Rice_University 190.224.156.37 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Thanks. I don't think it meets Wikipedia's standards for sources that we can use within the article itself, but maybe it will at least convince NickCT in this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: - Would you recommend I be convinced by uploads from a flagrantly self promoting subject of an article to random websites? If that's how you really feel, then sure, I'm convinced. NickCT (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you've stopped addressing my point by the way. Are you conceding that there's a difference between a named professor and an endowed chair? NickCT (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped responding to you only because you seem to insist on having the last word and not changing your position regardless of what others say. It seems pointless and lame to keep arguing. But I concede nothing: whether or not there is a technical difference as far as the internal budgeting of the university, it makes no difference to how we should treat such distinctions for purposes of WP:PROF and is a an off-topic theoretical discussion that doesn't affect this AfD because there is no evidence for the subject's chair being unfunded. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: - re "not changing your position regardless of what others say" - That's inaccurate. I quite frequently change my mind based on what others say. I just don't when others are wrong.

Do you ever change your position?

And shouting that a debate is lame when you realize your position isn't as good as you thought it was, is itself lame.

Listen, I've conceded that the subject may meet criteria 5. You have yet to concede criteria 5 doesn't really clearly identify what a "named chair" is. Calling the difference between a "named professorship" and an "endowed chair" a "technical difference" seems dismissive. Even WP's definition for a "named chair" says it is a position which is "permanently paid for". Some schools don't treat named professorships like that. Some named professorships simply aren't that prestigious, and aren't great rationales for notability.

You know, rethinking this a little, I think my issue is more pertinent to WP:PROF criteria 5 rather than this AfD. Perhaps this should be a policy page discussion..... NickCT (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per having a named chair and developing the dehydron. I'll be requesting page semi-protection shortly. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment some of the info recently marked as needing refs can be sourced to his VIAF record https://viaf.org/viaf/122315132/ but that also spells his name in the Argentine fashion rather than the American fashion. I'm not sure what it can be used for and what it can't. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not convinced either way at the moment, but I think for borderline notable BLPs we tend to take into account the preference of the subject. So at the moment we would need clear notability to keep. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: - Fair enough. I agree that "borderline" is probably the right adjective to use here. NickCT (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stephan Schulz, I have absolutely no interest in appearing in Wikipedia and I do not consider myself notable in any way. I am no longer in academia, save for occasional research work. Thanks much for your attention. 181.28.240.166 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment:I would like to spare everybody any more time on these controversies. I don't think the subject "Ariel Fernandez" meets the notability criteria. I held the Karl F. Hasselmann endowed Chair in Bioengineering at Rice University, but retired from academia in 2012 only to pursue research sporadically. Thus, I am no longer notable. Please remove my Wikipedia article. 181.28.240.166 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep -- clearly meets WP:PROF, specifically #5 (endowed chair) and #3 (elected fellow of a highly selective association). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. First, I do not have a strong opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted; it is a borderline case of notability. However, I would note that whatever decision is made here should also be extended to the Spanish-language Wikipedia, where Fernandez also has an article. Second, the article was originally written extensively by user "Arifer" (believed to be the subject of the article) as a vanity page; the only reason that he wants it deleted now is that there has been "less-than-positive" material added to it. So if his own wishes are to be taken into consideration in the AfD, then this switch in preferences corresponding to article content should also be considered. Finally, whether this "less-than-positive" material is worthy of coverage at all is another important matter for consideration. I would redirect people to the article's talk page to decide if the various editorial expressions of concern (and one retraction) are worth mentioning on the article at all. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...whatever decision is made here should also be extended to the Spanish-language Wikipedia... This is absolutely not the case. Each language wikipedia is autonomous in such things. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. That doesn't mean unilaterally nuking the Spanish-language article, it means putting it for AfD for them to decide. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Bueller007. I have indicated my lack of interest in being featured at Wikipedia for years. This is documented in Talk archives unless it has been deleted without my permission. Second, I have been the holder of an endowed chair at Rice University but now I am retired from academia, so I am no longer notable as I once perhaps was. Third, if the article prevails, I will continue to firmly oppose (here and elsewhere) the inclusion of petty malicious material with no content value that may be construed to disparage me. The incidents mentioned by the bloggers Oransky and Marcus have no relevance. They refer to a discrepancy in opinion over published results and to a paper with overlap with another paper. Finally, as per Google Scholar Citations, my h-index is 28, not 25.190.224.156.37 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

1. Your involvement in the creation of the article is documented [3]. You first started to ask that it be removed when non-complimentary information was added [4]; this is also documented [5]. You are also banned from Wikipedia for suspicion of using sock-puppet accounts; this is also documented [6][7][8][9]. The extent of your own involvement with the article is therefore unclear, however, it is clearly incorrect to say that you have never wanted this Wikipedia article to exist. You only began to feel that way when negative material was added.

2. Notability is not temporary: WP:NTEMP. It does not matter that you no longer hold the position.

3. Google Scholar is less trustworthy than Scopus because it is vulnerable to spam: [10]

4. Since the "expressions of concern" and the retraction are established facts regarding your publishing record, I suggest you learn to come to terms with them. If they are mere differences of opinion, then you have nothing to be ashamed of. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One point to add to Bueller 007's excellent explaination: pointers to new reliable sources covering the subject are welcome, from the subject or from third parties. Many of us don't have access to Argintinian sources due to language and geographical barriers, but wikipedia has ways of overcoming those barriers if we know there are sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it is worth, in my view comments from Ariel should be removed and not responded to, per WP:REVERTBAN and the notice above. Ariel lost his editing privileges and is evading his block. This is cut and dry. But others will do as they see fit. I will remove them when they are posted, if no one else has responded. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments by AF in "talkspace" are fine, though he should remain banned from editing articles. I think one should have some kind of (non-authoritative) say regarding the accuracy of one's own biography. He seems to have stopped using pseudonyms in his own defence (at least for the time being), and that is a positive development that should be recognized and encouraged. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am in favor of leaving this here, only because he is only going to become "more notable" with time. Incidentally, please compare the IP he posts from with that used by Haydee Belinky, who became the primary editor of his page after he was blocked for sock puppetry. 198.181.231.228 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it you are voting to keep? Also, if you look at the SPI investigation linked in the yellow box at the top of the page, you will see that Haydee Belinky is a known sock of Ariel. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, voting to keep it. I have a hunch we will be hearing more about him. 198.181.231.228 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what you are saying, but this is not a valid basis on which to make an argument to keep or delete the article, so your !vote is unlikely to count either way when this discussion is closed. The main criteria upon which the decision will be based are here: WP:NACADEMICS. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Numbers 2, 3, 5 apply in this case. He has also gained some additional notoriety lately due to having expressions of concern issued about two of his papers and for having issued corrections to eight papers in order to change the funding source so that it did not fall under the legal gaze of NIH/ORI. 198.181.231.228 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he seems to have held a sufficiently senior academic position to be notable. Not sure we have to go into anything else for now. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• wp:TNT I'm not sure whether it's possible to get rid of all the self-editing in the article. I don't think that there's enough there for notability although the corrections mentioned - but I think that there's enough from wp:NACADEMIC for me to say soft keep Neonchameleon (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neonchameleon please be assured that I went over it, and Bueller 007 went over it with a microscope. There is nothing unsourced there, and no puffery. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Then Soft Keep Neonchameleon (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2014 (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.