- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Athanasios Tsakalidis
[edit]- Athanasios Tsakalidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong."
. I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 7 August 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.