- 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. Salvio giuliano 11:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yannis Assael[edit]
- Yannis Assael (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)
This article was deleted twice already for lack of notability. It has now been recreated by a WP:SPA. The last deletion discussion was marred by sock puppets, and I have some concerns about the appearance of a pattern of possible WP:UPE. The citation record looks a little better than last time, but in a high citation field still may fall short. Under the circumstances I would like to bring this to the attention of the community. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the article lists several things he "co-developed," "co-authored" or otherwise participated in, but nothing to establish independent notability except his PhD. The above keep !vote is from the SPA mentioned in the nomination. small jars
tc 13:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with SmallJars above, not really seeing much for strong independent notability for the BLP themselves compared to the team research they've been involved in. This doesn't seem to satisfy WP:PROF either. Looking at citation metrics Tech maniac mentions, the h-index is around 17, which is pretty typical for a regular professor that we wouldn't be writing an article for even in less cited fields. I usually don't buy a "highly cited" argument for notability on its own when a researcher is really only name-dropped in sources related to their research unless there's something extraordinary in the citations. Even what I thought would be the "best" source to maybe help with notability on the Forbes 30 under 30 article becomes really meh since they only dedicate a single sentence to Assael. Sources really don't seem to have much if at all to say about this person. KoA (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough has improved since the last go-around. A single achievement isn't enough to warrant a biography; the academic notability guideline is about evaluating success over a career. Here, there just isn't evidence of that kind of career. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The spa-nature of the creation would push me to say delete, and an H-index of 17 is not extraordinary. Then again, several publications cited more 100 times, one more than 1600 times and another more than 500 times. Article should be watched to make sure it's not used promotionally, but does seem to be an academic of some notability. Jeppiz (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC) I've struck me vote to keep, following convincing argumentation by JoelleJay below. Still think it's about borderline case, but sitting it out without saying neither keep nor delete. Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If he weren't just one author among many on each of those publications, I'd find the citation profile more impressive. As it is, I don't think those figures can stand out in a highly-cited field. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-authored articles are very rare in most academic fields. Being 3-5 authors on an academic article is very much the norm. Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Which just makes it harder to tell who contributed to what. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and it is not for us to speculate on. Academics with several highly cited publications meet WP:NACADEMIC for notability. Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my very honest opinion the article does pass WP:PROF. More specifically: the person has made a significant impact in the scholarly literature with several highly-cited articles and a solid number of citations, whilst the impact outside the academia appears to be notable too. Besides I don't see the same criteria apply to so many other AI researchers or computer scientists with much less notability or citations - have a look at Julie Carpenter, Tabitha Goldstaub, Rediet Abebe, Adji Bousso Dieng, Fatmah Baothman, Siddharth Batra, Pino Caballero Gil or Cansu Canca. It appears that some of the above-mentioned examples should be taken into account, but if we start examining other articles more closely, it becomes evident that the citation argument does not apply to all cases. With that said, I do believe that by closely monitoring the article it can be further-improved. You are right about the disputable notability in 2021, but in 2023 I think that the article can indeed stand in WP with no issues. Apologies for appearing as SPA, but I simply created the article as I noticed that it was previously deleted. That is all - I would really appreciate if we could focus on the subject and not the author. Thanks! Tech maniac92 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes articles exist just because nobody has noticed them and taken the trouble to nominate them for deletion. One of those that you list has been tagged for dubious notability for two years now, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The list goes on and on: Angelo Dalli, Alison Darcy, Kate Devlin, Gary Drescher and many others. I think that this dubious notability you are highlighting is indeed a big problem, but it does not apply to Yannis Assael at all. There are lots of AI researchers on WP with less notability, but due to WP's flexibility some of the criteria you mentioned are not really taken into account. Tech maniac92 (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "What about these other people?" is a quintessential example of an argument to avoid in a deletion debate. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an extremely high-citation field characterized by particularly rapid inflation. Here are the Scopus citation profiles of the 44 coauthors of Assael with 5+ papers (a very generous cutoff) as well as those of his coauthors plus 56 coauthors of another AI researcher AfD'd recently:
- Total citations: average: 6159, median: 2082, Assael: 814; w/ other AfD coauthors: 4807, 1696.
- Total papers: 46, 26, 12; 59, 37.
- h-index: 18, 15, 8; 19, 15.
- Top 5 paper cites: 1st: 2319, 712, 564; 1499, 492. 2nd: 994, 306, 78; 694, 220. 3rd: 415, 143, 42; 348, 156. 4th: 309, 101, 31; 273, 123. 5th: 235, 82, 30; 203, 82.
- I would say he is far from meeting the criteria for NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2023 (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.