- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Adam Pearce (data visualizer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough in-depth coverage about him from independent, reliable sourcing to show that he meets WP:GNG. He was part of a team which published a study which got some media play, but his Scholar profile, here, does not seem to indicate that he passes WP:NACADEMIC. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 TT me 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I am definitely not seeing evidence of scholarly impact on Scopus or MathSciNet -- the 2 papers that are indexed have a total of 15 citations. I'm not seeing how he meets NJOURNALIST either. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
-
JoelleJay his
GS profile is a bit more representative for his discipline, but at h-index of 9 and 500 citations its still low. --
hroest
00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hannes Röst, yeah after seeing David's reply on the Armstrong AfD I checked him out on GS -- the disparity between the GS record for his BERT paper and that on Scopus is alarming (145 to 14! so. much. arXiv). Not sure how to interpret this. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- JoelleJay In CS it is much less common to publish in indexed journals, so Scopus misses a lot of the actual citations. ArXiv citations are mostly reliable, there is noise of course but most of it is scientific in nature. Also the BEST paper is more recent, so some of these papers will eventually get published in conferences / journals but GS is ahead since it indexes arxiv. -- hroest 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- weak Delete. fails WP:NPROF#1 but may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- hroest 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, citation record not sufficient to pass NSCHOLAR (though it may be a TOOSOON situation), and does not meet GNG.-- Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Most of what passes for scholarly work in his Google Scholar profile is really the creation of newspaper infographics. What remains is not enough for WP:PROF. And we have no evidence of GNG-level notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 05:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG Devokewater (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Adam Pearce (data visualizer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough in-depth coverage about him from independent, reliable sourcing to show that he meets WP:GNG. He was part of a team which published a study which got some media play, but his Scholar profile, here, does not seem to indicate that he passes WP:NACADEMIC. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 TT me 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I am definitely not seeing evidence of scholarly impact on Scopus or MathSciNet -- the 2 papers that are indexed have a total of 15 citations. I'm not seeing how he meets NJOURNALIST either. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
-
JoelleJay his
GS profile is a bit more representative for his discipline, but at h-index of 9 and 500 citations its still low. --
hroest
00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hannes Röst, yeah after seeing David's reply on the Armstrong AfD I checked him out on GS -- the disparity between the GS record for his BERT paper and that on Scopus is alarming (145 to 14! so. much. arXiv). Not sure how to interpret this. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- JoelleJay In CS it is much less common to publish in indexed journals, so Scopus misses a lot of the actual citations. ArXiv citations are mostly reliable, there is noise of course but most of it is scientific in nature. Also the BEST paper is more recent, so some of these papers will eventually get published in conferences / journals but GS is ahead since it indexes arxiv. -- hroest 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- weak Delete. fails WP:NPROF#1 but may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- hroest 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, citation record not sufficient to pass NSCHOLAR (though it may be a TOOSOON situation), and does not meet GNG.-- Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Most of what passes for scholarly work in his Google Scholar profile is really the creation of newspaper infographics. What remains is not enough for WP:PROF. And we have no evidence of GNG-level notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 05:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG Devokewater (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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.