- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
C. Johan Masreliez
- C. Johan Masreliez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PROF. Cannot find other evidence of notability. Note that Masreliez's theorem was created out-of-process and is currently under a CSD request for recreated deleted content. jps ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The claims of significance in the article are not backed up by reliable sources (they come from the subject or a collaborator). I can only find three papers that seem to have been at all well cited ( [1], with 383 on GS and 180 on Web of Science; [2], with 380 and 179; and [3], with 111 and 53). Apart from that, the bulk of what turns up is fringe stuff about cosmology. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is references as well. As the above voter dtates there are a few references that points towards notability. If it is 3 or a 100 is irrelevant. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 13:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete NO real evidence of notability, and some very iffy sourcing. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. He has one highly cited patent and then only low citation numbers for all other publications, not enough for WP:PROF#C1. And the article makes no attempt at a claim of notability other than for his publications. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete the notability guidelines for academics trump the general notability guidelines, unless the individual is notable in a clearly not academic way. However Masreliez has potential notability only for academic related activity. However he does not meet any of the notability guidelines for academics so we should delete the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete his main contributions are in control theory, which still seem to fall short of the notability criteria. His cosmology-related work is fringe science. Note that his article has been deleted from svwiki twice ( 1, 2) following AfD-equivalent procedure. The second deletion also ended with the banning of a user and his puppets for repeatedly introducing content about Masreliez cosmological theories in many different articles. Andejons ( talk) 10:22, 8 December 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
C. Johan Masreliez
- C. Johan Masreliez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PROF. Cannot find other evidence of notability. Note that Masreliez's theorem was created out-of-process and is currently under a CSD request for recreated deleted content. jps ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The claims of significance in the article are not backed up by reliable sources (they come from the subject or a collaborator). I can only find three papers that seem to have been at all well cited ( [1], with 383 on GS and 180 on Web of Science; [2], with 380 and 179; and [3], with 111 and 53). Apart from that, the bulk of what turns up is fringe stuff about cosmology. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is references as well. As the above voter dtates there are a few references that points towards notability. If it is 3 or a 100 is irrelevant. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 13:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete NO real evidence of notability, and some very iffy sourcing. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. He has one highly cited patent and then only low citation numbers for all other publications, not enough for WP:PROF#C1. And the article makes no attempt at a claim of notability other than for his publications. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete the notability guidelines for academics trump the general notability guidelines, unless the individual is notable in a clearly not academic way. However Masreliez has potential notability only for academic related activity. However he does not meet any of the notability guidelines for academics so we should delete the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete his main contributions are in control theory, which still seem to fall short of the notability criteria. His cosmology-related work is fringe science. Note that his article has been deleted from svwiki twice ( 1, 2) following AfD-equivalent procedure. The second deletion also ended with the banning of a user and his puppets for repeatedly introducing content about Masreliez cosmological theories in many different articles. Andejons ( talk) 10:22, 8 December 2017 (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.