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.
Missvain (
talk) 02:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Article created and mainspaced and GA reviewed by sock(s), see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PremierePrush. Notwithstanding that, I don't see a pass of GNG or NPROF here. Associate prof doesn't make one de-facto notable and
citations are pretty low, though I'm admittedly not familiar with the field. A google search returns little else indicative of any kind of notability. The first sentence here claims he worked on
Soil Moisture Active Passive, but our article on the topic doesn't even mention him.
Eddie891TalkWork 22:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete. The citation counts aren't quite enough for
WP:PROF#C1, with no other notability visible. In normal circumstances it might be a borderline case but given the promotional editing problems and likely difficulty of keeping this maintained neutrally I'm inclined towards the negative side of that borderline. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. I do not see anything I would mark biased positively, but I don't see any negative remarks either. Overall, he does seem to be notable for the field mentioned. I do say it's worth keeping.--
Aisnuropulous (
talk) 22:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC) —
Aisnuropulous (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep Well, based on SMAP Technology, he does appear to have significant contribution, mainly through research. It also looks like he has plenty of other publications on reliable publishers such as Springer. I also don't see where you guys see promotional content, because most of it seems relatively unbiased. Given that, there are some places where neutrality is perhaps not maintained, but those are easily fixable, and even I can fix them, but I want to wait until a
consensus is achieved here. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DotDotHand (
talk •
contribs) 23:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC) —
DotDotHand (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete as
WP:Too soon on basis of GS citations. Over 1000 is required for this field.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC).reply
Salt to prevent recreation without scrutiny.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC).reply
Keep I do see significant citations, which point me in the direction of keep. He also appears to have significant contribution, though it's not listed in Wikipedia. Overall, yes, it is definitely worth it.--
Goteramega (
talk) 23:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC) —
Goteramega (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete LOL I don't think I've ever seen such a stupid sockpuppeter before. Sources are connected to the subject and I don't see significant coverage about the subject.
Reywas92Talk 00:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. This is promotional, not a notable scholar. --
ZimZalaBimtalk 00:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - no decent coverage in
WP:RSSpiderone 07:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. a) Because we shouldn't be entertaining these brazen UPE shenanigans, and b) because the subject isn't notable.
Blablubbs(
talk •
contribs) 00:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete seems to lack sufficient independant coverage to show notability. -
Kj cheetham (
talk) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per all of the delete voters. And the sockpuppetry is just pathetic.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:TNT,
WP:NOTRESUME, and
WP:PROF. First off, this is terribly written, and a wholesale re-write would be necessary to bring it up to more than a chatty blog. Secondly, in 2020, eveyobody knows we are not LinkedIn. Finally, we almost never add articles about associate professors, short of perhaps a woman who has suffered discrimination.
Bearian (
talk) 22:36, 1 December 2020 (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.