- 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. ✗ plicit 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Albert Vexler
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Albert Vexler ( | 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)
Fails WP:NPROF. Vanity page of a non-notable academic created and edited almost exclusively by WP:SPAs. It has been cleaned up a couple of years ago, but I think showing the previous state is relevant. Tercer ( talk) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. As a statistician and biostatistician, I do not find the subject’s contribution to methodology notable. That’s of course my own opinion (based on Google searches, Google scholar etc). But if it were, someone would have created a page on the methodology itself. An article about a person who came up with some non-notable methodology seems to have no useful purpose at all. The main content are items from his academic CV such as which academic journals he is, or was, an associate editor of. Richard Gill ( talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the article is based on a press release. Beyond that, being on an editorial board of a magazine is not a sign of notability, it is a sign that you are an academic in the post-1970 or so academic world pretty much. Editors-in-cief are notable, at least if the journal is seen as impactful, I am not exactly sure if we have a clear idea which journals do and do not qualify (sort of like how I do not think we quite have a handle of which academic instituions being academic head of makes one default notable) but since that was not his position, he clearly does not meet that inclusion guideline. I see no academic inclusion guideline that is met, and even if they were we would want sourcing beyond one press release. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Israel, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio; this may qualify for G12. Even if it doesn't, there's no academic notability case here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per all above, and the SPA account. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if the copyvio and promotional wording could be cleaned up, he does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows only two publications with over 100 citations; one is a methodology paper, but his is a middle position among multiple authors, and the other (where he is also in a middle position among more authors) appears to be the kind of paper where he was brought in to check over the statistical analysis rather then to do the actual research. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Inspect61 ( talk) 03:48, 17 March 2022 (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.