Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ales Leonardis

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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ales Leonardis[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable professor Loew Galitz (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, Slovenia, and England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A full professor is almost always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "Full professor" is nothing but an informal reference to "professor", to distinguish for from various "subprofessor" ranks, such as "assistant professor" "adjunct professor", etc. And there is no inherent notability for the title. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO and citations provided are primary. Also doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication of actually meeting our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #5. Would appear to hold an established chair (the Chair of Robotics), rather than just a personal chair, at Birmingham University.[1] An established chair (i.e. one that always exists in the university hierarchy and is held by successive individuals rather than a personal chair that is created just for the tenure of an individual) at a British university meets the criteria of The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Chair of Robotics position is not "named chair". It is a regular departmental chair for department of robotics, so your argument is invalid. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most chairs at British universities are not named. The equivalent position is therefore an established chair, as I have stated. So no, my argument is not invalid. If we restrict NACADEMIC #5 to named chairs then we discriminate in favour of American universities where these are much more common, hence the second clause acknowledging that equivalents are also valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is literally the opposite of correct. A British personal chair is awarded in recognition of academic impact and would be equivalent to an endowed chair. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is entirely untrue. A personal chair and an endowed chair are two entirely different things. A personal chair is basically just a promotion. For instance, a history department can have several professors of history (personal chairs; former readers/senior lecturers who have been promoted to the higher grade for long and distinguished service) but usually only one Professor of History (holding the Chair of History, an established chair that always exists and is advertised and recruited to directly when the current holder retires or moves on and is often filled by someone who already holds a personal chair but who has applied for the more prestigious established chair). The latter may be named, but in British universities usually is not. Until a few decades ago, the latter was usually the only professor in the department, as personal chairs were rare. Now they're much more common. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In America, the "Chair of [Department]" office exists for primarily administrative purposes and is filled more based on leadership qualifications than academic distinction, which is why it is explicitly excluded in NPROF C5. Just because there is only one such Chair, or that professors holding Endowed Chairs can be "promoted" to this position, doesn't mean it is held in the same regard as Endowed Chairs when it comes to notability. To meet C5, a Chair must be awarded specifically in recognition of outstanding scholarly achievement, and specifically not to fill an administrative need. Therefore, the Personal Chair qualifications are much more aligned with the status of Endowed Chair than the Established Chair is. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the problem now. You're confusing the "chair" of a department (we would often call it the "head" of the department in the UK) and a "chair" (i.e. a professorship). No, completely different things. This chap holds the Chair of Robotics (i.e. he's the Professor of Robotics). He isn't the chair (i.e. head) of the department. You're completely wrong here, I'm afraid, and you've totally misinterpreted what I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a named chair. A named chair to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #5 is 'the John Smith Memorial Chair of Whateveromics'. 'Chair of Whateveromics' on its own generally denotes the person who is running the whateveromics program. This is an administrative duty, taking care of the whateveromics course. It is actually a sign that the person is not at the high level of proficiency yet that relieving him of all administrative duties and letting him focus on research alone is the preferred option for the institution. There are named chairs in the UK, e.g. the Regius professors. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  There are named chairs in the UK, but they're quite rare. Whereas in American universities they're extremely common. Hence the second clause in NPROF #5. But see above as to obvious misinterpretation from non-Brits of how British chairs work. If someone says they are (or hold) the Chair of Robotics it does not mean they are the administrative head of the robotics department (they may be, but that's separate from their academic chair). It means they are the Professor of Robotics. An established chair, but (as is usual in the UK) not named after anyone or anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scopus says he has an h index of 41 and 8071 citations, and his 5 highest-cited papers have 864, 781, 543, 349, and 347 citations (excluding large-collab papers: 781, 347, 241, 219, 172). Unless computer vision is an extremely high-citation field I think this is more than enough indication of academic notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: his top two and his 4th most cited paper are the results of comparative tests done by a fairly large consortium of scientists, and while useful, it is not exactly something that is cited as great science but rather as a collateral citation to establish that a technique used in a paper is the state of the art. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personal chairs and research chairs pass WP:PROF#C5, named or not. Administrative chairs of departments do not. Chair of Robotics at B'ham appears to be the kind that passes. But even if we discount that for some reason, his citation record is clearly enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the venerable David Eppstein, I think it passes notability for an academic. WP:NACADEMIC PaulPachad (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it very weird that people are voting "keep" while there is not a single word about actual achievements of the person. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The achievements we have been talking about, in words whose obliqueness perhaps led you to miss them, are his publication of high-impact research, as measured by the many citations other researchers have made to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the fact he passes an established notability guideline! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even just looking at the citations to pass WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2022 (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.