Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine Spandagos

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. Owen× ☎ 20:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Spandagos

[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)

Fails WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 18:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Environment, Greece, England, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete early-career academic with citation counts not yet at the level needed for WP:PROF#C1. The article cites some mainstream media coverage of research he participated in (in the South China Morning Post and Irish Times) but his part in that work was apparently minor enough that he is not even name-dropped in those articles or in anything at all in Google News. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the mainstream media articles cited in this article are dedicated to research for which the academic had the leading role. There is no reference to research he simply participated in. The ScienceTrends article is fully dedicated to the academic's PhD thesis, and his name is mentioned in the article. The GreenQueen article is fully dedicated to a research paper of which the academic is the lead author, and his name is mentioned as well. The research covered in South China Morning Post also concerns a paper of which the academic is the lead author. His name is mentioned there too, and it seems that he had been invited to speak to the reporter/author of the article as an recognized expert in his field, as some of his quotes are used directly in the article. The only media article cited in this Wikipedia page that does not mention the academic's name directly is the Irish Times one. However, even that article is fully dedicated to a research paper to which the academic is the lead author. Therefore, no media source cited in this Wikipedia article covers work where the academic's part was minor.

In terms of notability, I personally find it important that the academic's work is mentioned on these media articles, because these articles all come from independent sources. It doesn't seem that any of these sources belong to any of the organizations the academic has/had any affiliation with (unless I am wrong). For me, this shows that somebody's research work has impact and notability. Also, all these media are considered mainstream (I contrast this to other Wikipedia articles about academics, which cite various media covering the academics' work, but these media are often part of the university the academics are working in). Perhaps GreenQueen is the least known medium in countries outside Asia, but it is one of the most visited sustainability media in Asia, with 20+ million monthly digital impressions. Wikiuser852 (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not remotely attained. Why on earth was this premature BLP created? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (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.