Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelos Christou

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.

Evangelos Christou[edit]

The result was Delete. Those proponents of keeping the article have been unable to demonstrate that he passes WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable professor. Sources which satisfy WP:GNG are not forthcoming, and may be difficult to find as there is another Evangelos Christou out there who appears to have written a number of books on philosophy. There are some relevant Google Scholar hits for the various papers that this individual has written, ~~but these are all primary and don't establish his notability~~ but it's unclear whether the quantity and/or quality of the papers is adequate. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^yak 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to be on track to a productive academic career, but as happens too often this article was created too early: he has not yet had time to accumulate the impact needed to pass WP:PROF. I disagree with the nominator about the value of Google scholar in establishing notability — academics are notable for their works rather than for their personal lives, and their notability can be shown by high numbers of other papers (secondary sources) that cite their own — but in this case the number of highly cited papers is insufficient to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. GS cites 132, 76, 68, 47, 44... h index = 14. Eppstein's interpretation of WP:Prof#C1 is correct. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Eppstein voted to delete because the number of highly cited papers was inadequate. Is there a threshold of citations or h-number above which someone is automatically notable? SnottyWong ^comment 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The numbers can be quite different depending on the specific research area of the subject, as some areas tend to have much higher citation counts than others. And even within a specific area, it comes down to a judgement call. I don't see a big contradiction between my and Xxanthippe's !votes, as they are based on the same general principle with different thresholds. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Struck the irrelevant part of my nomination rationale. SnottyWong ^confess 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I pretty much agree with David Eppstein, not a bad career so far but not that impressive, especially if the person himself wrote the Wiki article. Notability is established by others.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable professor, and worth keeping in my opinion. Jccort (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:ITSNOTABLE SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think it is reasonable for someone to say that a subject is or is not notable, without going into details. AGF, it represents a summary judgement on the basis of what has been said , and what is in the article. It's the equivalent of saying , per the other people who expressed the same opinion.Obviously is more helpful at least say what particular part of the prior arguments is particularly convincing, and yet more helpful to add some new argument —or even better, some new evidence. What is the opposite of helpful is to badger other contributors to the discussion. One should close based both on the arguments and the degree of support for them. Perhaps one should not take into account the behavior of those supporting a particular position, but people in all contexts tend to discount the views of those who interfere with the proceedings. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you're probably right. Stricken. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 06:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. When judging based on a borderline publication record, I look not just at the count of publications and of citations, but the journals in which they were published. Judging by the CV, in this case they are basically very good specialized journals, the leading ones but only in narrow fields. There are known in the most widely read and most rigorously refereed biology or science journals: even one of the papers being in Nature or PNAS would have made this a weak keep. If I had to give evidence for that being a good criterion, I learned this from the provost at Princeton, in a talk explaining the criteria he uses. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 10 January 2011 (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.