Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andras Farago

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The substantial analysis of citations indicate that there is not a PROF pass here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andras Farago[edit]

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

Andras Farago (edit | 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)

Subject fails WP:PROF. Sources on the page are primary and I cannot locate any reliable secondary sources to show he qualifies under WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I see papers he has written but to satisfy 1a, his papers would need to be highly cited. I do not see that here. If we created pages for anyone who has written a scholarly article, we could be creating profiles on just about anyone in his field. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8 papers with more than 100 citations apiece, and 13 with more than 50, isn't a level attained by just about anyone. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The papers he's first author of only have around 100 citations. The papers where he's not first author have around 450 citations. No Google Scholar profile. Unsure, so I'll sit this one out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are several cited papers using Google Scholar. CastJared (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several is not "highly cited." --CNMall41 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The two keep !votes have failed to address the nom.'s point that this academic fails to meet the policy criteria in WP:NPROF. The guidelines clearly say in the summary: Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work. There are 8 criteria in NPROF, and an academic meeting any of the 8 criteria will be deemed notable. I cannot find that this subject has met any of these 8 criteria, so correct and consistent application of policy is required, thus delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is it is common and acceptable to use multiple highly cited academic papers to pass WP:NPROF #1. This can be difficult to judge though because the cut-off for each academic field can be different. In this case the academic field is computer science. My impression is the NPROF AFD regulars have an idea of what the cutoffs are for each field. The papers and citation counts provided here hint to me that this person may pass WP:NPROF #1, but it is in borderline territory. If citation counts or first author counts were higher, I think this would be an easy keep. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So yes, citation count can help establish if The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Who is citing the paper and where is more important than the count though. In this case, I do not see how this comes close to meeting #1 of the NPROF criteria. Pertinent here is that not a single Wikipedia page on any topic talks about him and his work. If he is not significant enough for a mention in any article, this may be a suggestion that a page on the subject is undue (that is not an established criterion - it is my observation, which is that there is insufficient evidence of an encyclopaedic subject here). A friend of mine reported yesterday he had just received his 1000th citation on one of his papers - yet I would hesitate to say that he is notable outside of his specific academic field, and not notable for an article per NPROF. The citation count here is too low to meet criterion 1. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, notability is not determined by whether Wikipedia happens to cover a person's work yet. All that means is that hobbyists futzing around in our spare time haven't written about it so far. You're correct in saying that it's not an established criterion; but it's not even a criterion that could ever be workable in principle. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. On the one hand, Google scholar does show some eight publications with over 100 citations each, which should normally be enough for WP:PROF#C1 even in a high citation field. On the other hand, there seems to be nothing of note beyond the publications. The recent NP=RP debacle [1] and the fact that almost all of his recent publications listed by DBLP [2] are in journals by MDPI and Wolfram do not inspire confidence. And the high-citation publications are mainly with Imrich Chlamtac, who is much more clearly notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems borderline. Here's the scopus profile. User:JoelleJay, this might be a good case for your in-field citation script? My intuition is that this prof is below the median R1 citation count & h-index for their career stage, so unlikely to meet NPROF#1. Suriname0 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - Based on the citation data provided by JoelleJay, I don't think he meets NPROF. In the absence of other SIGCOV (couldn't find anything myself, but their might be some Hungarian-language coverage from his time teaching their), I recommend deletion. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for the ping, Suriname0. Here are the Scopus citation profiles for all 76 coauthors with ≥25 papers (out of all ~140 coauthors, the average # of papers is 112!!! and the median is 31), excluding a couple high-citation people whose Scopus profiles seem to have been merged with another author's.
Total citations: avg: 3981, med: 2075, Farago: 1554. Papers: 207, 146, 111. h-index: 27, 23, 18. Top 5 papers: 1st: 433, 211, 308; 2nd: 238, 126, 272; 3rd: 171, 99, 98; 4th: 142, 90, 85; 5th: 120, 77, 63.
I don't think this demonstrates the exceptional citation record necessary for a C1 pass, and this is reinforced by his publishing in MDPI, so I would recommend delete. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andras_Farago&oldid=1162443585"