Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Koletsos

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Koletsos

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

Insufficient indication of notability. JoelWhy (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence on page or from Google searches that subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Google Scholar search for "G Koletsos" gives top cites of 39, 18, 9, 8, 7, 4. Qwfp (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too slim a publication record (for this field) to pass WP:PROF#C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. It's not uncommon for faculty in this area of engineering to have hundreds of publications, patents, and so forth, and often many of those with high citations. The subject of this article only has a handful of publications. There is also the issue of the quality of sourcing. None of the sources cited in the article includes more than a passing mention of the subject (and indeed very little actual text at all). This is not enough to write a WP:BLP on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several misconceptions: It is extremely unussual for people in engineering to have hundreds of publications of any sorr--possibly 1% of faculty might have 100. 2. we count only peer reviewed journal articles & peer reviewed conferences & patents, & look for citation of the work, not raw count of publication, 3. We dod not expect to find biographical sources as such--scientists are notable for their science, not thei details of their private life. 4.All we expect to include in a BLP is their education & their professional life. Emphasis of their families and hobbies is promotional writing--their not figures in pop culture. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's never been my impression. Most people who do computer engineering that I am familiar with have at least one order of magnitude more publications than comparable faculty in the mathematical sciences. Even associate professors frequently have on the order of 20 or so publications. Also, I have no idea how you are getting that I somehow feel that we need sources of private life details, etc. The only references have the subjects name in a list. Our policies do require the existence of sources that address the subject more than in passing like this. That appears prominently in WP:N, WP:V, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I work with a lot of researchers as part of my job (not exclusively computer engineers). Its exceedingly rare to find scientists with hundreds of publications, in my experience. It generally takes a good amount of time conducting research before they are ready to draft an article for publishing. So, a top-tier researcher may have dozens of publications, but hundreds? I could see how writing articles related to computer engineering would take far less time than, say, articles based upon experiments related to cancer treatments. But, hundreds still seem like an awful lot. (Not saying I'm doubting you, Slaw, but are you sure about these numbers?)JoelWhy (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems unlikely that we will agree on an exact range for a plausible average number of publications for faculty in this area, the claim is being made that the subject presumably passes WP:PROF#C1 on the basis of exactly five publications over a 27 year period. Hopefully we can all agree that this is low by any standards. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Joe's wonderment about top-tier researchers having more than dozens of pubs: here are some top computer engineers: [1]: Sharad Malik has 288 pubs listed, Janak Patel 240, Alberto Broggi 231, Hans-Joachim Wunderlich 263, etc. Of course, we should not be counting number of publications, but some stand-in for their significance such as citation counts, but Koletsos falls down very badly there too. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David, that's at the very top--WP:N is much less than "famous". DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of our opinions of absolute numbers of publications, do you believe that five publications rises to the level of WP:N? If not, then perhaps we can move on. Do you believe that mere mention of someone's name in a list is adequate sourcing per the standard of "significant coverage" also articulated in WP:N? Again, if not, then perhaps we can all agree that the article should be deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find evidence of sufficient notability. Apart from Google, I looked at MathSciNet (8 publications, 2 citations) and World of Science (4 publications, 5 citations). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (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.