Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosma Shalizi
Source: 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 keep. John254 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cosma Shalizi
- Cosma Shalizi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Doesn't meet
WP:BIO. While the subject has authored an algorithm and been mentioned by Nature in the context of blogging, he does not have the necessary in-depth or multiple third party reliable sources to write a proper biography. The algorithm itself may or may not be notable, but in any case does not have an article yet. I have no doubt that the subject may achieve notability, but typically assistant professors are below the notability threshhold. IPSOS (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's not so much an opinion on the article itself, but I'm unhappy with the rationale, specifically the part about "does not have the necessary in-depth or multiple third-party reliable sources to write a proper biography". The proper course of action in that case is to leave the article as a stub, rather than deleting it — to my mind in this sort of AfD the primary role of the third-party sourcing requirement is to attest to notability, not to provide biographical detail (note also that we are allowed to use primary sources for factual information about the biography once notability is established). So I'd prefer to focus the debate less on the lack of published biographies and more on the question of whether the "50 best science bloggers" listing (a sign of notability, but maybe not a significant one?) or other accomplishments is enough to overcome his junior status as an academician. —David Eppstein 16:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Keep. An assistant professor, with PhD in 2001, and around 15 peer-reviewed publications doesn't sound like WP:PROF material, but a couple of his papers appear fairly highly cited in Google Scholar [1] (66 for what looks like his thesis & 72 for co-authored paper with his PhD supervisor [2]), which makes me suspect his algorithm might be noteworthy despite there being no article on it. The Nature '50 best science bloggers' of 2006 might also be almost enough for notability as an author. Not my field, so willing to change my mind if other evidence brought. Espresso Addict 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks notable to me. Bacchiad 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I accept the Nature best Science bloggers list as notability--the top 50 among the thousands. But can someone find a link for it that works? 09:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Not wildly notable, but probably tops the hurdle.--Bedivere 21:34, 8 October 2007 (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.