Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Strehl


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Strehl

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

autobiographical, notability not asserted or established, complete lack of reliable third-party sources Bob (QaBob) 04:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * leaning towards keep -- I'm seeing quite high citation figures on google scholar, one of 300, another of 223. The article needs work, but the person seems notable.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for not having reliable third party sources as required by wp:v and wp:blp, fails wp:prof, possible conflict of interest. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t09:33z
 * Weak keep. The citation counts seem to show a pass of WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same #1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."? The article has no reliable published third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t17:15z
 * I don't think anyone is terribly impressed by the article -- partly because (as you say) there is a lack of good sources. But the person seems notable, with widepread use (citation) of his work -- and so the alternative to deletion is to improve the article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The high citation count is itself evidence, from independent reliable sources, that the person's research has made significant impact. Did you read the very first note in the "notes and examples" section of WP:PROF? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  very weak keep neutral GS citations for his articles start with 300, 233, 114, 73, but GS h-index is a modest 10. It would be so much more useful (not to mention easy to judge whether they met WP:N) if these pesky vanity autobiographies made some attempt to enrich the project by explaining just what exactly the subject did with reference to their research topic, rather than just adding another CV to the wikirolodex of self-promotion blurbs.Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC) change to neutral, I like Nsk92's position better than my initial one. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. There seems to be a weakly passable WP:PROF case based on several highly cited papers. However, since this is a WP:AUTO/WP:COI case (the article was created by User:Astrehl), and notability is fairly marginal, I would not object to deletion either. Nsk92 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral My iitial reaction was like Pete Hurd's (and agree on the subject of pesky autobios, unbelievable, how many vain people there are) and like him, I like Nsk92's opinion. --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete first four highly cited articles are more or less the same topic which, while highly cited seems to merely be the application of cluster analysis to web pages, which isn't that novel. We they published in more notable journals and were they not cited mostly by similarly normal works, I'd give more credit.  but alas, for this work i need outside verification of notability, perhaps a major award, or anything that would distinguish his work from everyday application of methods. --Buridan (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Normally I would go by the citations, and, considering the subject, I'm not the least concerned that the cites appeared elsewhere than peer reviewed journals--most good work of this sort is found in conferences. And the most cited article was in MIT's Journal of Machine Learning Research.  I see the other work as reasonably well cited also. But the work was essentially a doctoral thesis, and a recent one, so I think it needs a longer track record; this may be the exceptional kind of situation where a paper but not the person makes an impact on the field. I'll admit to being affected also by the promotional nature of his website. I seem to stand with Pete and NSK, right in  the middle. DGG (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.