Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandru Sorin Biris


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  11:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Alexandru Sorin Biris

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania,  and Arkansas.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a GoogleScholar profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with h-index 66 and i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced. Turgidson (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters).  It might be weakly enough for WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field.  I am balancing that with WP:TNT.  If kept, the article should be stubified. , the WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations &mdash; a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please let's keep the discussion focused on the article and not the nominator; there's enough to unpack w/o looking at motives. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with this article, but the editor's intent in removing it is questionable. Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep -- the citation counts (in a high citation discipline) and one independent coverage of notability seem barely enough to keep the article. Yes, it has too many dependent sources and isn't our best article (though it is salvagable).  The high citations of articles where he is last author (institution director) take away a tiny bit from his notability as a researcher but puts it exactly in notability as a director/leader in higher education research.  I could, however, be persuaded to go to either a full keep or weak delete with more evidence.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This Kannarpady who created this article seems to work for this person: https://ualr.edu/nanotechnology/about-us/researchers-and-staff/dr-ganesh-kannarpady/
 * Seems like personal beef. I would delete this article SleeplessSeatle (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is your only edit on the project, SleeplessSeatle. How did you even find your way here to this AFD? Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I see some highly cited papers, even in a higher citation field, but middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper doesn't convince me of so much.  There are a couple of highly cited papers where Biris is last author, but one has been retracted for research misconduct.  I did some work on trimming this down into shape (as did ), and it is no longer in WP:TNT territory, but the mess leaves me unconvinced of NPROF.  There is definitely room for disagreement on this one, and I can also see policy-based arguments for keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Really wish you had carefully read the following pages before you made change to the article :
 * [ ]
 * Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  23:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We cannot use the Quora source for anything concerning a living person, as it is user generated content. The retractionwatch source is already used in the article.  Neither has much to do with notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. His h-factor is decent, but as others have said he is typically in the middle of the author list. This means he presumably contributed, but did not lead (last author) or do most of the work (first author). It is a fairly high citation field, so other proofs of notability matter. I see no awards, and h-factors alone should not be everything. Hence to me it is a  definitive Delete. If someone can find awards I might reconsider.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * N.B., this page seems to have both been a subject of vandalism, and have had votes added by editors who have not contributed much (or even at all) elsewhere in Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2024 (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.