Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Makowski


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Dominique Makowski

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

Did their PhD 4 years ago, has some seemingly minor awards, created some software packages (including Easystats). Don't see how would meet WP:NPROF, and is probably WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of WP:N. A Google search only brings his own social networks, lists of research papers, and a couple of interviews. I live a few kilometers away from Paris, and I haven't seen anything on him in the local media either. Interestingly, the editor who created this article, as well as the ones on NeuroKit and easystats, claims that he is an expert on subjects around psychology, currently learning R, and that he lives in Paris and Spain. So this might be a WP:COI situation.  Billets Mauves €500 17:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Context Hello, thank you for rising this issue. On the initial motivation for the page:
 * In my opinion meets WP:AC 1 (author of very influential papers and tools across multiple fields: he has already more than 3000 citations within a few years of activity - which says a lot) and perhaps 2 (though I am not sure the awards can be easily objectively labelled as "highly" prestigious).
 * On the other hand, it is true that he is quite young academically (thesis earned in 2018), so I thought about TOO SOON too. But all in all, I think his contribution already deserves to be documented. But I am okay with the deletion if the contribution is not deemed enough.
 * Regarding the COI, yes I did work at the university where he did PhD, and know some of his network (in particular one person with whom he published several papers with). Never really had any interaction with (or related to) the person, so I thought this does not qualify for COI. That being said, it is true that I have become aware of this person quite recently - as the previous editor suggests - during my learning of R (in the context of which I created the easystats page - a tool I know use personally use a lot). I did not see any COI in it, but perhaps I am not well aware of wikipedia's stance on that, so it could be my fault. Apologies for these potential undisclosed ties. Neuropsychologist (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought the level of citations was good and a very promising start to a career, and will likely be notable in the future, but I stand by my original WP:TOOSOON comment. Early career awards (like a paper award and postdoc fellowship) don't really add anything to notability. The SIPS Commendation is not definitely not highly prestigious. The COI sounds a bit borderline to me, so perhaps best to leave someone else to comment on that if needed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep GS cites enough to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON and failing any one criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. I searched PUBMED and of 12 papers authored or co-authored in the past five years three were first-authorships and two were last-authorships.  (In US academia first generally means the person who did the actual writing and last being the person who headed the project.) It's impressively prolific but we judge notability on what is written about the subject rather than what is written by them.  (If publication count was a qualifier I'd have an article!) Blue Riband► 21:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete not seeing how this meets WP:NOTE or WP:NACADEMIC. Quick cursory search doesn't turn up anything that points to the contrary
 * Weak delete per probably too soon - we have tended to delete articles about new scholars. He earned his doctorate four years ago. Short of literally an Einstein, only tenured professors meet WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2022 (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.