Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edo. Franzi


 * 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. While there is disagreement over the value of the Google Scholar search count, the main argument in favor of deletion is the lack of independent sources detailing Franzi's contributions to the research field. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edo. Franzi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently non-notable scientist; fails WP:PROF/WP:BIO due to a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. See also the related Articles for deletion/Non-notable EPFL robots. Sandstein (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per the nom. Lack of third party coverage. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. He has one paper with very impressive citations (Mobile robot miniaturisation) but then his publication record tails off dramatically. But that one paper should be enough, I think. I'd accept a merge to an article on the subject of that paper, per WP:BLP1E, if we had one, but I don't think we do. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Web of Science lists only 5 publications, each cited only once. Google Scholar gives more citations, but not many more papers. Franzi is only second author (the least important spot) of three on the most cited paper noticed above by David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * delete per Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep that one paper has over 360 citations in Google scholar, and from the other citations it appears that he was a major figure in further developments. The articles mentioned by Sandstein in the nomination were unanimously kept--as he cites them for notability of the subject, i conclude there is a reasonable case for the developer as well. DGG (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2007 (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.