Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg N. Gregoriou


 * 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 as the subsequent improvements and comments have been uncontested and the comments now show it is in fact satisfying the notability standards (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  05:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Greg N. Gregoriou
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Gregoriou is a professor of finance, the article is only sourced to the bio of his employer. I was not able to find anything other than another employer bio on him. Nothing comes even remotely close to showing he has made a significant impact in his academic field of finance, or that he meets any other notability criteria for an academic. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. A GS h-index of 19 may pass WP:Prof. Article is poorly written. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC).


 * Bugachi (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)In response to John Pack Lambert comment that he does not think that Greg N Gregoriou did not make a contribution to the field of finance - I encourage John Pack Lambert and other Wikipedia moderators to research Greg N Gregoriou's work -


 * --Bugachi (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Dr Greg N Gregoriou is a well know researcher in the area of hedge funds and Commodity Trading Advisors. He published many books and articles in this area.  Please check the provided links and books.  We will continue to work on this article to improve it and add more references.  Please remove from the deletion list and remove the flag from the article.


 * — Bugachi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete  need in depth independent reporting on him to support the key claims of notability ("well known", highlighting certain papers/contributions as "important", and similar statements). "His most important contribution" is an article on which he does not appear to be the main author (need actual cite that he is notable for this, not just that this is notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED and being the best of one's work doesn't make it good beyond oneself). Article suffers from COI (NPOV is evident in writing, describing financial journals as "scientific", academic boosterism of his PhD institution, etc) and seems thinly rewritten from copyvio, so I think thesubject is uncertain/marginal and this article is into the realm of TNT. Admins will be able to see from the deleted history a chain of COI editors working to get this person into WP. DMacks (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked again and added some more details to my above !vote. DMacks (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - a quick Google search confirms that he's published numerous books on hedge trading theory. The external links bother me per WP:EL: but that's easily corrected.  Also pinging, an experienced editor with insight into what makes academic articles notable for Wikipedia.Timtempleton (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Keep meets WP:PROF as an expert -- meets WP:AUTHOR also.WP:PROF as an expert can be shown either by journals or books, depending on the subject. In his case, Google Scholar shows articles with cites sf  145, 122, 110, 98, 68 .... In all fields but some of biomedicine anyonre with 2 or more papers cited over 100 times is certainly notable.  h factor is a poor measure, because it is sensitive  not to the best work, but to the volume of medium quality routine work. --one gets a high h factor by publishing dozens of medium level journal articles, which shows one a productive but not necessarily important scientist. Worldcat shows over  30 major books, all from  good publishers, most as principal author. It also shows a few reviews of his books--more can be found by searching. His most widely held book is in over 11q00 libraries, which makes it a standard textbook (that's a third FaF criterion) . Mostt of this was in the article, so there's no excuse for the nomination. As for in depth coverage, WP:PROF is unique--it is  an alternative to  the GNG, and can be  met quite independently, as long as the publications are verified by a third party RS, which is done by worldcat   DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm attracted here because I see the wp:TNT essay invoked, and I think TNT is almost always wrong.  See new essay wp:TNTTNT.  Here, it is mentioned with the TNT call that "Admins will be able to see from the deleted history a chain of COI editors working to get this person into WP."  Why shouldn't everyone be able to see the chain of COI editors in the preserved history?  Why not put a tag on the article about COI editors, and/or a warning on the talk page.  Deleting the article completely sets up possibility of the same stuff happening, but without allowing good editors to know what they are dealing with. -- do  ncr  am  02:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Doncram just wrote that TNTTNT essay and this is the first time it has been mentioned. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as WP:AUTHOR with multiple published books from Elsevier, McGraw Professional, etc: Google books preview. Such as Corporate governance and regulatory impact on mergers and acquisitions : research and analysis on activity worldwide since 1990 Amsterdam ; Boston : Academic Press, ©2007. Quantitative finance series. This looks to be a serious work. And there are multiple similar publications.
 * Here's a short author bio link; similar to what one would expect for notable academics.   K.e.coffman (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the article a bit: diff. It can be improved further. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2017 (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.