Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Ó Ruanaidh (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 11:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Ó Ruanaidh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. The deletion rationale is "resumé" Reyk  YO!  11:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Pishcal  — ♣ 14:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete- now, having examined the article, I agree with the IP nominator's assessment that this is just a CV of a non-notable person. Reyk  YO!  14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If he is highly cited, as the article claims, would he not pass WP:PROF criterion 1? "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. This is very badly sourced and should be trimmed to only material that can be supported by sources (primary sources may be ok for simple factual claims; no sources not ok). But judging by his Google scholar profile he does indeed pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. He does indeed pass WP:PROF, according to his Google Scholar page. Much rewrite needed though. TYelliot  &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  12:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I'm usually a little squeamish about the filter-fed GS stats because even very obscure pieces routinely have a few dozen citations, but his '98 paper in Signal Processing has >200 citations according to WoS and he has some other cited papers there too, which I think should be passable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
 * WoS is a bad choice for computer science because it has poor coverage of conferences, which are more important than journals in many subdisciplines of CS. See e.g. the final bullet point in WP:PROF. For this reason I prefer GS, at least for this subject, despite its somewhat-inflated citation counts. (This may be more computer engineering than computer science but I think it's close enough for the same issues to apply.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks David. I am well-aware of this dynamic, i.e. that the CS culture assigns great importance to refereed conferences, so WoS will be at a "false-negative" disadvantage here. My main point was the converse: that GS is equally, if not more disadvantaged on the "false-positive" side of the balance sheet, for example it will include citations from unpublished documents, e.g. white-papers, which are certainly not of the same rank as citations from refereed publications. Be that as it may, I think we largely agree on this particular case. Thanks for the ping. Agricola44 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep Fully meets WP:PROF on the basis of citation the very high level of 1387 for his paper in Signal Processing, or which he was senior author. Followed by 541 in IEEE Proceedings-Vision & Signal Processing, which is in the field as impt as any journal, a book with 431, then 486, etc. This sort of record should never be questioned here.  DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 28 April 2015 (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.