Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucian Vintan


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lucian Vintan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Romanian university professor. No reliable third-party coverage. Good career (or so he claims) but not sufficiently notable. Pascal.Tesson 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 14:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The number of published papers claimed might be enough for notability.I'll check back on this one.DGG 01:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I find myself a little uncomfortable at the textual similarities between Towards a high performance neural branch predictor (IJCNN'99, his most cited paper according to GS with 27 cites), Towards a Powerful Dynamic Branch Predictor (published in a Romanian journal), Dynamic Branch Prediction using Neural Networks (DSD'01), and Two-level branch prediction using neural networks (another journal). They are on very similar topics, have some textual similarity, and yet the DSD'01 paper doesn't mention the earlier papers' existence, with the later paper even going so far as to say "In complete contrast to earlier work, this paper explores the possibility of using neural networks to dynamically predict branch outcomes" (one of many phrases copied from the 2000 journal) even when the author's own earlier work is on exactly that subject. It is normal and expected in this area to publish journal and conference versions of the same work, but it's much less normal to publish two journal and two conference versions of such similar work; it is the similarities between the Romanian journal paper and the DSD'01 paper that are of most concern to me. Which may all be a little off-topic for this AfD, but to bring it back to a discussion of his notability: In his hits on Google scholar, three out of the four top hits, despite having very different titles and publication records, are really on very similar or the same material. Many of his other papers have very few hits. So it seems the publication record is not as strong as it appears on first glance. —David Eppstein 05:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't find this quite so negative--for most of the topics, he seems to have published a preliminary paper in a conference as well as a finished one in journal--which is not disreputable. But we'd normally count only the journal articles, and we'd expect him to make a mark in one particular area. So I went to Web of Science, which only lists 4 of his articles:

WoS is known to under-represent Eastern European publications, but everything considered, an unambiguous
 * 1) Vintan L, Gellert A, Florea A, et al., Understanding prediction limits through unbiased branches LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 4186: 480-487 2006 Times Cited: 0 (but this is too recent to expect cites, & it is a very highly regarded series)
 * 2) Vintan LN, Florea A, Gellert A, Focalising dynamic value prediction to CPU's context IEE PROCEEDINGS-COMPUTERS AND DIGITAL TECHNIQUES 152 (4): 473-481 JUL 2005 Times Cited: 0 (Also too recent for cites--a major conference series)
 * 3) Egan C, Steven G, Quick P, et al. Two-level branch prediction using neural networks ,JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE 49 (12-15): 557-570 DEC 2003, Times Cited: 2
 * 4) Egan C, Steven G, Vintan L Cached two-level adaptive branch predictors with multiple stages LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 2299: 179-191 2002, Times Cited: 0
 * Delete, DGG 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that WoS underrepresents computer science in general, largely because of WoS' focus on journals while a lot of the CS literature is in conferences. And what I was complaining about isn't the preliminary-conference polished-journal thing; as I said, that's normal and expected. But it doesn't seem that we are in any disagreement about the AfD decision. —David Eppstein 03:06, 23 March 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.