Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Alex O. Vasilescu


 * 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. Consensus is that coverage is insufficient for GP:GNG and that the requirements of WP:PROF are also not met.  Sandstein  14:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

M. Alex O. Vasilescu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is likely written by the subject and reads like advertisement. It basically claims that the subject is notable for her PhD research. Whereas an individual in exceptional cases can be notable just for their PhD research, it is clearly not our policy that all PhD students of top universities are notable, and I do not see any education indication that the subject was doing any research after the graduation, thus clearly failing WP:PROF. Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The subject introduced a new area of research in multiple fields. Thus, it meets the very first criteria of  WP:PROF. The article is not an advertisement, but it explains the research insight that has lead to the development of a new area of research and to today's innovations. Research continued after the 2009 PhD in academia and in industry.Alexmov   —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)  — Alexmov (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. On the face of it this article would appear to pass both WP:PROF for highly cited publications and WP:GNG for heavy media coverage of that same research. And in fact I started to write a "keep" comment saying so, and pointing out that despite the badly written and promotional text of the article, AfD is not cleanup. But it does appear to be true that she is notable only for her student work (split into multiple publications, but all on the same general topic). Since completing her Ph.D. in 2009 she has done essentially nothing in the way of academic publishing  and has dropped out of academia to become science officer at a startup, per her CV . And much of the article appears to be copied and pasted from that cv. So there's a case to be made here for WP:BIO1E and (because of the copyvio, not just the bad writing) WP:TNT. I'm holding off deciding for myself which way to go for now in the hope that more discussion here can clarify the case first. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding later: This also appears (from its editor's name) to be an undisclosed WP:AUTOBIO, more reason to bring in WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's beyond my understanding how reviewers who have commented here tried to bash her and not even give this a chance. For one thing, she is an established person in the field who has 3000 citations. Most recently, she has been elected as one of the chairs of the CVPR, the most impactful conference in the engineering and computer science combined . This is a great testimony of the fact that her research contributions are recognized in her field. Please judge fairly and put away your egos and biases. This is Wikipedia! Ahatamiz (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Ahatamiz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Regarding WP:TNT Happy to delete all! Thank you for all your comments. -- Alexmov —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, starting a new area of research in multiple fields, ie. redefining problems from different fields, is hardly a single event. Alexmov (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I cut the article way, way back, to a stub that looks in principle legitimate and not promotional. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Any MIT alumni in the area? It looks like the Technology Review piece from 2003 is only readable with a subscription. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the MIT TR article: http://www2.technologyreview.com/tr35/profile.aspx?TRID=310 Alexmov (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that TR100 was awarded because of the introduction of a specialized form of mathematics, called tensor algebra, for face recognition, extracting human motion signatures and synthesizing new textures. In other words, Vasilescu introduced tensor algebra to the field of computer vision (TensorFaces, Human Motion Signatures), graphics(TensorTextures, Human Motion Signatures) and machine learning. Alexmov (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Vasilescu's introduction of the tensor paradigm to computer vision, computer graphics, machine learning and tensor algebra extension is not a promotional statement, but an undeniable verifiable fact. Alexmov (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Alexmov (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alexmov, you have dominated the discussion heretofore, you are allowed only one !vote on an AfD, and your username gives you the appearance of being the subject (if so, you are in violation both of the requirement that you declare any conflict of interest and our guidelines against autobiographies, and if not, you are in violation of our user name policy). I have struck your comment and reverted your recent unsourced additions to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * David, I have added the relevant source. Alexmov (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * David, if you would rather add the relevant source yourself rather than me doing it. Here it is ,  feel free to search for Vasilescu on the page. Alexmov (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * David, I voted to Keep after the changes made by the user XOR made and it is my only vote. If you look above, I was willing to go along with delete, but did not vote one way or another. I assume you are not trying to silence me, are you? Alexmov (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is just pretty clear that you are the subject of the article, and therefore your opinion on whether it should be kept is irrelevant.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet, I was also happy to delete the entire article, and did so, but someone reveted the changes.Alexmov (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alexmov, you have conspicuously failed to answer the question of whether it is the COI and Autobiography guidelines or the user naming policy that you are in violation of. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * David Eppstein, I have scanned the relevant articles, and I have not violated the Autobiography guidelines or the user naming policy. Alexmov (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If "Alexmov" = "M. Alex O. V." then you have violated autobio, as you have made many edits to M. Alex O. Vasilescu. If "Alexmov" ≠ "M. Alex O. V." then you are in violation of the policy against names that impersonate other people. Please explain how it is possible to not violate either one. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If "Alexmov" = "M. Alex O. V." then the contents of the autobio guideline would indeed apply. If "Alexmov" ≠ "M. Alex O. V." then a quick search on google would show that there are many people with that name. David, I hope this is fun for you. :-) Alexmov (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person. ... If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided." —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading through this carefully, and having the discussion relisted while doing so, I am inclined to discount pretty much all of the commentary except that from and the OP . -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am unsure about this. On the face of it, publications in ICPR/CVPR along with TensorFaces being mentioned in the handbook of Biometrics by Anil Jain is a positive. On the other hand, I don't see much coverage and hardly research after ~2010. I would be willing to having an article solely based on the work alone, provided the contribution something which is widely notable (such as Eigenface). Not casting a vote at the moment, but will look at this later.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The product (TensorFaces) may be notable, but does not imply notability of creator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. I'm also very uncomfortable with the clear COI problems that are arising. Skirts89 15:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as as explained in my comment above. The main problem is lack of coverage. I would have been OK with an article (even without too much coverage), provided the publication of TensorFaces was widely notable. It seems to have been noticed, but I won't call it widely notable. I don't see a pass for WP:PROF--DreamLinker (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at it again and I am unfortunately not convinced. Apart from lack of coverage, I also checked the h-index which seems to be 16 according to Google Scholar. This is somewhat on the low side given that Computer Vision/Biometrics is a high citation field. Most career researchers who are working for ~15 years have an h-index > 40. I don't see a criteria which can satisfy WP:PROF.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Women often have unorthodox academic careers in technical fields. Her work was not a two or three year thesis project finished with nothing else done later. She first published in 1991. She received her master's degree from MIT in 1997. Twelve years later, in 2009, she received her PhD from the University of Toronto. During that 12 year period she left to work in the New York University and MIT media labs and published papers before writing her thesis. Those papers by now are highly cited and continue to be cited steadily to this day. She has not "dropped out" of academics. She holds a staff position at UCLA and teaches courses. Like many academics she also is part of a small consulting firm. Is she being penalized for having had a promotional Wikipedia article? The articles of many male academics start out that way too. StarryGrandma (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Eppstein. GS h-index of 16 not enough to pass WP:Prof in this very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
 * Comment: Geoff Hinton, Amnon Shashua, Demetri Terzopoulos, David Fleet, Allan Jepson signed off on the dissertation that has the following first sentence: "This thesis introduces a multilinear algebraic framework for computer graphics, computer vision, and machine learning, particularly for the fundamental purposes of image synthesis, analysis, and recognition. " In other words, that is not a promotional statement contratry to doubts casts by David Eppstein who has no expertise in this field.  The prior statement is not meant to cast aspersion on David's knowledge and expertise in his own area of research. Alexmov (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: h-index is a type of productivity measure and not a measure of the value of one's contribution. Alexmov (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * h-index is measure of not only productivity, but also impact of the contributions. For academics, this is an indicator of notability. A higher h-index indicates that on an average, multiple papers have had a high impact. Given that vision/biometrics is a high citation field, an h-index of 16 is on the low side.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any rule of thumb like h-index needs to be used carefully. It does not work well if a researcher has made an impact while writing only a few papers. Her top 16 papers with citations of (888 432 304 247 212 194 187 173 161 117 37 32 22 20 17 16) give an h-index of 16. Citations of (50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 37 32 22 20 17 16) would have given the same h-index but imply a very different impact. She has 5 papers with over 200 citations. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment above is certainly valid, but this BLP looks like a flash in the pan. One can count citations, but h-index gives an indication of sustained achievement over time. Time will tell if the initial impact, most of which is co-authored, is reinforced. Wikipedia can wait. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2019 (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.

I typed this in the section, but by the time I hit return the page disappeared:


 * Contributions of co-authors: Xxanthippe, counting the number of single versus co-authored papers is not the correct criteria for determining who is the driving force behind the tensor research direction. You are discounting that the first paper that introduced tensor algebra for modeling cause-and-effect in computer vision, computer graphics and machine learning was single-authored, and appeared in print in 2001 and 2002 (Human Motion Signature work).  Additionally, the second sentence in a very diplomatic disertation acknowledgement section, "Although initially resisting the direction of my research, he (D. Terzopoulos) eventually became its biggest supporter", leaves no doubt at the identity of the person that was the driving force behind this line of work versus the person that "resisted" and "eventually" become a "supporter". Alexmov (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Importance vs Citations: TensorFaces garnered 888 citations, while a tensor survey paper by Kolda and Bader in which Vasilescu and Terzopoulos are cited every where garnered 4892 citations. If one used citation counts, the survey paper is more than five times more important than TensorFaces, a paper that re-framed a vision problem and modeled cause-and-effect as a tensor problem. Furthermore, survey papers are often citations in liu of relevant papers, since it is a lazy way of referencing relevant work.  Alexmov (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Importance vs Indices: Employing citations and indices, while expedient, it is not only a flawed approach to determining importance, it is an abdication of independent critical thinking, and it merely gives more people the opportunity to have an opinion without doing indepenent due diligence, yet having the false impression of being informed. For example, the moment a survey paper is written, it will naturally end up "stealing" citations from prior relevant papers, but without impacting papers written after the survey.  Thus, citation and index measures will be doubly compromised.  If one wanted to determines importance, one ought to also look at the citation count of papers that were directly influenced by some initial paper, such as TensorFaces.  In other words, does the follow-up work that was influenced by TensorFaces/Human Motion Signatures resulted in highly cited papers?  Any index that does not also look at the citation count of follow-up work, it is not a measure of importance, although even if such an index existed, it would simply pushes down citation/index problem to second order effects. These type of shorcuts are highly flawed. Alexmov (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Voting to Delete was based on and influenced by David Eppstein, someone that offered no evidence for doubting contributions listed in the article and who is not an expert in the field. Do not delude yourself, what took place here is called mob voting, and clearly very biased. Alexmov (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)