Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Eriksson


 * 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   speedy keep. Nominator agrees that AAAS Fellow (now verified) meets WP:PROF; other than the SPA nominator there has been no support for the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Mark Eriksson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

they don't make a credible claim of significance or importance GoingBat (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets WP:ACADEMIC #3 as an elected fellow of two highly prestigious scholarly societies. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete His notability is not supported by any refs and the five refs in the article are unreliable. Being a fellow of the AAAS appears to be false based on the given reference link ‘page does not exist’ and I searched the AAAS fellows listing, and he wasn't there. GoingBat (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Regarding memberships in various societies that you mentioned: We agree that for WP:ACADEMIC #3 it is not sufficient to be a regular member, but it is needed to be an elected member or fellow. Therefore, if Eriksson is one of these, you need to provide a verifiable reference. Similarly, you need to provide a reference for him being an elected fellow of AAAS. GoingBat (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominating the article for deletion already expresses the opinion that it should be deleted; you don't need to keep saying "delete". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is a bit of a stub, but the AAAS fellowship is easily verifiable, just search for the subject's name . Being a AAAS fellow definitely satisfies PROF#3. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The AAAS fellowship can be verified by the link that provided, and the APS fellowship (which would also suffice for WP:PROF by itself) can also be verified easily . And, as we would expect for someone who passes WP:PROF with room to spare, his citation record is more than good enough to pass WP:PROF. Moreover, he holds a named chair and so passes WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, clearly satisfies WP:PROF and WP:PROF. please do a minimal WP:BEFORE and stop voting multiple times. --hroest 15:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What counts for establishing notability here is coverage by independent sources (meaning written by people other than the subject of the article himself). This is a basic principle of WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROF and of all other notability guidelines. For these purposes self-citations by Eriksson himself do not count and what matters is what other scientists write about his work. If you find papers by other scholars (not authored or co-authored by Eriksson) confirming his claims, that would certainly change things. GoingBat (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is not what counts here, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPROF and how it is generally applied. One test is the "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?. It then says "claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on." Regarding RS, it clearly states that "non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Please read those guidelines and be respectful of them before starting your own personal vendetta. --hroest 15:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * comment the nominator is very clearly a WP:SPA with only 9 edits so far all on this subject and seems to have decided within 3 hours of account creation and his first edit to nominate the article for deletion. This all, together with the fact that he nominated a clearly notable person for deletion, all seems quite strange. --hroest 15:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * vanity article about nn scientist who fails WP:PROF. Any reputable scientist of his age would have a similar-looking track record but that doesn't make him notable. GoingBat (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * again, the guidelines say clearly and specifically that he is notable WP:NPROF#3, please read the guidelines before nominating someone: "3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). ". So no, not any reputable scientist will have become an AAAS fellow. It also raises the interesting question why you care so much to specifically create an account for this? --hroest 15:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, starting one's editing career by adding personal information to an article and then initiating an AfD and dropping a bunch of wiki-jargon abbreviations is a bit odd. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.