Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kos


 * 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Kos

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was proposed for deletion and endorsed; prods contested. The article claims that this research associate's work on SNO was "monumental" but does not provide any sources backing it up. A Google Scholar search for brings up his dissertation and another article, and  brings up results for a different person. Given this, I don't think that the subject passes WP:ACADEMIC. ... disco spinster   talk  03:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, as a researcher myself, I don't use Google scholar, but rather search in actual journals. Look for the neutron source uncertainty in the paper (Phys Rev C 72 05502 (2005)) and try to find anything in the litterature with anything even close to that type of neutron measurement. In addition, this measurement led to a 41% detection efficiency for neutrons, which will never ever ever be achieved in the future. That is an almost 50% detection efficiency for neutrons. This is indeed monumental.--Neutrino37 (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC) — Neutrino37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete DGG re-prodded (probably mistakenly), but his rationale says it all: "Just a postdoc--no published paper found in Scopus. Just one of the 50 authors of one arXiv preprint: " and I concur. --Crusio (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment going through the edit history of this article of the past hour or so, I get the strong feeling that we are dealing here with a joke. --Crusio (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG and Crusio. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps in a few years. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. On basis of GS cites not yet notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. Targetted WoS search: "Author=(kos m*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS OR PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL OR INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION OR PHYSICS, NUCLEAR OR NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY OR ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" returns 20 hits with citation counts of 364, 221, 26, 22, 19, ... Checking more closely, we find that most of these are "big physics" papers, many having >100 authors (with his name in roughly the middle), although there is one paper in 'J. MAG. RESONANCE A' where he's one of three authors. Note: I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that the "Kos" on all these papers is actually our subject. Descriptors like "monumental" and such are naked WP:PUFF and should be disregarded. These observations precisely describe a post-doc who has assisted in research work early in their career, but who is in no way notable on their own yet. This article is probably at least 10 years pre-mature and it is regrettable that so many commentators here spend so much collective time weeding these out. Perhaps grad-student and post-doc articles could be directly prodded first as a general convention? (I see this one was, but many aren't.) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2009 (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.