Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Overmars (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark Overmars
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was recreated after previous discussion to delete the article for failing WP:Notability per PROF and is also criteria for speedy deletion per Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion. No proper citations are given, all links are dead and inaccessible and therefore unverifiable. Since the article can not establish this it also does not meet the criteria for WP:NACADEMICS. BlitzGreg (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination that occurred after the subject's very clear pass of WP:PROF (highly cited publications on Google scholar) was explained at length to the nominator on the article's talk page. The claim that "all links are dead" is also false. A couple of the links were dead (likely due to the subject recently leaving employment with Utrecht U.) but recoverable through the internet archive, other links (the ams genealogy and distance calculator one) are and were live (but paywalled in the case of the distance calculator) and the nominator also insisted on deleting a citation to a published journal article with the excuse that the courtesy preprint url given in it (now removed) was dead. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not insist on deleting that one citation that was not dead, that was a mistake, and I even admitted so. The issue is not only regarding that, but the very fact, that not only were the sources unreliable, they also fail to establish why the person is notable in the first place per "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." the policy in question. BlitzGreg (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You continue to fail to understand the difference between a large number of works, and a large number of citations, a difference that is critical to understand WP:PROF and that was clearly explained to you prior to the nomination. Nobody has been arguing that Overmars warrants an article because of the fact that he has many publications (although that fact is mentioned in the article). The reason he warrants an article is because some of his publications have had a very high impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And you don't seem to understand the difference between a large number of citations and a large number of sources. Those Google results are not enough to go on alone for verifiability, and independent secondary or tertiary sources. And upon further investigation it appears this article was only recreated after a former discussion to delete said article where the exact same content was given as justification for not deleting, but the resolution was still to delete the article see Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Overmars.
 * That discussion is from the early days of WP and would now be considered archaic, for example because it conflates another person of the same name. Large numbers of citations conclusively establish notability and this individual seems to have many fold more than what have been considered the minimum to pass WP:PROF in quite literally hundreds of AfDs. Agricola44 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep on basis of stunning GS citations. This nomination is a candidate for worst ever nomination in the WP:Prof domain. A trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Unverified citations mind you, the Google scholar results may be well over 2000, but they are actually well over 2000 unrelated results. This becomes apparent around page 10 of the scholar citations David is refuting where Overmars is not actually being cited, the results just have similar titles to the keywords searched for. BlitzGreg (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It may have inaccuracies, but for computer science Google Scholar is the preferred choice because the other alternatives are even less accurate. See for instance the final bullet of WP:PROF and the source cited there. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Thousands of citations apiece for several works definitively shows significance through high impact works and thus notability according to PROF. --Mark viking (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NACADEMICS as the sources demonstrate this person is well known for authoring important scholarly works. Note that the article was in fact recreated after the first AfD and would have been a speedy G4 (in 2005) but it's in fine shape now. Also, I find it amusing that the article featured an image of the footballer Kostadin Markov which wasn't removed for almost 5 years. Ivanvector (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Citations well past numbers req'd in WP:PROF c1 are conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Snow keep Nom is advised to listen to experienced people like David instead of wasting the community's time here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, David is most likely the one who recreated the article since he is the only one with a record of editing the article that long ago. He only cleaned up the article after my nomination to delete it. BlitzGreg (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, AfDs often result in an article being improved while the discussion is ongoing, such that the original concerns for deletion are addressed and the article is saved. Ivanvector (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I look in the article history it was not David who created the article and actually if I look on the talk page he already explained everything that needed to be explained before you nominated this for deletion. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this nomination. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I second the motion for nom to withdraw. This is starting to consume valuable time that is best spent elsewhere. Incidentally, WoS citation numbers are comparable to GS, i.e. quite high: h-index 23 and cumulative cites >2000. This evidence is conclusive proof of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment. The WP:Prof guidelines seem to have become one of Wikipedia's pontes asinorum. Some pass over, some do not. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC).
 * My second concern here is that once you hit about page 10 of the Google scholar results, the quality of results significantly decreases to where none of the actual results are citing Overmars at all, actually about page 5 it starts doing that towards the bottom. This is the equivalent of using Google search results as as justification for WP:Notability. BlitzGreg (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With a GS h-index of 48, who cares? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, more than sufficient evidence to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:PROF due to his widely used computational geometry text: "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." -   t  u coxn \ talk 23:28, 21 January 2014 (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.