Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Capak


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Peter Capak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject seems to be a fairly prolific academic - lots of publications in good journals, and some quotes in general media. The trouble is I can't find any writing about him in any independent sources at all. It's not clear where the biographical information in this article is coming from - almost none of it is sourced, and some of it (e.g. his being science lead at SPHEREx) is not mentioned in his own CV. Issues with the current content notwithstanding, I'm not sure that he clearly meets WP:NPROF, and he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and whatever information we write about him would have to come from affiliated sources because no independent sources are available. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, but please see comments below. Girth Summit  (blether)  23:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep GS h-index of 95 allows him to meet WP:PROF with flying colors. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK IntoThinAir, I'm minded to withdraw the nomination based on that argument, but the lack of any independent sources gives me pause. Is it acceptable to write the article based on his profiles at institutions he's connected with (which he presumably wrote himself)? I can find nothing in the way of independent sourcing giving biographical information. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just re-read WP:BLPSELFPUB, which indicates that we can indeed use self-published material if it's neutrally written etc. I may end up self-trouting here, if others are happy that he meets NPROF, and that are article is exclusively written using material he likely wrote himself (albeit probably factual and probably above board), then I'm happy to withdraw the nom. I do think the article needs a bit of work though in terms of sourcing. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added external references per Girth Summit's recommendation Commofc (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per IntoThinAir and WP:PROF. The ridiculously high h-index includes some works with many authors but keeping only the first-author papers from his Scholar profile still gives citation counts 795, 250, 231, 149, 131, ..., enough to convince me of a pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above !votes. It needs going over with the de-promotionalizer, but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not grounds for deletion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree: subject notable, but article should be de-puffed a little. Agricola44 (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdraw OK, it's clear that others are satisfied that he meets WP:NPROF, so I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. I would appreciate some guidance from me learned colleagues about what we put into the article, given the apparent dearth of independent sources - are we all happy with using his CV and/or profiles on his employers' websites? Thoughts from IntoThinAir, David Eppstein, User:XOR&, Agricola44 and any closing admin would be appreciated. Girth Summit  (blether)  23:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * CVs are fine for uncontroversial factual information ("He then earned a masters in astronomy in 2002, and a Ph.D. in astronomy in 2004 both from the University of Hawaii.") but should not be used for evaluation or opinion ("His research focuses on using physical modeling and advanced statistical methods" ... "a leading member" ... "a novel way of estimating"). So much of the article needs to be trimmed or re-sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, appreciate the guidance. I'm happy for this to be closed as keep; I may try to find time to trim the article tomorrow, if no-one beats me to it. Girth Summit  (blether)  00:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.