Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roel Vertegaal


 * 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Roel Vertegaal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet WP:COI, WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:AB, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT policy Likely fails to meet WP:PROF, but this is secondary in light of other concerns. From the edit history, it appears that this article was written by the subject himself from various IP addresses, with the goal of self-promotion: Almost all of the content of the article comes from 130.15.1.241, which has only ever edited the Roel Vertegaal article (and is A Queen's University IP). Other contributors include 67.193.129.113, which has edited the Roel Vertegaal and Human Media Lab (Vertegaal’s lab) articles, and 67.193.192.237, which has edited only the Roel Vertegaal, Flexible Display, and Organic User Interfaces articles (located in the same city as Queen’s University).

The subject of this article fails the WP:GNG and WP:PROF policies: It establishes Vertegaal’s notability as an academic by appealing almost entirely to primary sources authored by Vertegaal himself. Of the 20 references given, only 3 refer to sources that are not written by the subject himself. 16 of the other references fail WP:NOR, being primary sources (largely conference papers) authored or co-authored by Vertegaal himself. According to WP:PROF “. . .it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant. . .”

The Roel Vertegaal section of the biography consists entirely of material promoting Vertegaal’s own business interests and does not adhere to wikipedia’s guidelines regarding NPOV or self-promotion. It supports Vertegaal's standing in the business community with a link to [| Xuuk Inc], which is an “Account Suspended” page.

This article is peppered with claims that are either exaggerated, non-notable, or unsourced. Here are a few examples. I nominate this article for deletion. If it is determined that the subject of the article does meet WP:PROF notability guidelines, it will nonetheless need to be entirely rewritten without the self-promoting material (which, as it stands, is the entire article). AnonymousConcerned (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A reference in the introduction to “pioneering work,” backed up only by primary sources (academic conference papers), which have the subject himself as an author.
 * The sentence: “He is also known for inventing ubiquitous eye input, such as Samsung's Smart Pause technologies, and BitDrones, one of the first programmable matter user interfaces” is completely unsourced.
 * The sentence: “Vertegaal developed one of the first inline PC webcams, FrameServer, deployed by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak” is not sourced, but does feature a link to a listserv post in which Vertegaal himself describes an internet webcam interface he developed—far from “inventing one of the first inline PC webcams.”
 * The biography also includes numerous examples of unsourced personal information, including the grammar school Vertegaal attended, what brand of synthesizer Vertegaal used as a child, an undergraduate scholarship, and the brand of sports car that he drives. None of these are supported, except for the sports car, which is supported by a reference to Vertegaal’s own twitter account.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would anyone care to contribute to the debate regarding the other issues? The question of whether the subject passes WP:PROF is debatable, but also a secondary concern in light of other problems. AnonymousConcerned (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotuion. We need to scrupuously uphold our rules against such to maintain the intergrity of the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment self promotion on its own is not a reason for deleiton. It is a reason for editing.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep even though lots of mainstream sources are available, the article almost exclusively uses arcane journal publicaitons to support ego-building claims. A strong edit is required (TNT perhaps) to reduce the promotional copy. I tried but it was too depressing.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   20:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but stubify; I'd say everything starting with "Early life" could go, leaving only the lead. Seems to pass WP:PROF but the article is too promotional, and some drastic measures are needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That seemed like a good idea so I took care of it. All material starting with early life deleted. Three refs kept, and four new more run-of-the-mill refs added.96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I just had a look at the Google Scholar Profile and I see at least 4 papers in SIGCHI with 200 citations or more. Considering that CHI is literally the most important conference in human computer interaction, I think this should be kept. The h-index of 35 (though google scholar slightly inflates it) is also a good indicator of academic notability.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2017 (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.