Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teo Mora


 * 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. This is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion on grounds of failing our notability criterion.The grounds on which the nom. proposed deletion have since reversed completely and there is evidence that subject passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 07:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Teo Mora

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article asks for the deletion, see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. IMO, this is a matter of WP:BIODEL, which says Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. He is clearly a non-public figure, and, although he undoubtedly satisfies the criteria of notability, he is relatively unknown, as in a few minutes, I have found more than five searchers in the same area that have a similar of better notability, and do not have a Wikipedia page.

Therefore I think that we have to accept Mora's request, and I support deletion D.Lazard (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note for closer: nom has switched from Delete to Keep, see diff (or see below). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As the primary author of the article, I do support deletion of the article; Particularly I agree with the argument that it is a matter of WP:BIODEL. IMHO we should respect Mora's opinion on not having a Wikipedia entry. Nanuvutpanther (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Nanuvutpanther (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you ask his permission before writing it? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC).
 * No I didn't; As far as I know, no such permission is required for WP:BLP, though that would be polite! Nanuvutpanther (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * and wise too. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Side Comment... I think I disagree this is actually wise, on pragmatic grounds. I don't think individual wikipedians should be contacting potentially-WP:N humans off-wiki, and asking if they want a wikipedia article.  There have been problems with financial demands and impersonation of administrators in the past.  It is theoretically better to know in advance whether the topic of a BLP wishes to have an article, but in practice it is unwise to make it a tradition to find this out, since it requires wikipedians to acquire a personal phone number or email to contact the subject of the BLP.  In cases like professor Mora, where his faculty-page provides contact, it might be okay to discuss it with him beforehand... but there is always the risk that a misunderstanding will occur, and off-wiki communications are less-transparent than on-wiki ones.  I would not go so far as to say "never ask permission" but I would also not encourage people asking permission.  Too many ways it could end up unhappily.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm fine with it. Timothy Joseph Wood  03:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Stricken.  Timothy Joseph Wood  12:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - imho Mora is not notable enough (from an encyclopedic perspective) to argue that public interest overrules his personal wish for deletion (and that of the article's author). In addition the article's quality/content barely good enough to keep it in the first place anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Now a weak keep--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete - not because he demands it, but because he doesn't meet our standards for notability. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The subject clearly does meet our standards for notability (specifically WP:PROF because of his many highly-cited works on Gröbner bases and related topics) but our article says so little about him that I don't think it's essential to the encyclopedia. So in this case I am willing to go along with the subject's wishes. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 *  Delete  as per subject. He has a good citation record on GS so I would be fine with a keep on that basis. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Comment. The weaker criteria of WP:PROF are intended to boost notability of academics in relatively obscure areas.  However, while I feel that a strong pass of WP:GNG creates an obligation for the existence of an article, WP:PROF carries with it no such obligation.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per below.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep per WP:NACADEMIC#1  Just A Comment&trade; for now, but leaning keep, if the upgraded article is more satisfactory?  Agree with some of the others above, who point out that Teo Mora does in fact satisfy WP:N, quite easily I would suggest.  I have cleaned up the article a bit to make this clearer and added two book-review WP:RS .  (There was a related deletion on the Italian-language wikipedia in 2014, which if my guesstimate-translation is correct was "per not enough sources" but I cannot see the no-longer-visible article to verify.)  Mora is the 'M' in the FGLM algorithm of computer algebra, worked on the Gröbner fan concept, and has well-cited publications on Buchberger's algorithm, among other things.  His most well-cited work seems to revolve around Algebraic geometry generally (and Gröbner basis specifically).  Mora has triple-digit cite-counts published by Springer, Elsevier, ACM, Cambridge University Press, etc.  Professor for 27+ years at University of Genoa.  Slam-dunk bangkeep via WP:PROF (see also WP:SCHOLARSHIP) especially WP:NACADEMIC#1, (striking as no longer true)  were it not for the express wishes of professor Mora and professor-emeritus Lazard. Philosophically speaking, because there is no deadline, deletion in 2017 and recreation in 2027 (or whatever) would not be a catastrophe... but it would be a damned shame.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated bangvote, per new comment by professor Mora below, he is no longer opposed to the article being kept. Also, located a couple of book-review-refs (see Teo Mora article). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I wish there was some kind of "cold storage" we could put this article in, to revisit after the subject's death, when the sum of his life's work is basically over with; it is not inconceivable that this can be recreated at some future point with clear indicia of notability. Obituaries tend to do that. bd2412  T 01:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Make your own cold storage by downloading the source file. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Deleted article content is not actually permanently removed; it can be restored by any Wikipedia administrator with a good enough reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Side Comment This ability to undelete is traditional practice, yes... but not guaranteed. See WP:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages.  A change in the legal system (e.g. new United States laws which made defamatory material on 'private websites' subject to lawsuits where more than 1000 people can access the material?) could force the WMF's hand and cause "temporary" removal of all deleted stuff until fifteen years of BLPVIO was separated out... effectively forever in other words.  Even without worrying about the theoretical possibility of 'deleted' materials being REALLY deleted at some point in the future, there is the sociological problem of somebody needing to actually remember to undelete, and then somebody (else usually) manually performing the undeletion.  Perhaps it would make sense to create a WP:BOT called ContentCyrogenicPreservationBot, which could be programmed with a Template:AutoUndeletion to automatically leave a pre-programmed note at WP:REFUND after a specified timespan had passed?  The note could say something like "please undelete this material on or after 1st January 2027" but the bot could also be programmed to leave something customized like "please discuss with User:Teo Mora and User:D.Lazard whether or not to undelete the Teo Mora article" every five years or so?  This is off-topic for AfD but I would be interested in seeing this happen... in addition to 'cryo storage' of WP:GOLDENRULE content, this could function as a generic reminder-bot with various uses.  (We already have the G13 bot for AfC drafts which gives draft-article-creators a note on their talkpage when a draft has been stagnant for six months.)  47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me apologize for my hysterical reaction when I saw the article devoted to me, and let me express my sincere thanks to Daniel and to 47.222.203.135 for their support. Well, after all I, Teo Mora, think that I can survive to the existence of the article Teo Mora, if other wikipedians think it satisfies site-guidelinesTeo Mora (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Professor Mora, since you have reconsidered your stance and no longer wish for Teo Mora to be deleted, and the article-contents have significantly been altered in the past couple days, I will ping the folks that have commented above. D.Lazard, Nanuvutpanther, Xxanthippe,  Timothy Joseph Wood, Kmhkmh,  Orange Mike , David Eppstein,  Sławomir Biały ,  bd2412 ... does this new information alter your stances?  47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have nominated this article for deletion uniquely because of the wish of Mora. As he satisfies clearly our criteria for notability for academics, I am fine with keeping the article. D.Lazard (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with keeping the article if Mora doesn't want it deleted anymore as the principle (encyclopedic) notability as an academic seems established. However having said that, i don't really regard recent edits as much of an improvement. The article is imho still in rather sorry state state.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to jump in, I agree with you the article needs some help :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF now that Mora no longer requests the article to be deleted. As I said in my earlier (now struck) comment, he passes WP:PROF because of his many highly-cited publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm actually pretty torn on this. I respect the wishes of someone with an inconsequential stub to have it deleted, but what we have now is basically his CV, and Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. I would have a hard time arguing against the stub in an honest uninvolved go at it, and with an eye for what it could be, but I also have a pretty hard time arguing for keep when what we're keeping is little more than a list of publications with almost zero prose. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Err, methinks WP:TOOLITTLE applies? The publication-list is important to the AfD discussion obviously, because whether Mora satisfies WP:GOLDENRULE depends on whether one sees high cite-counts as 'significant' enough to establish wiki-Notability, or not.  (As first author, 268 + 245 + 211 + 129 + 126 citeCounts spanning years 1984 thru 2003, plus 679 + 228 + 204 + 170 + 128 citeCounts as co-author.)  Moreover, as a professor, inherently Mora's WP:N is necessarily 100% based upon his thoughts, written down in his published peer-reviewed work, and whether those works received significant cite-counts, or not.  So it only makes sense the BLP article will mostly be about "published foo in yyyy, then published baz in yyyy" type of events.  That said, there are a couple of book-reviews I recently added, which need to be summarized ("reviewer qux said book baz was 'not intended for beginners' blah blah"); that will add a small Reception section, or at least, a couple new sentences in the Life & Work section.  And of course, the publications-list has cite-counts in the thousands, and I'm sure that once somebody *reads* those thousands of scholarly pieces which cited Mora's work, there will be plenty of opportunity to insert additional body-prose details ("according to Faugère'99 overview-paper Mora's contribution to the 1993 paper was blah blah and characterized Mora's approach to algorithm design as blah blah blah" ... this is hypothetical, I actually looked through Faugère'99 and it has no such details, but there are thousands more to look through ).  In short, the article is still a stub, from my perspective at least!  Luckily in this case, we have access to both Mora and Lazard personally, since they are wikipedians -- my guess is that the article can be de-stubbified in short order, if we merely ask those folks for some pointers to where WP:NOTEWORTHY details about Mora's activities can be found.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no reason to expect that the final form of the article will resemble a CV.  I do feel that ultimately the article should attempt to have some more readable prose detailing his more important contributions, but there is no deadline, and WP:TNT certainly does not apply.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep - I'm not sure it matters at this point, since the fundamental (and overall fairly weak) premise of the AfD discussion no longer applies, and therefore disqualifies many of the early delete !votes, meaning that no consensus (de facto keep) is probably the worse possible outcome. This is the part where normally I would brew a strong pot of coffee and try to improve the article, but I'm afraid my only mathematical background is in statistics (read graduate level spreadsheets) so I'd probably do more harm than good if I tried. Anyway, as I said at ANI, seems exceptionally well published, and probably meets WP:PROF in principle, although it's not terribly well demonstrated in the article, which currently lacks substantial independent sources. In the case someone ever wants to really take the reins on this in the future, really do their homework, and argue against notability, I would probably be more comfortable with a close of no consensus anyway.


 * I would add as an aside though, that this is a good example of why heavily involving the subject of an article and those strongly connected with them is overall predictably messy, and generally not recommended. We fairly easily could have avoided both an ANI thread as well as an AfD if we had just taken a deep breath, gathered some patience, and tried to recruit some uninvolved qualified editors.


 * However, since we're here, I would also note that the one major advantage of having the subject within arms reach is that someone should take 30 seconds, snap a half decent photo (i.e., not one taken or owned by a university or other organization) and upload it to Commons for use in the article. If you need help with this, feel free to contact me. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a cc-by-sa-v2germany-licensed photo on the internet I ran across, but as you say, we have the subject of the BLP himself available, so I would prefer to wait until we can get some professor-approved. Refs are slowly improving, also thanks to having the professor immediately available.  Couple new refs added today:  2002 newspaper interview in Repubblica.it.  2014 television interview on Radiotelevisione Italiana.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per subject changing his mind. Nanuvutpanther (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 April 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.