Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Mikolov


 * 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. North America1000 20:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Tomas Mikolov

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources mention him only in passing. He is not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: I'm seeing some high-citation articles from Google Scholar, which suggests a WP:NACADEMIC#1 pass. This is a high-citation field, but my guess is that 11 articles with over 1,000 citations would be sufficient even for machine learning? A more thorough check on Web of Science and Scopus, plus comparisons with other academics in machine learning may be warranted though. — MarkH21talk 05:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * while his Scopus citations are lower, they are still very respectable and > 30k. This is still a significant number even in machine learning. --hroest 14:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easily passes NPROF#1 per scholar profile. He also quite plausibly passes GNG (there are a whole lot of news items, many with his photo, in google news results though much of these are in Czech).-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Clerly passes NPROF#1. Also the article needs some work, it seems to claim that Mikolov somehow decreased the existential risk from artificial general intelligence? That is highly vague and not encyclopedic. --hroest 14:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I'll run the Scopus citation metrics on his coauthors but I find it highly likely he will still meet C1. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Scopus metrics of all 60 of Mikolov's coauthors with 8 or more papers:
 * Total citations: avg: 12837, med: 3874, M: 33258.
 * Total papers: avg: 78, med: 50, M: 40.
 * h-index: avg: 26, med: 22, M: 25.
 * Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 3179, med: 683, M: 12998. 2nd: avg: 1684, med: 341, M: 9511. 3rd: avg: 1128, med: 288, M: 2512. 4th: avg: 685, med: 241, M: 1690. 5th: avg: 562, med: 186, M: 1232. JoelleJay (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a high-citation subfield of a high-citation-field but even so these are stellar citation rates, and his top two are first-author papers with an ordering that appears to be meaningful rather than alphabetic. There also appears to be GNG-level coverage of some of his top research . —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear pass of WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2021 (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.