Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladik Kreinovich


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Vladik Kreinovich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of an anonymous editor, whose rationale is copied from the talk page verbatim. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This article fails notability guidelines. It also doesn't cite any sources. The contents are trivial and in line with non-notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:3:3F60:F946:E50A:573E:463F (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. My personal opinion of fuzzy computing is not high, but his citation record looks like a pass of WP:PROF. The article contents are so minimal (current position and a well-chosen and small sample of his publications) that I don't think the sourcing issues are a big problem; there's nothing contentious here, and nothing that couldn't be sourced to a department faculty roster and library catalog. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Citations more than adequate for a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. There are literally zero independent sources cited (the three books listed that he co-authored cannot technically be considered WP references for an article about their author, and the only other "reference" - a link to his personal page - is by no means an independent source and wouldn't pass a muster of WP standards for secondary sources). So the above-cited WP:PROF is not applicable. To summarize the list of obvious reasons for deletion:
 * Article contents are trivial
 * Nothing at all establishes notability of the subject - a mere fact of having scholarly articles or books published is not enough
 * There are currently no independent sources justifying any claim for notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.194.117.160 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)  — 73.194.117.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as highly cited; academics are notable for their work. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:PROF requires reliable sources, but not 3rd party sources--Indexes and bibliographic data bases are reliable sources for publications and citation, and so are official CVs--tho we normaly had something external as well. The guideline is deliberately different from GNG,  and is one of our least controversial areas. Perhaps some other areas could do similarly and establish standards that fir the subject field.  DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources are not independent. How can we write a reliably neutral biography of this living person without access to sources that are independent of the subject?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep - Sorry, but the citation counts alone warrant inclusion. Sure the sourcing needs work, but that can be fixed.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:39, 8 May 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.