Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vlado Keselj


 * 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. While the article is rather short, some substantial sources have been provided from the keep side, in addition to being clearly in the majority. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Vlado Keselj

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Not yet ready for mainspace Jenyire2 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: as per nom, article is not ready for mainspace. Zero reliable references, fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Changed reference to a more reliable reference, and one more reference added. I hope the page will not be deleted, and I plan to add more facts. "Vlado Keselj" is shown now as a recognized entity by Google, and this page should provide more verifiable information. Vlado1 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems to me to pass WP:Prof just needs some more work and the new editor might need help. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Comment. Among his coauthors who currently hold professorships (but excluding Kenneth Rockwood since he's clearly in a different field), Dr. Keselj appears below the median in his subfield for citations (K: 695, med: 865, avg: 1777), publications (K: 80, med: 93, avg: 111), and h-index (K: 11, med: 17, avg: 19). There are a couple recent-PhD teaching assistants with higher h-indices... I would say he does not meet the notability requirements for PROFC1. Other criteria also appear deficient, so leaning delete. JoelleJay (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Additional arguments for 'keep': Added the currently best result for the upper bound of the length of the Pierce series from 1996, result proven by Vlado Keselj, which is mentioned in . The work is also cited in . The most cited PACLING paper listed on the page has 555 citations due to an influential and simple CNG distance measure for authorship attribution, which will be added.  Google Scholar shows h-index of 20, which is relatively low, but although h-index is a helpful measure by itself it should not mean much for Wikipedia in my opinion. An award that needs to be added is Bronze Medal on International Math Olympiad 1987 . Vlado1 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 17:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like to disclose WP:COI regarding the page. My apologies about the late disclosure. I made minor Wikipedia edits before, but this is the first discussion I am involved in. Vlado1 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify. Both because of the COI and because, as argued above, the article is not really ready for mainspace. In particular, none of the content claiming that certain of the subject's contributions are important is supported by independent reliable sources, as it must be — the only sources are the subject's own publications. It is also oddly unbalanced because the article states that he is notable as a computer scientist in natural language processing (which I believe — his Google Scholar citation record looks strong enough for WP:PROF) but then almost all of the content is about two mathematical formulas, one of which is only tenuously connected to NLP and the other not at all. Alternatively if this is kept (rather than being a WP:TNT deletion) it should be stubbed down to basically only the first brief paragraph. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have stubbed it down - following David Eppstein's suggestion - in the hope that what remains is now just WP:PROF notable. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC))

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The citation counts in GS look high enough to meet WP:PROF to me. The article appears to have been stubified to deal with concerns raised by . I see no merit in draftifying; it's basically a 6-month-delayed prod these days. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF. I've struck my earlier comment, as draftification no longer makes sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.