Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yannis Assael


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  13:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yannis Assael

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely fails WP:GNG. I propose the deletion of this article. The author who created this Wikipedia page appears to have a close relation to the person. Two users, who might be related to one another (possible sockpuppetry here), have been involved in creating articles and entries for the whole family: AntoniadK & Ggatsby - a closer look at their contributions could convince you. Furthermore, a number of unreliable sources along with personal websites, self-referential pages seem to appear. The lack of notability and suspected conflict of interest contribute to the above hypothesis. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: one of the users appeared and is deleting templates from the main article, and brings back lots of sources that either appear as advertisement of the article or contain personal websites. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — Mightberightorwrong (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Although I'm a little concerned that we appear to have two SPAs warring over this article, on the merits I think it's too soon for WP:NPROF for this 2019 DPhil.  (He is middle author on a fairly highly cited paper, and first author on a decently cited paper, but I don't think this is enough in a very high citation field.)  No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The user Mightberightorwrong in challenges WP:GNG and in bad-faith repeatedly removes content and links from an article with references to the New Scientist, Financial Times, Independent, BBC News, The Times and University of Oxford. I'm not affiliated to the subject, the article has significant coverage as the subject has multiple references in media with more than 130 news articles referencing him, and is reliable as all the links are credible sources, making it fully compliant with WP:GNG. Instead this move is in bad-faith as the edits are non-constructive. There are similar edits from two users (Mightberightorwrong and 79.66.195.193, Sockpuppetry) and their history indicates vandalism WP:Vandalism in multiple articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoniadK (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)  —  AntoniadK (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Update by AntoniadK: Following WP:NPROF, the person's work has had a significant impact in their discipline and outside academic. His work has been cited more than 1466 times (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DwHtHE8AAAAJ) and there are more than 150 media articles talking about multiple works of his (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=yannis+assael). The aforementioned highly cited article (702 citations) says that he was an "Equal contributor". Furthermore, the person has received a highly prestigious academic awards and scholarships from the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, where according to his LinkedIn he has been working since 2017 as a Senior Research Scientist. Finally, this suggestion for deletion is not about WP:NPROF, but is about edits in bad-faith by two accounts, Mightberightorwrong and 79.66.195.193, that have a history of vandalism in multiple articles, which is against a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Thus, I do challenge this deletion since it's not created by a user in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoniadK (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't understand where this is coming from? Is there a rule against nominating an article for deletion on Wikipedia? Have I violated WP's statute? If the answer's no, then I don't see what the fuss is about. User AntoniadK, who appears to be associated with the author and edited, plus created exclusively this very article, presented me as a vandal, which I am not, and attempted to distract others from voting. If there is enough notability here, other users are free to decide. In case the community votes to keep this article, then so be it. In the meantime, I will repeat my previous words regarding notability; even that small number of citations is not enough, in my opinion, to retain this particular person on Wikipedia. But, of course, that's just my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightberightorwrong (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Illegitimate section blanking without any reason or constructive comment, as shown in the history of edits, is an act of vandalism WP:VANDAL, specially when the sections contained references from unbiased sources such as New Scientist, Financial Times, Independent, BBC News, The Times and University of Oxford. Similar behaviour has been observed by the edits of 79.66.195.193 who acted at the same time with Mightberightorwrong, as well as in other articles with a similar behaviour. Last but not least, I share the same view that the community should decide for the deletion of this article, but the aforementioned behaviour is a clear indicator of the user's intentions and bad faith which goes agaist the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. AntoniadK (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a bold choice of words. I'd advise you against calling my edits 'illegitimate' as those terms are quite controversial on Wikipedia, and we are all editing on an open source portal. In regards to the so-called 'vandalism' that you have mentioned numerous times, can you provide specific examples of such behaviour? If you don't, it's another attempt to distract users from contributing to this conversation. Moreover, I have erased a number of sources that don't even mention the author's name (New Scientist, BBC etc), which justifies my previous action. Is that vandalism? I'm afraid not. May I ask you now if you're associated in any capacity with the author? If yes, then this is a clear WP:COI case and should be further-investigated. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notablility yet; up till now a no doubt good but run-of-the-mill scientist. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, new PhD and citability is too low for WP:PROF; no evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Does not pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO either as the sources listed in the article provide, at the most, brief mentions of the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:TOOSOON for a new doctorate. He has two publications with impressive citations but it's a high-citation subarea of a high-citation field and they tail off too quickly to convince me of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly a very bright guy but the sources are not about him. They quote him as co-author or papers etc and publish quotes from them but they are not not about him. Even searching through this storm in a tea-cup of deletions and accusations I struggle to find where notability may lie. I would happily argue that this guy is much more important than a dozen beauty queen articles which we have and certainly more significant that many hundreds or Rappers, YouTube stars or Manga comics, but we can't make exceptions because other stuff exists. Probably just too soon.  Velella  Velella Talk 12:52, 19 February 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.