Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yannis Assael (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Yikes, let's put this in the rearview mirror. Thanks all for your participation, and thanks to the folks who sorted out the SPI in the middle of this. Ajpolino (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yannis Assael
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Recreation of an article that was deleted under AfD per WP:TOOSOON one year ago. The only change since then that I see is that he was on the Forbes 30 under 30, which we do not usually regard as contributing to notability (and indeed, which is often a sign that it is WP:TOOSOON). WP:BEFORE showed similar citation record as previously for WP:NPROF, and few other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources provided in the first AFD. No new deletion rationale is presented in this nomination. Enough reliable sources have been provided to justify my keep vote. Birdsandwasps (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — Birdsandwasps (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Er... The first AfD ended in a deletion. What notability criterion do you think the subject meets? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry I had another look at the deletion page. Forbes provides strong notability in conjunction with the rest of the sources (top journals and mentions in several reputable publications). I will try to expand the article during the weekend. Regards Birdsandwasps (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:Too soon for a very high-citation field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC).


 * Note I included mentions straight from the Financial Times, BBC, the Observer and Science Magazine. Surely, these are more than enough to comply with notability within international press? Birdsandwasps (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If a source doesn't mention the subject (as most of the ones you mention do not), or only mentions them once (as does the FT), then it doesn't contribute much towards notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC has shared a quote by the researchers, which links to the PDF version of the publication under their names. Financial Times and the Verge both mention Y.A., whilst Observer highlights Pythia too. I don't really see the problem here. Birdsandwasps (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I voted delete in the previous discussion but in its current state the article should remain. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — Mightberightorwrong (talk
 * Keep Sources seem reliable enough. Of course the article needs to be expanded, but the person is notable. Glucken123 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * can you comment on what notability criterion you think the subject passes, based on which sources? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, but your main argument that most articles on LipNet don't mention Assael's name is factually untrue. Let's see; the FT article highlights his name as one of the two lead researchers behind the development of Pythia [1 ]. How often do you come across experimental AI algorithms that are able to restore ancient Greek texts in a matter of seconds? That's why there is also a Wiki article on Pythia. In regards to the BBC article [2 ] on LipNet, not only mentions his name but also provides a quote from both researchers: Machine lip-readers have enormous potential, with applications in improved hearing aids, silent dictation in public spaces, covert conversations, speech recognition in noisy environments, biometric identification and silent-movie processing, wrote the researchers." That hyperlinked article is the PDF version of the pre-print publication, where Assael is evidently the lead author. I agree with your previous edit to remove Arxiv publications, but don't you agree that there is certainly some notability here? LipNet received national coverage in 2016 (a simple Google search is always a good idea). I also agree that the article lacked notability in its previous state however even users who participated in the previous deletion proposal, voted against deleting it this time. The latest version is full of references that should do the trick. I hope my response was suitably diplomatic 😌 Glucken123 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * it sounds like you are arguing that Assael meets WP:BASIC notability. (Well, with a side of WP:ILIKEIT.)  That would require significant coverage of Assael from multiple independent reliable sources.  The papers and preprints are not independent.  The FT mentions Assael in passing (as I had previously said) but I think this is far short of WP:SIGCOV.  I do not even see Assael's name anywhere in the BBC article -- perhaps I am missing something??  (Please tell me if I am!)  I also do not see him mentioned in the other articles in reliable sources.  It does look plausible to me that LipNet is notable, but notability is not inherited.  I agree that a redirect could be a sensible alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to elaborate (oh, and define 'significant coverage' pls!). You are asking for significant coverage, but this does not always apply to all academics-researchers out there. After all I am using both the citation profile and sources to back my claims focused on WP:SIGCOV notability. The fact that BBC (and the FT) clearly highlight the achievements of AI algorithms developed by Yannis Assael (Pythia + LipNet as a lead author) is more than enough to link the person to the subject even in articles where his surname is not mentioned. It appears that LipNet was mainly developed by two people, same as Pythia. The hyperlink I was referring to, can be found right after the quotation [1 ] (click on wrote the researchers or look at the hyperlink). Like I said, preprint publications should not be used on Wikipedia - you're absolutely right on this. However, the notability of some preprint papers (as they are lauded by the BBC as a breakthrough achievement in lip reading applications) should be considered encyclopaedic content, hence the mentions in other reputable sources. IMO all the above-mentioned achievements meet the notability criteria fully. Glucken123 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * academics can also reach notability through the WP:NPROF criteria, which I believe is what you are now referring to. This usually would require a high level of citations.  How high depends somewhat on the field.  Consensus in the last AfD from Wikipedians experienced with this set of criteria was that it is WP:TOOSOON for Assael in this regard.  "Wrote the researchers" is not a mention of Assael, except very indirectly.  I will answer some of your other questions about notability on your talk page. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - my point is that a medium level of citations alongside significant coverage on mainstream media can be combined in the case of Assael. AI is indeed a highly cited field and with the previous consensus, things could have been different indeed. In its current state, however, the article was significantly expanded as it presents evidence backed by solid references (and Forbes IMO also is reliable). It seems that we disagree about BBC, but that is ok. I will respond to your points on my talk page in a bit. Thanks! Glucken123 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Compared to the previous article there is now significant coverage about the person/research. The content is based on enough reliable sources: New Scientist (2x), Science, Financial Times, BBC, Verge, Observer, Independent etc. Finally, if the person has made breakthroughs that are used by NVIDIA, I am happy to vote for keep as a notable person. AntoniadK (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — AntoniadK (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The first AfD got it right here. Involved in a couple projects, but his actual role in them is unclear, and most of the press coverage is about the projects (many of the cited articles don't mention him at all). Nor would I call the press coverage in-depth; the item in The Verge is about the best of the lot, and it's only a brief interview. I sense a lot of churnalism and PR involved; these are the kinds of stories that don't even bother to seek out comment from someone not involved in the research. In principle, press reports could carry a researcher over the bar by talking about the work and not the person, but this is not the type of serious coverage that could qualify. His citation profile doesn't amount to a WP:PROF pass. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is very common in academia, opening any of the links of the published work in those articles I see from the authors list that was led/co-led all the research mentioned. For example the the Verge article that you mention is about his work "LipNet". I think that 15 news articles from BBC, MIT Tech Review, New Scientist is a reasonable number to show the credibility of the press coverage. AntoniadK (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will have to agree with AntoniadK on this. I find the comment on churnalism a little exaggerated and perhaps unnecessary? It does not look like PR at all. Theoretically speaking, the citation profile alongside the coverage can amount to a clear WP:PROF pass. On top of that there is clear proof that Assael is one of the two main researchers behind LipNet (check the research paper link on the BBC article) and Pythia, which is mentioned in the Financial Times piece. Birdsandwasps (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * New Scientist is dross. MIT Technology Review is often not a lot better. In this case, the Tech Review item is just a blog post summarizing a few other webpages; so, it's not WP:SIGCOV. The BBC item was based entirely upon the researchers' own preprint and an Internet comment thread about it. Should we call that "in-depth reporting"? No, we should have the bare modicum of self-respect required not to debase ourselves that way. Learn what churnalism looks like. The media reporting here is nearly pure PR, recycled for easy clicks. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment You might want to read WP:NEWSCIENTIST and WP:FORBES. Both notes appear to be quite clear on the quality of the sources. There is no evidence of any PR related to the BBC piece. Glucken123 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read them. "Generally reliable" is not universally reliable. Clicking one step further and reading the most recent discussion that the text at RSP is supposed to summarize, it turns out to be substantially harsher than the summary makes it sound. Setting that aside, which we probably shouldn't, the claim in question here is sensationalist and thus contentious, and so even WP:NEWSCIENTIST advises caution. WP:FORBES is beside the point: nobody questions that he really was listed on their "30 under 30". We're just saying that that isn't adequate to establish notability. The BBC story is so superficial that it doesn't matter whether it was originally motivated by a press release or not; it fails to be WP:SIGCOV. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The most recent discussion does not indicate any disagreements about the use of WP:NEWSCIENTIST in WP. It's just a discussion, completely unrelated to the reliability of the source. Therefore, I suggest you read the conversation you provided as evidence as users agreed that it is too early to tell. Next. Glucken123 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Completely unrelated"? A discussion where an editor says A lot what New Scientist does is frankly sensationalism and churnalism? And another editor stated They called me in two different occasions to ask for comments for an article, and badly misquoted me to make it more juicy? Sure sounds like a discussion of reliability to me. The sentiment was expressed that it was too early to tell whether being bought by the Daily Mail was bad, but no formal consensus was established in favor of that. And even if being bought by the Daily Mail has not changed them for the worse, they were already bad for contentious, controversial or sensationalist topics. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's try this again. Unless there is an official change in WP:NEWSCIENTIST, approved by other users, the article can still be used to back evidence in WP articles. So far, your comments have been somewhat.. volatile and counterproductive (see below [1 ] [2 ]). More specifically, the above response is just your own personal opinion as you are exclusively referring to comments shared by other users. All I can see is a big green light in WP:NEWSCIENTIST - pretty sure you can see that too. Imagine if others users looked at The Times or The Wall Street Journal (both green-lighted) and argued that, because of Rupert Murdoch they should not be used in WP articles anymore. This could only be made possible through a vote. Feel free to initiate that! Am I missing something here? I don't think so. Since this is a deletion discussion, why don't we stick to the policy and avoid any unnecessary POV, shall we? Glucken123 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What is "volatile" or "counterproductive" about comparing one publication described as a publicity stunt/vanity scam with another that has often been described in the same way? Or in pointing out that there were strong negative comments in a discussion that the summary at WP:RSP gives no indication of? I can indeed plainly see that New Scientist is listed in green at WP:RSP. What I have been saying all along is that even if we ignore common sense and take that as absolute gospel, it's still not a source that contributes meaningfully to notability in this case. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the sources added here are interviews, which are generally seen as iffy for the purposes of establishing wiki-notability. Since the interviews were seemingly prompted by the Forbes "30 under 30", itself a dubious proposition, I can't quite say that they represent the world at large taking note of the article subject in a meaningful way (glomming onto somebody else's near-meaningless publicity isn't the same as coming to an independent judgment that someone's work is important). I sincerely thank the editor for putting in the work to find them, but I can't say that they sway my opinion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not true as the article from To Vima discusses achievements within the field, including his other future projects involving machine learning. The second article from Kathimerini pays tribute to Forbes 30 under 30 indeed, but also discusses his achievements. Other authors have provided reliable sources such as the FT, Verge and Independent. Glucken123 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To Vima leads with the Forbes 30 under 30. Kathimerini explicitly chose to interview three people because they were on it. Ta Nea did the same thing (and apparently relied on Kathimerini for at least some of their information). These aren't sources, they're clones. As argued above, the FT did not give significant coverage. The item in The Verge is a brief interview, so again dubious for wiki-notability purposes. The item in the Independent is seemingly reliable, but also pretty insubstantial (short, and failing the "get a comment from someone not involved in the research" test). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Errr no! To Vima only mentions it as an achievement - it proceeds to discuss (in a long article completely unrelated to Forbes!) his research profile and projects. Kathimerini indeed interviewed the three Greeks because of Forbes 30 under 30, but still does not change the fact that it's the leading Greek newspaper! Finally, Ta Nea mentions Kathimerini in a different section - completely unrelated to Asssael. I did not say at any point that the Financial Times piece gives significant coverage. But together with other mentions (which are more than enough IMO) and his citation profile, could certainly make a strong case against a potential deletion of the article. Glucken123 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To Vima starts off with a non-achievement and treats it as an achievement, then provides some empty fawning; I can't honestly say that it's the kind of serious biographical profile which can help an interview count as a good source. I mention Ta Nea relying upon Kathimerini to indicate the shallowness of the reporting effort that seems to have gone into the blurbs they provided. The fundamental problem here is that we have a heap of superficial or otherwise mediocre sources, in a topic area that is rife with sensationalism. That's a bad foundation to try to build an article upon. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, no significant change since my delete opinion in the previous AfD, other than the "Forbes 30 under 30" listing, on which I agree with the nominator that this sort of early-career publicity is inadequate for notability in the absence of anything else. If there were a single 30 under 30 listing for all discipline globally, it might be worth something, but they break it down into so many subcategories by specialty and region that it becomes meaningless publicity, almost a vanity scam. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It does have a Marquis Who's Who feel to it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Support comes only from spas. 22:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Comment I added other mentions including TechCrunch and included three pieces from Greek media (Kathimerini + To Vima). One of them is an interview with Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation. Feel free to further-review those edits. Glucken123 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Passerby note that I blocked two !voters here per Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsandwasps, and that may be of interest to the closing administrator. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum to above All keep votes appear to be from sockpuppets and have been struck through. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2022 (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.