Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Wissner-Gross

Alex Wissner-Gross

Alex Wissner-Gross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is more subjective rather than per wiki policy, but he was an invited speaker to a conference I'm attending and I relied on wiki for information on him. He is definitely being treated as notable here.

• Likely does not meet notability guidelines (WP:PROF specifically). No obvious significant coverage from independent sources, other than about a TED talk he did, no major career awards yet, per Xxanthippe, his Google Scholar h-index is only 5, indicating no significant impact. He may be likely to become notable, but it doesn't seem like he already is. 0x0077BE [^talk/

contrib] 05:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with inadequate cites. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Promising, but way too early. --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as above, has had a very good career trajectory so far, if he continues at the same rate he'll probably meet WP:PROF at a point 15-25 years from now. WP:TOOSOON. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Classic WP:TOOSOON: WoS shows 40 citations (h-index 4), which is not surprising for a good post-doc on a notability trajectory. Agricola44 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

You should not vote multiple times and then not sign – it gives the perception of rigging the discussion. Please go back and sign each of your entries and remove all but one of your !votes. Incidentally, 112 citations and h-index of 8 falls pretty far below the conventional threshold for passing WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

• Strong keep. May not meet WP:PROF, but meets WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. There are numerous articles from separate publications that cover him and his work in depth: starting with BusinessWeek and the New York (both very in-depth articles). Also articles in Tech Crunch, Technewsworld.com, BBC and so on. Last few sources aren't as in depth, but taken together, especially with first two, suggests that he meets notability requirements. mikeman67 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

These sources are trivial mentions and anyway are WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC).

Not sure how the BusinessWeek or New Yorker articles are trivial - he's literally the subject of both of those articles (particularly BW, which is a profile of him). Those articles are also 12 years apart, and about different topics. But his notability doesn't come from either of those papers/inventions - articles also discusses his unique academic accomplishments. Not really a "one event" or news sort of occurrence. I think there's more than enough coverage to justify an article. Also disagree that BLP1E applies, since he's probably a high-profile individual (he did the interview with BW, for one, which disqualifies him from BLP1E). mikeman67 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"unique academic accomplishments"? He's just a standard post-doc. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC).

Do standard post-docs get New Yorker and Businessweek profiles now? mikeman67 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the New Yorker article, but I can't see how you can get notability from their statement "There is no reason to take [Wissner-Gross's work] seriously as a contribution, let alone a revolution, in artificial intelligence unless and until there is evidence that it is genuinely competitive with the state of the art in A.I. applications. For now, there isn’t." -- 101.119.14.120 (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with the success or failures of his work, it simply has to do with coverage. I still fail to see how all of this coverage isn't notable according to WP:BIO. mikeman67 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Edited the article to reflect his broad press coverage [1]. Also, Google Scholar shows 112 citations with a much higher h-index of 8. Finally, according to his CV at [2], he hasn't been a postdoc since 2010. bwentworth (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC). — Bwentworth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wissner-Gross's own Google Scholar page does indeed show 112 citations, but only because it lists several publications for which Wissner-Gross is not one of the authors (!). -- 101.119.14.65 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO1E. Appears to be known only for a single meaningless concatenation of symbols with the visual appearance of a mathematical equation. Despite what appears to be very heavy self-promotion, I don't think that should be good enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Notability isn't based on whether editors like or dislike an article subject's theories. It is instead established based on coverage in reliable sources, which he clearly has. mikeman67 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • You appear to have misread my argument. I'm not claiming that he's non-notable because he's doing bad science, or because he's a self-promoter. It's because there's only one notable aspect to the subject (the equation) that would be better represented by an article about the equation (if we posit it to be notable) rather than about the person. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • The Businessweek article was about nanotechnology. Most of the other articles had to do with a theory about carbon emissions through internet searches (those from around 2009). That's at least 3 separate theories that generated news coverage about him, and separated in time by around 20 years. mikeman67 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PROF per low h-index of 5. The self-promotion, press releases, and non-notable prizes don't contribute to WP:GNG either. -- 101.119.14.65 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Far short of academic notability, and could not find independent verification of WP:GNG either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. To me, major profiles in BusinessWeek and the New Yorker, as well as articles about Wissner-Gross and his work in Tech Crunch, Technewsworld.com, BBC io9, CNN, Forbes, The Telegraph ThinkProgress PC World etc. etc. clearly meet the WP:GNG. Certainly I've seen articles kept with far less press in national media. Also, I disagree with claims that he is notable for a single event, when the articles are from a period of nearly 20 years and from at least three separate theories (nanotechnology, carbon emissions, and the physics theory). mikeman67 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The confusion about what theory is does not serve your point, though I understand from the above that you are acting as the subject's promotion agent, not as an expert in his area of work. But even from the standpoint of promotion, I do not see "major profiles" here. Most of the material is not subject profile, but debunking of his odd scientific claims. Cranks and oddball scientists tend to elicit this type of coverage, sometimes for the better, but it would take more to establish worthiness for an encyclopedia. As for the profiles, they do not add up to scientific impact or general notability. By the way, in listing sources, blog entries should not be confused with the real thing. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I do wish you'd assume some good faith on my part. I don't know what promotion agent means, but I can assure you I've never heard of Wissner-Gross before seeing this AfD. Please take a look at WP:N - notability has nothing to do with the validity, scientific veracity, or legitimacy of a creator's work. It solely has to do with whether someone has received been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Whether or not an article's work has been the target of criticism is totally irrelevant to their significance. This, of course, would be an impossible standard for wikipedia editors to try to uphold. And again, I completely disagree with your characterization of his work as "odd scientific claims." I'd suggest you read the articles, as much of the articles criticize the interpretation of his work (and also I wonder how you can describe an MIT and Harvard research fellow as an oddball and crank scientist). mikeman67 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I do not see significant coverage of the subject, keeping in mind that we are talking about minor variants of high-brow "sources" in some cases. Also, do not confuse the visibility of the ideas with the notability of the subject, all the more as the most visible idea is not solely the subject's creation. If an idea is notable - and certainly here it behooves one to be clear about what a "theory" or other "contribution" is - it might deserve its own page; though the criticism of the subject's ideas is not good news in this case, as it speaks to poor science as well as poor reuse by others. As a scientist, though, it's a case of WP:TOOEARLY on the objective record.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)