- 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 no consensus. v/r - TP 20:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taieb Znati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable academic page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, research gives no indication of importance. No reliable secondary sources can be found, all sources seem to be roll call for academic conferences or links to personal or university web pages. There is not enough evidence to justify an encyclopedia article. OhYeah098765 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As original article creator, I agree it is not notable and should be deleted as per guideline A7 of WP:SPEEDY. Page was created in a time before I fully grasped WP:GNG and should be removed. It is not encyclopedic in nature. Eternalmonkey (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the citation record is good enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So are we to create pages for every professor with a decent citation records? Why not document the truly notable ones who have exposure outside their field or broad exposure within their field to wikipedia and omit the others. Eternalmonkey (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. GS h index of 17 in a highly cited area and with many co-authors may just pass WP:Prof#C1, plus some appointments. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Appointments are for government bureaucratic positions and chairs of conferences. This information is appropriate for a personal or faculty webpage and not wikipedia. This information is readily available there. Is wikipedia a repository for faculty pages? I do not think it should be treated as such. Those in this very specific field are certainly more than capable enough to access all this information without resorting to this encyclopedia. It just does not seem encyclopedic in nature. Eternalmonkey (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Academic Afds are determined on the basis of the Wikipedia policies WP:Prof and WP:GNG. If you want to change these policies please debate them on the policy pages, not here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak
deletekeep Although I agree completely with Xxanthippe about the applicability here of WP:PROF, I don't think Znati meets C1 yet. GS is very unreliable for citation analysis. The Web of Science is more reliable, although admittedly undercounts in fields like computer science. Nevertheless, WoS lists 82 publications for "Znati T", none of which has been cited more than 10 times, with a total citation count of 78 and an h-index of 5. David Eppstein may have access to more appropriate databases for this field and perhaps his !vote was based on results from a search there. --Crusio (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC) based on David Eppstein's comment below, despite the huge unreliability of GS... --Crusio (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- WP:PROF specifically warns against using Web of Science for computer scientists (based on the advice of professional societies in the area) because of its poor coverage of conference publications. Google Scholar may be unreliable but in this field it is less unreliable than all of the alternatives. In Google Scholar, I'm seeing cite counts of 597 ("A mobility-based framework"), 212 ("A path availability model"), 194 ("Wireless sensor networks" Springer 2004), 152 ("Wireless sensor networks", Wiley 2007), 109 ("Predictive mobility support"), and then 68, 59, 47, 38, 33, etc., and an h-index of 17. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 09:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.