 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 October 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Contested deletion
editThis article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Tore (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is written completely according to the same/similar template as that of other scientists in the field. I do not understand why this page is to be treated differently. I thought that wikipedia was supposed to be fair? Please explain.
The scientist is actually ranked as no. one in the world in his field in the period 2001-2012, as duly referenced. I thought that would be of enough importance.
- @Toredy: Not every person needs a Wikipedia page. Please read WP:N as well as WP:BLP. After removal of the sources that did not validate what they were being said to have validated, there is no notability. If you have mainstream, independent sources please add them to this article. You should also adhere to WP:COI and ask that this article be created by others if you believe it is notable enough, it should not be an autobiography. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand that not every person needs a wikipedia page. I was under the impression that when an academic is indeed famous for what he/she does. Has a proved record as the most active and most cited in his/her field (duly referenced), that that should be of enough general interest for others in the field. Isn't that fair wrt the readers and wrt all other similar pages? I have included all references to the work that made the person in question ranked as no one in his field. Isn't it notable enough to be so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Please see the 'Awards' section. In the field of software engineering, this is notable.
- @Toredy: Please read WP:IRS. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I have done so. I have read all the links you have mentioned. All sources are peer reviewed and published research sources. So, I don't see how wikipedia can't accept them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 23:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Toredy: that is not true. One of the removed sources was clearly written in first person about yourself. The other was your doctoral thesis, that did not substantiate you claim to a phd or a masters. The others are awards given out, none of which are by mainstream sources. {MordeKyle} ☢ 00:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
What is not true? Nothing has been written in the first person. I edited a phrase to make it better. Isn't that a good thing? All sources are published and peer reviewed sources, including the doctoral thesis. The reference to it is to a public library of peer review theses. Are you contesting the trustworthiness of the library of the Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology? So, I don't understand what you mean by did not substantiate my claim to a PhD? To the awards and rankings: these ARE the mainstream sources of the discipline. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), for example, that is behind the Impact Award is "the world's largest scientific and educational computing society." (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Computing_Machinery) As for the other references, they are from the mainstream peer-reviewed outlets in the discipline. All I did here was to create a page with the best intention to be neutral, just as similar pages, of other notable academics in the field are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Please be aware that when you put up big "posters" on top of the page asking for internet searches of words with special characters, these searches will only return a sub-set because many spell e.g. "Tore Dybå" as "Tore Dyba", and that it also often will occur as "T. Dybå", "T Dybå", "T. Dyba", or "T Dyba". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm putting in a lot of text here, but according to wikipedia's own definition of notability, the page should stay without all the red flags. Let me cite a little from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics):
"Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.... 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. ..."
Wrt the award presented by the ACM, I ask you to read http://www.sigsoft.org/awards/impactPaperAward.html that explains that the award is for the paper that has had the highest impact the last 10 years! It meets both of the above criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Toredy: the award citations are not in question. The others are. Your dissertation is irrelevant to what it was citing. Also, the source http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1317449/ is written in first person, and reads as an advert. {MordeKyle} ☢ 01:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The abstract you're referring to is the official, peer-reviewed abstract of the paper that received the Impact Award. The page clearly meets the prof. test:"1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."
The references provided substantiates this through their original, reliable sources showing 1) Ranked as no one on the world based on number of publications and number of citations and 2) receiving a Paper Impact award for the paper with the highest impact in the field during the last 10 years. I'd like to now why you think these facts do not meet the above stated notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 11:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Toredy: The source you gave is just the dissertation. {MordeKyle} ☢ 19:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The source for what? I honestly have to say that I'm lost wrt what you mean. The question here is about academic notability. That is clearly documented in the awards section with due reference to the original sources. I still miss a good explanation as to why this doesn't meet the academic notability guidelines... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Toredy: I'm really not trying to be mean here, but for someone with a phd, you need to work on reading comprehension. {MordeKyle} ☢ 19:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Please explain yourself. You have still to answer/comment to the facts here: academic notability as stated in the awards section. Which of these refs (that are to the original sources of rankings and awards) are you questioning? I still don't yet see any objective and unbiased argument against academic notability.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)