Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Reiff-Marganiec

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. The consensus below is that his academic accomplishments are insufficient to support an article in the absence of independent, reliable sources, which have not been found. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Reiff-Marganiec

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

I admit that I am not an expert in the field, but I cannot find any evidence here of the sort of widespread enough publication that would pass WP:PROF. Where are the independent sources? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Edited 3 books (and one special journal issue: see [1]' also 50 peer reviewed publications, many in IEEE/ACM publications. One of them has 240 Google Scholar citations and 118 in Scopus (the usual 2:1 proportion) , "Feature interaction: a critical review and considered forecast" by Caldera, Kolbergb, Magillb, & Reiff-Marganiec in Computer Networks Volume 41, Issue 1, 15 January 2003, Pages 115-141; another "Feature interaction in policies", by Reiff-Marganiec & Turner in Computer Networks Volume 45, Issue 5, 5 August 2004, Pages 569-584 has 49 GS / 22 Scopus. (overall h=15). Probably enough to show expertise in the subject. Did the nom look at the list of publication--it's linked in the article. It's certainly "widespread" enough, though that's not the usual criterion (rather we usually judge by the citations, and I think they're borderline, but the books add to it.) DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I glanced down the list. Unfortunately, as you say, having published lots of articles is fairly meaningless (especially in a discipline such as computer science, where journal quality has been criticised before) although I agree that the books are useful in that regard. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His one high-citation work in Google scholar is a survey paper co-authored with his thesis advisor. The citation counts are respectable but not really high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see anything else in the article that can substitute or that can pass a different criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no even close to notable due an almost complete lack in independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 16 November 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.