551:
Thanks David. I am well-aware of this dynamic, i.e. that the CS culture assigns great importance to refereed conferences, so WoS will be at a "false-negative" disadvantage here. My main point was the converse: that GS is equally, if not more disadvantaged on the "false-positive" side of the balance
552:
sheet, for example it will include citations from unpublished documents, e.g. white-papers, which are certainly not of the same rank as citations from refereed publications. Be that as it may, I think we largely agree on this particular case. Thanks for the ping.
578:, or which he was senior author. Followed by 541 in IEEE Proceedings-Vision & Signal Processing, which is in the field as impt as any journal, a book with 431, then 486 , etc. This sort of record should never be questioned here.
530:. For this reason I prefer GS, at least for this subject, despite its somewhat-inflated citation counts. (This may be more computer engineering than computer science but I think it's close enough for the same issues to apply.) —
190:
89:
337:
377:
526:: WoS is a bad choice for computer science because it has poor coverage of conferences, which are more important than journals in many subdisciplines of CS. See e.g. the final bullet point in
420:. This is very badly sourced and should be trimmed to only material that can be supported by sources (primary sources may be ok for simple factual claims; no sources not ok). But judging by
503:. I'm usually a little squeamish about the filter-fed GS stats because even very obscure pieces routinely have a few dozen citations, but his '98 paper in Signal Processing has : -->
84:
184:
357:
143:
150:
397:
317:
244:
116:
111:
120:
295:
criterion 1? "The most typical way of satisfying
Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work".
103:
589:
561:
539:
513:
495:
461:
437:
409:
389:
369:
349:
329:
308:
283:
257:
236:
68:
205:
17:
172:
304:
268:- now, having examined the article, I agree with the IP nominator's assessment that this is just a CV of a non-notable person.
490:
446:
166:
608:
40:
162:
107:
535:
504:
200 citations according to WoS and he has some other cited papers there too, which I think should be passable.
433:
212:
604:
457:
36:
557:
509:
300:
99:
74:
178:
546:
531:
429:
198:
484:
62:
405:
385:
365:
345:
325:
254:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
603:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
527:
472:
425:
292:
55:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
574:
Fully meets WP:PROF on the basis of citation the very high level of 1387 for his paper in
553:
521:
505:
296:
421:
276:
229:
585:
476:
221:
Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. The deletion rationale is "resumé"
401:
381:
361:
341:
321:
248:
137:
449:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
269:
222:
580:
475:, according to his Google Scholar page. Much rewrite needed though.
597:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
291:
If he is highly cited, as the article claims, would he not pass
338:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
378:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
90:
Articles for deletion/Joseph Ó Ruanaidh (2nd nomination)
133:
129:
125:
197:
455:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
211:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
611:). No further edits should be made to this page.
358:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
8:
398:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
396:Note: This debate has been included in the
376:Note: This debate has been included in the
356:Note: This debate has been included in the
336:Note: This debate has been included in the
318:list of Ireland-related deletion discussions
316:Note: This debate has been included in the
243:Note: This debate has been included in the
245:list of People-related deletion discussions
395:
375:
355:
335:
315:
242:
85:Articles for deletion/Joseph Ó Ruanaidh
82:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
81:
24:
1:
628:
590:05:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
562:20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
540:19:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
514:16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
496:12:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
462:04:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
438:17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
422:his Google scholar profile
410:18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
390:18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
370:18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
350:18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
330:18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
309:15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
284:14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
258:14:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
237:11:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
69:11:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
600:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
471:. He does indeed pass
80:AfDs for this article:
424:he does indeed pass
576:Signal Processing
464:
412:
392:
372:
352:
332:
260:
100:Joseph Ó Ruanaidh
75:Joseph Ó Ruanaidh
59:
56:non-admin closure
619:
602:
550:
525:
493:
487:
481:
460:
454:
452:
450:
274:
251:
227:
216:
215:
201:
153:
141:
123:
65:
53:
34:
627:
626:
622:
621:
620:
618:
617:
616:
615:
609:deletion review
598:
544:
519:
491:
485:
477:
465:
456:
445:
443:
280:
270:
249:
233:
223:
158:
149:
114:
98:
95:
78:
63:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
625:
623:
614:
613:
593:
592:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
547:David Eppstein
532:David Eppstein
498:
453:
442:
441:
440:
430:David Eppstein
414:
413:
393:
373:
353:
333:
312:
311:
286:
278:
262:
261:
231:
219:
218:
155:
94:
93:
92:
87:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
624:
612:
610:
606:
601:
595:
594:
591:
587:
583:
582:
577:
573:
570:
563:
559:
555:
548:
543:
542:
541:
537:
533:
529:
523:
518:
517:
515:
511:
507:
502:
499:
497:
494:
488:
482:
480:
474:
470:
467:
466:
463:
459:
458:North America
451:
448:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
416:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
334:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
285:
282:
281:
275:
273:
267:
264:
263:
259:
256:
252:
246:
241:
240:
239:
238:
235:
234:
228:
226:
214:
210:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
164:
161:
160:Find sources:
156:
152:
148:
145:
139:
135:
131:
127:
122:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
91:
88:
86:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
66:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
599:
596:
579:
575:
571:
500:
478:
468:
444:
417:
288:
277:
271:
265:
230:
224:
220:
208:
202:
194:
187:
181:
175:
169:
159:
146:
61:
49:
47:
31:
28:
185:free images
554:Agricola44
522:Agricola44
506:Agricola44
473:WP:PROF#C1
426:WP:PROF#C1
297:Quasihuman
605:talk page
501:Weak Keep
402:• Gene93k
382:• Gene93k
362:• Gene93k
342:• Gene93k
322:• Gene93k
37:talk page
607:or in a
492:Contribs
479:TYelliot
447:Relisted
305:contribs
144:View log
39:or in a
528:WP:PROF
293:WP:PROF
289:Comment
250:Pishcal
191:WP refs
179:scholar
117:protect
112:history
266:Delete
163:Google
121:delete
586:talk
486:Talk
206:JSTOR
167:books
151:Stats
138:views
130:watch
126:links
64:Yash!
16:<
572:Keep
558:talk
536:talk
510:talk
469:Keep
434:talk
418:Keep
406:talk
386:talk
366:talk
346:talk
326:talk
301:talk
272:Reyk
225:Reyk
199:FENS
173:news
134:logs
108:talk
104:edit
50:keep
581:DGG
428:. —
279:YO!
232:YO!
213:TWL
142:– (
52:.
588:)
560:)
538:)
516:.
512:)
489:|
483:|
436:)
408:)
400:.
388:)
380:.
368:)
360:.
348:)
340:.
328:)
320:.
307:)
303:•
253:—
247:.
193:)
136:|
132:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
60:—
584:(
564:.
556:(
549::
545:@
534:(
524::
520:@
508:(
432:(
404:(
384:(
364:(
344:(
324:(
299:(
255:♣
217:)
209:·
203:·
195:·
188:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
165:(
157:(
154:)
147:·
140:)
102:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.