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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Crochemore[edit]

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

Subject does not hold a named chair, does not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC, and refs consist solely of non-independent sources. Subject needs to have evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. KDS4444 (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability claim: subject is notable for having a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates: 100 peer-reviewed publications in reputable academic journals and close to 1400 citations in ACM DL. [1] Subject is also notable for having an honorary degree from a reputable university. TheoreticalComputerScientist (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His many highly cited publications (14 with over 100 citations each in Google scholar) give him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. And the honorary doctorate and festschrift, although not definitive, are highly suggestive of notability, and they also provide non-trivial coverage about the subject, already cited in the article (falsifying the nominator's claim that the sources are all non-independent). Also note that holding a named chair is in no wise a requirement for having a Wikipedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment David Eppstein, please, I never suggested that having a named chair was a prerequisite for notability— how ludicrous. I indicated that this criterion had not been met, by means of listing the criteria which I felt had not been met to establish notability. If you want to criticize my nomination, please do so on other grounds, yes? I have known you here for years now, and am surprised you would make such a suggestion. KDS4444 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very first criterion (WP:PROF#C1) is about citations. If you were merely "listing" various criteria, why didn't you discuss the citation record then? — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep as the subject is a well-cited researcher. The nominator should understand WP:ACADEMIC properly before nominating articles for deletion. The references being primary (even in a biography) is absolutely no reason to delete an article (see WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Stringy Acid) Great. Can you provide evidence of coverage of this subject in independent reliable secondary sources? That would be great! Thanks! Also, "Snow keep" is not a kind of vote. If you wish to vote "Keep", you can simply write "Keep." No need to bring in the snow just yet. References being primary are, indeed, not a reason for deleting an article, I grant you— my argument is that they are not grounds for retaining it. N'est-ce Pas?? Lastly, I don't think it is my obligation to specifically state each criterion which has not been met— I merely mentioned that one by way of example of criteria which looked like they had not been met. I don't need to be insulted or told to review the details of a notability guideline. This is clearly getting ridiculous. If you want to bite people, perhaps you have other friends you can lay this on. You have only 223 edits to your name— you need to act somewhat more professionally here. KDS4444 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's your obligation to make good arguments if you want this article to be deleted. You have to at least discuss why this subject's citation record doesn't give him notability, especially when as per WP:PROF, a high citation count is good enough for it (e.g., is the citation count high due to self-citations?). I'll ignore the sarcasm and snide remarks, and simply point out that it's highly unlikely that this article is going to get deleted (and therefore the "snow" vote). — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: Since you were also concerned with the lack of non-primary sources, the forward to the special Theoretical Computer Science issue on Prof. Crochemore's work gives more than an adequate biography. The special issue was edited by independent authors, and was published in a reputable journal. I hope this satisfies you. Now only if you'd take down this bogus nomination. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could, but I have already left this conversation. Too acid for my tastes. KDS4444 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2017 (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.