Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Porter

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. (non-admin closure) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Porter

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

Completing nomination for IP editor User talk:98.28.12.216. On the merits, I have no opinion at this time - though note that the article has been edited since the IP submitted their rationale on their talk page.

The detailed rationale reads thus: "Notability is not established whatsoever, only verifiability. Anyone can invent things and win awards. It comes down to third-party significant coverage to determine if this article stays." UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just added to his page the following sentence: "His 1980 paper "An algorithm for suffix stripping", proposing the stemming algorithm, has been cited over 5000 times according to Google Scholar." I don't know anything about stemming algorithms... but he seems important in his field... Maybe there is a need to look for more media coverage about him... Tradedia (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 for his multiple highly cited papers (six pubs with over 100 cites each in Google scholar, not counting the repeated entries for his 5000+-citation work) and for plenty of third-party coverage of his stemmer. Also a likely pass of #C2 for the Strix award. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to his landmark Stemming paper, Martin is a well known and highly respected professional in information retrieval being the first to deliver a commercial search engine based on the Probabilistic model - Muscat. Moderngirllive (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per David Eppstein's rationale. Qwertyus (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on overwhelming evidence above. Nominating admin could note that there is no obligation to give proforma help to such clearly inadequate AfD nominations as this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Not really - see WP:AGF. Even as an admin, I don't get to remove an AFD tag because I disagree with it - that's what the debate is for. If there's some procedural flaw, such as a missing rationale, then yeah - I remove the tag and tell the IP to go to WT:AFD. That's not the case here, as the IP had a rationale. In most cases, if an IP really intends to get the article deleted, then they'd just make that request at WT:AFD - where someone, admin or no, would create the debate on their behalf. Rarely indeed are such requests shot down, and then only for reasons such as lack of rationale or procedural faults (such as an article that had already been redirected, for example). Had the IP been a registered editor, and had they posted this AFD with this rationale, the result would have been the same. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 13 February 2012 (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.