Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Szegedy

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 of the debate was Speedy keep according to guidelines. Capitalistroadster 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Szegedy

As per Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Seems to be a vanity page created by the subject, as the only 'real' information is a link to his website. No real information about his work in mathematics is given, and the fact that he's a prize winner is already referenced on the prize page. That's the only real content. I suggest simply deleting this and referencing the field for which he got the prize on the prize page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drnj85 (talk • contribs).

• keep. And if you know any faculty member who got himsef a small Gödel Prize, put him here. `'mikka (t) 08:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep more notable than the average professor by virtue of the prize. MLA 09:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly valid stub on apparently notable computer scientist. Google Scholar shows several highly cited papers. It is always nice to have more on the actual research of an academic, but there is no consensus on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) that a stub that otherwise establishes notability should necessarily be deleted. u p p l a n d 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, two Godel Prizes clears Notability. Being stubby does not qualify one for AfD. Alba 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above, he's notable. ProhibitOnions 13:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, conspicuously notable; inadequate articles on notable subjects should be expanded, not deleted. Monicasdude 14:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Bad faith nom from user making first edit at wikipedia [1]. As such, a "vote" from this user would be discounted and the nom should not stand. -- JJay 15:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO... and WP:AGF JJay. You have no evidence this nom was made in bad faith.--Isotope23 16:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe not, but do you make the same statement every time a new user with no edits who participates in AfD is essentially branded a sock puppet? Where is the AGF in that? If I put a sock warning here, would I be wrong? Why is it considered normal to begin editing at wikipedia by tagging something for AfD? I'll retract if the nom decides to make a 7th edit explaining really why this should be deleted. -- JJay 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• If someone was opining "Bad faith opinion from first time wikipedia user", yeah I would probably cite WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, or WP:AGF. Is starting with an AfD nom normal? Nope... but unless you have some evidence this is a sockpuppet or an intentional bad faith nomination, claiming bad faith is a bit bad faith in and of itself. This could be a sock AfD by someone with an axe to grind; or it could just be someone who has no idea about WP:DP. You can infer what you will from the correct AfD formatting on the first try by a new user... but unless you have evidence, it's just not necessary to make that claim.--Isotope23 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep JeffBurdges 16:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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.