Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. David Sánchez A.

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. WP:V problems in a WP:BLP are a particularly severe problem, and the "keep" opinions do not go in as nearly as much detail in addressing it as the "delete" opinions. Sandstein 19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V. David Sánchez A.

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

Content not of general interest. Some content on the page is debatable, much of the content is not verifiable. (see discussion page) Ericbodden (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "not of general interest" is not a good deletion rationale. With the awards and journals, there appears to be plenty evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This guy was editor-in-chief for Neurocomputing (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/neurocomputing/) for volumes 1–55. It's indeed a bit odd that he isn't listed as an IEEE Fellow here, but that could be because this list only claims to include "active" members. Would need a good bit of copyeditting at least, as he seems to be suffering from a bad case of unwarranted self-importance: [1]

Prof. Dr. V. David Sánchez A., Ph.D., is a Fellow of the IEEE with the following citation: "For leadership in neural and parallel computation, and pioneering contributions to autonomous space robots". David is the youngest IEEEFellow in history worldwide. The IEEE Fellow is the world most prestigious award in Engineering, i.e., the "Nobel Prize" in Engineering.
David's research and development topics and activities are well ahead of anything being done at the national lab level, academia, or industry worldwide. David always hands-on leads and works with the absolute best of any discipline in the most challenging technological, scientific, and engineering endeavors. In the high-tech industries, he is currently working on several U.S.$ 1+ billion breakthrough technologies. Market segments that apply include aerospace, defense, telecom, multimedia, biomed, ASICs, software, science.

—Ruud 02:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paragraph about him on this teacher's handbook published by the Peruvian government, on the subject "Space travel and the new image of the universe. Peruvian contributions to the knowledge of interstellar space". It states that he took part of a NASA project on the development of a mechanical arm to assist the shuttle during the voyage, and that he is a fellow of the IEEE of Germany. The content is sourced to a previous fascicle for teachers also published by the government, but it doesn't say which number. The text, though, has an addendum at the bottom saying that they received a letter of clarification, and in response to it they added a translation of this page to the information. If we don't consider the IEEE fellowship, the mention seems enough to me to push the subject over the notability bar because of it's national scope, but the correction is very concerning — Frankie (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of the total lack of second-party sources, WP:BLP, and the controversy over whether parts of the article are a hoax or not. If he really were an IEEE Fellow, then he would clearly pass WP:PROF, but our only evidence for that is an uploaded image of a certificate that could easily have been doctored, and the evidence against (lack of mention on IEEE web site, lack of many IEEE publications, especially recent IEEE journal publications that would list the fellow status in the author byline) is strong. We can argue about whether editing Neurocomputing (which does seem to be verifiable) is enough for notability after we have sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are substantial biographical details at the end (p169-170) of one of his articles here: Neurocomputing 42 (2002) 147–170 - But this is in an article by him the journal he edited. There is also some additional evidence here: Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS) Past seminars (You might find the appropriate bit searching for Sanchez (Msrasnw (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Comment The way I see it, this article should either be fully backed by reliable sources (or cut down to information that can be backed by such sources) or should be deleted. The former will be very hard to do given the little factual information available online about this person. In addition, if not deleted, the article should be freed of any overstatements. Nobody I know would call an IEEE fellowship the "Nobel Price of Engineering", this is just plainly inappropriate. But considering all that has been said above I still don't see a good reason for keeping the article at all.Ericbodden (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass of WP:Prof via his having been editor-in-chief/founder of Neurocomputing (journal) and biog details in that journal and on Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (which might count as second-party sources) page indicated above. I too think the article could benefit from tidying up the overstatement of the case. Perhaps I should start this now! (Msrasnw (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- How difficult is it to start an Elsevier journal? For example, they have published a bogus journal (Chaos, Solitons & Fractals) in the past. I'm in no way claiming that Neurocomputing is such a journal, just that being founding editor-in-chief might not establish notability on its own. —Ruud 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not demonstrated; editorship of a journal notwithstanding. Note: I declined to delete this under WP:CSD#A3 (hoax) because it wasn't obviously a hoax, and further investigation seemed to point toward it being more or less genuine. But I still don't think the subject is notable. See the article's talk page for one or two minor details. Frank | talk 13:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question WP:Prof says the Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.. Why is this chap's IEEE Fellowship and his founding and chief editorship of Neurocomputing (journal) enough for notability? Both seem to have been established by reliable sources. Elsevier is a respecatable publisher and the journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Indices and it includes info on this fellow (See P169–170). This would seem to me reliable. Is there some info about that Hoax accusation and denying his IEEE fellowship that I am missing as he seems to me to clearly pass WP:prof via these?

Wp:prof #3 The person ...has been an elected ... a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).

WP:prof #7 The person .. has been the .. chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

(Msrasnw (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Too many WP:V and WP:BLP problems here. The claim to being an IEEE Fellow is almost certainly either false or misleading. Being an elected IEEE Fellow is a permanent designation (basically until the person dies). The fact that, as Ruud notes, Sanchez' name does not appear in the list of IEEE Fellows at the IEEE website [2] indicates that the claim is likely false. Moreover the wording used in the article - "He was awarded the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Fellow Award in 1995" - suggests that it may have been a grant (research or travel fellowship rather than being elected an IEEE Fellow), which is not what WP:PROF#C3 has in mind. The article also says that "In 1997, Sánchez was invited to become a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). " Being a member of AAAS is no honor at all - anybody can join AAAS by filling out an application form and paying a fee; being an elected Fellow of AAAS is a significant honor but Sanchez is not an AAAS Fellow. The only serious claim to fame here is having been the editor-in-chief of Neurocomputing. I checked the JCR and this journal is listed there under the category "computer science, artificial intelligence". In 2010 it has the impact factor of 1.442, which ranks it no. 50 among the journals in that category. Moreover, looking up the impact factor for the journal for the previous years shows that in 2006 it had the impact factor of 0.86 and in 2007 of 0.85, considerably less than the current impact factor. The article says that Sanchez was editing the journal for the first 15 years of its existence, that is, presumably from 1989 to around 2005. It appears that during that time the journal had much more marginal standing than even its current modest no 50 ranking in the "computer science, artificial intelligence" category. I do not think that this satisfies WP:PROF#C8. There are quite a few other red flags here. The citation record for his work in GoogleScholar, and the WebofScience is minimal, almost non-existent. Also, even for the run-of-the mill researchers in any given field, a plain google search for their name usually produces a large number of hits giving links to conference and seminar talks by these researchers. Googling gives almost nothing of the sort here. All in all, too fishy, too self-promotional, and has too many WP:V and WP:BLP issues. Nsk92 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak academic track record (DBLP, most articles were published in the journal where he was founding editor-in-chief). He seems to have worked mostly in the aerospace industry, but the details are all completely unverifiable. I'd be surprised if the IEEE Fellow certificate was faked, but this seems again not possible to verify. He carries the title of Professor, but I could not find any universities with which he is supposed to be affiliated. This presumed autobiography is too suspicious and promotional to let it stand. —Ruud 18:50, 4 January 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.