Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Albouy

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. NW (Talk) 03:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Albouy

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

It looks like a self-promotion webpage. The only possible claim to notability seems to be the Daron Acemoglu incident mentioned in the Research section. Discussing among each others is what academics do, so I don't think it warrants a separate entry for Albouy. CronopioFlotante (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~I have found this thread on an economics rumors webpage. It seems to confirm that~~ the notability criterion is not satisfied. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with David Eppstein in that the thread with anonymous posts I linked to in the previous comment is irrelevant. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like most articles here on assistant professors, this seems to have been created too early in his career, creating more harm than good. I don't think a thread full of anonymous and unsubstantiated put-downs of Albouy has any relevance for our deliberations, but there's no evidence in the article here nor in the citation counts from Google scholar that his research has as yet had the impact necessary to pass WP:PROF #1. I'm pretty sure he doesn't pass any of the other criteria, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS search confirms his CV: 1 publication (0 citations) – absolute no-go on WP:PROF #1. No other reasonable claim to notability. Agree with David Eppstein on the assistant professor articles and wish there would be some acceptable way to reduce the collective time spent by so many individuals on evaluating these. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete on above findings. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Procedural relist — this seems never to have been properly listed in the first place, and it needs to be closed, but I participated in the discussion so I can't close it myself. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vow a clear cut CV pasted here. -- MARWAT 05:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like Agricola44 I am suffering from deletion fatigue. Above recommendation to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Location (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (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.