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.
Keep: I'm seeing some high-citation articles from
Google Scholar, which suggests a
WP:NACADEMIC#1 pass. This is a high-citation field, but my guess is that 11 articles with over 1,000 citations would be sufficient even for machine learning? A more thorough check on Web of Science and Scopus, plus comparisons with other academics in machine learning may be warranted though. — MarkH21talk05:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
while his Scopus citations are lower
[1], they are still very respectable and > 30k. This is still a significant number even in machine learning. --
hroest14:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep. Clerly passes NPROF#1. Also the article needs some work, it seems to claim that Mikolov somehow decreased the existential risk from artificial general intelligence? That is highly vague and not encyclopedic. --
hroest14:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a high-citation subfield of a high-citation-field but even so these are stellar citation rates, and his top two are first-author papers with an ordering that appears to be meaningful rather than alphabetic. There also appears to be GNG-level coverage of some of his top research
[2][3]. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
05:48, 22 April 2021 (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.