Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Tveit Alvestrand

Harald Tveit Alvestrand

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC due to lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Also does not meet WP:NACADEMIC - Scopus shows that his scholarly authorship consists of 4 non-memo articles with 18 citations total per Scopus while Web of Science reveals no articles. He also published RFC memos which should not count as "research", of which only RFC 2434 is heavily cited (Google Scholar gives 6 memos with over 50 citations and several memos of fewer citations) even if they did count, and 4 non-memo articles with 18 citations total per Scopus. Also sat on the board of a few standards organizations but that in itself doesn't grant notability. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being the subject of the article, I'm not going to take a position on this, but I fundamentally disagree with the poster's dismissal of RFCs as "memos which should not count" when determining notability. RFCs are, in my opinion, much more influential than most formally published sources. Alvestrand (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I do not mean that RFCs are not influential nor important. But they are not the usual peer-reviewed academic publications. If a particular RFC is highly cited by journal articles, conference articles, or academic books then it can certainly count towards "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" per Criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC.

In this case, it does not appear that these RFCs satisfy the above property (even the citations of RFC 2434 are almost exclusively from other RFCs). I'm not making the statement that your work is not influential, but that I cannot find evidence of it currently meeting WP:NACADEMIC nor the other notability guidelines. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say Harald's contributions in IETF, as specialist, Applications Group leader and writer was vital for the Internet we know today. Important standards such as all the email, directories and internationalisations standards were created in part or in full by him, and are still what carries our daily communication FrodeHernes (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — FrodeHernes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: With regards to WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, I have found one source from a reliable secondary independent outlet with significant independent coverage of the subject (the same exact article is also published here and a similar article by the same author appears here). I could not find another one but if someone does, that should be sufficient for notability. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not delete Harald. He taught us stuff. (Paul Vixie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.21.181 (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Noting that scientists are "referred to as 'academics' for convenience" and accordingly mapping the WP:NACADEMIC criteria to the context of the IETF, I would argue that authoring a dozen RFCs, half of which are BCPs (including the IETF's mission statement), already clearly satisfies the first ("significant impact") test, as well as the seventh test ("substantial impact outside academia") given the widespread adoption of said RFCs in industry. His membership on several selective and significant boards satisfies test three and/or five ("elected member" and "named chair" respectively), and being the chair of the IETF for a non-negligible time satisfies tests six and/or eight in this context ("highest-level post" and "chief editor" respectively). I also note that his IETF predecessor and successor both have articles with similar profiles, yet neither is listed in AfD. -- samj _in^out 07:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]