Talk:Edward Karavakis

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because I am just adding autobiographical information about myself from a neutral standpoint without advertising myself and by providing references and external links. --EdwardKaravakis (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

COI Disclosure

COI Disclosure: In the interest of best adhering to Wikipedia's WP:COI guideline, and also taking into account guidance outlined in the plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I find it important to disclose upfront that, where appropriate, I propose changes (via Talk pages) to articles related to CERN and to grid computing. I am here to advance Wikipedia's aims of building a neutral, well-sourced free encyclopedia, and will not at any point allow my own interests to supersede those of the project.

I have carefully read through Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources, and see it as crucial to follow these and the other core content and conduct policies closely. I am firmly opposed to non-encyclopedic puffery, marketing speak and original research that would detract from the project's aims. Although I rarely propose the creation of new articles (and when I do, I leave the final decisions up to the consensus of others), I am mindful of what constitutes enduring notability.

I recognize the inherent challenge of contributing to the Wikipedia community while mitigating the chance for bias presented by a conflict of interest, and for that reason I always ask for independent input and seek out consensus via article Talk pages and related Wikiprojects before any substantive changes are made. While I initially made direct edits after establishing consensus, I now refrain from making any direct edits myself, and instead choose to propose suggestions on Talk pages and allow uninvolved editors to make the final call on whether or not my proposed changes should be implemented into the article. With this approach, I seek to bring a subject matter expertise and ability to obtain hard-to-find reliable sources to the community (to more fully bring articles up to Wikipedia's own standards), while also ensuring that resulting changes to an article are the product of community consensus.--EdwardKaravakis (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability Contested

@Ldm1954: I noticed that you approved the article for creation, and I'm having trouble understanding how the subject is notable based on WP:NACADEMIC. The article lacks a clear assertion of notability, and I couldn't find reliable, independent sources specifically describing the subject or the impact of their work. While the subject has over 90,000 citations, its worth nothing that papers in the field of high-energy physics often have a large number of citations with over hundreds of authors. An average person in those fields is thus likely to have a very high citation count, and I don't think that should be the sole metric for determining notability. Would you mind sharing your perspective on what makes the subject notable? -- AquaDTRS (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@AquaDTRS, I view publications as a necessary but not sufficient measure of a scientist's impact. For appointment to a prestigious chair at an R1 university, or when someone is nominated for a significant award, other parts of their CV are critically considered. His publication record is a partial contributor to notability, but on its own might not be enough because, as yet, he has no major awards. I have for certain seen others defending scientists with significantly weaker publications and awards as notable, which I disagree with and will almost always decline in WP:AfC if I see them. What to me was decisive was the external reporting in sources 6 & 11 as well as the outreach in 20-24. I added these to his publication record and decided that, combined, he passes notability. -- Ldm1954 (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I reviewed the references previously and I don't think they're strong enough to establish the subject's notability. In #6, the subject was interviewed on his experience as an Greek intern at CERN and was quoted twice, but it does not describe his work or how his contributions were significant in the field. The subject was also not the focus of the reporting as there were others who were interviewed together (collectively as Greeks working at CERN). #11 appears to be a profile page for a mentorship program. It appears that anyone can volunteer for it if they meet the requirements, so it is not highly selective. For #20-#23, I would consider outreach from CERN to be a primary source since the subject is working there. It doesn't describe his main work or his contributions to the field, but his experience working at the Foundation. (Also #21 and #22 are the same video.) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

After spending some time on the page and having the author rewrite significant parts, I came to the opposite conclusion. I completely disagree with you about the relevance of the outreach and similar, and a sizeable fraction of academics will as well. As you probably know, in the US when applying to grad school or junior faculty positions these are carefully scrutinized, as they are in NSF proposals. The days of ivory tower academia are gone. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: No, no I'm not disregarding the relevance of having outreach. One can be notable for being an excellent science communicator without necessarily climbing all the way up the academic ivory tower. Rather, the point I'm making is that sources #20-23 all originate from the CERN & Society Foundation, where the subject is actively involved. The sources are therefore likely to be primary and may not be completely independent of the subject. It is possible that someone can reach out to the social media team of the organization they work for and request to be featured in the next video or social media post, and since an organization can feature anybody they want in their social media, that doesn't necessarily imply that the subject's work had a significant impact in the field. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The CERN & Society Foundation is separate from CERN, and I am 99.9% certain did not pay the subject. For certain at BNL he is not being paid by them, although that may not matter. I would put your "it is possible that someone can reach out to the social media team" in the 0.1% likelihood regime. I have seen AfC where there was clear intent to mislead with references that either pointed elsewhere or were irrelevant. I have also see cases (not yet on Wikipedia) where someone co-opted others work. I see no indications of anything disreputable here. Innocent until proven guilty.

I did briefly look at some of the cases you have recently reviewed. I saw nothing that I would disagree with. It is interesting that you feel I have been a bit "soft", at least in this case; others have accused me of expecting too much. I suspect that our criteria are not that different, except herein where I am weighting the outreach higher. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, just to clarify some things. I was never an intern at CERN. I did my PhD during 2008-2010 (being based in London), I was hired as a post-doc being based at CERN from 2010-2013 and as a CERN Staff from 2013 - 2021. The interview article basically mentions: "This fact is also confirmed by Edouardos Karavakis, PhD in computer science, working at CERN with a contract until 2018". The article is from 2017. Regarding CERN & Society foundation, I was first contacted by them in 2021 since I am an early supporter (among with other early supporters) - obviously I did not get paid to appear in their internal campaign... I was invited to be featured in a video campaign to build awareness among the CERN community about the CERN & Society Foundation. The aim of this video was purely informative and no call for donations was made. The video was played on screens across the CERN site and on small snippets of it ended up on CERN's social media handles. I could prove it if needed (by forwarding the invitation email). EdwardKaravakis (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)