This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
It doesn't make sense that someone wrote that his h-index is inflated by 2 papers where he is the third author. First of all, they're a single textook, essentially expository work, which was reprinted in 2012; this is why it appears twice on google scholar. Secondly, it's impossible to inflate an h-index in this way. With only 2 document items you can increase the h-index by, at most, 2. His h-index is 53, so even without those 65,000 citations he still has h-index of 51 which indicates it's not inflated. His citation count is certainly inflated at 80,000 but that's actually not as uncommon for people who were working in machine learning/image processing/pattern recognition in the early days when he was. Finally, to say he's third author is disingenuous. While it's true, many mathematics/physics/computer science journals list authors alphabetically regardless of the significance of their contribution to the research work. Indeed, the ordering of the authors here is alphabetical which leads one to believe that it's not necessarily the case that Stork did the least work of the three or somehow doesn't deserve the citations generated by the work.
This page has been the target of repeated edits by an IP editor looking to add their own analysis of the subject's publication history and take on his import. This has been reverted by multiple editors, myself included. I recommend the editor reach consensus here on the talk page before reattempting this change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, same editor tried to insert opinions like the subject's contributions being minor and that " his h-index can be considered very inflated", then making believe he's not inserting opinions. That sort of WP:OR analysis is not appropriate to a WP:BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
