Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asad Naqvi


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite 00:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Asad Naqvi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject utterly fails WP:PROF. Le Docteur (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Of all of the criteria at WP:PROF, only WP:PROF would seem to be potentially disputable. Of the subject's 26 papers listed on MathSciNet, he sole author of only one of them  which has not been cited anywhere in the literature or math reviews.  Of the remaining 25 papers, all of which were published with coauthors, I count only 12 citations from the literature (a few more if you count reviews).  Many of these are from other papers by coauthors, though.  For instance, the one paper that accrued the most citations was:
 * which has a total of 3 citations, two of which are from papers subsequently published by coauthors. I conclude that the subject has had insufficient impact to meet WP:PROF.  Le Docteur (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * which has a total of 3 citations, two of which are from papers subsequently published by coauthors. I conclude that the subject has had insufficient impact to meet WP:PROF.  Le Docteur (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. MathSciNet citation counts tend to be low especially in peripheral areas to mathematics (he is a physicist). The Google scholar citation counts are more respectable: 134 cites for "Rolling tachyons and decaying branes", 120 for "Giant gravitons in conformal field theory", 94 for "Space-time orbifold: A toy model for a cosmological singularity", etc. I think that's enough for a pass of WP:PROF. As well, I think it can be helpful to be less judgemental of non-western researchers in order to counter Wikipedia's heavy western bias. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted by David Eppstein GS cites are reasonable: top cites 134, 120, 94, 73 70.... h index = 16. GS cites are mostly to the physics Arxiv versions of papers but papers have been published in refereed journals also. GS cites may be better in this case as WoS and Scopus don't cite the Arxiv (correct me if I am wrong). The Arxiv, despite its defects, is a commendable attempt to make knowledge open source and break the stranglehold of commercial publishers. Notability is obtained here even without appeal to Western bias. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak Delete I'm hesitant, using Xxanthippe's criteria. An h index of 16 is below what is considered "professor" level, according to our h-index article. Here, I am reverting to the much older and more informal criterion of "more notable than the average professor." Given that, with the exception of one year in Pakistan, his academic career has been entirely in the West (MIT, UPenn, Amsterdam, Wales, IAS), I don't think we should give any special consideration due to western-centric biases.  Ray  Talk 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends how the term "professor" is used. It could refer to all ranks of professor in which case "average professor" would refer to the middle ranks of asssociate professor (neglecting any numerical weighting). On the other hand the h index article refers to full professors, the highest rank. It is not unprecedented for associate professors to be found to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes, hence weak. By "professor," I meant "full professor." I consider WP:PROF criterion 1 to mean really significant substantive contribution to a field, on a scale comparable to what one might expect from the other criteria (so, basically, a full professor who is a recognized authority in the field). I realize that others may differ in that estimate; I think this is an area where people can differ. I think really promising associate profs can pass, but these are usually exceptional cases, where the prominence I outlined is basically a forgone conclusion in their future. Ray  Talk 05:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep, per David Eppstein. Kinoq (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.