Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Karp


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Brad Karp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficiently sourced article about a living computer-scientist. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I just need someone to find CV, Google Scholar itself says that his h-index is high enough to be included. Ask if you don't believe me.--Mishae (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you kindly refer to WP:SCHOLAR, our notability guidelines for researchers. H-Index may be used as a rough indication of notability but is not of itself enough to show notability. As per General Notability Guidelines we look for significant coverage in secondary and tertiary sources to show notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. H-index as of 2008 21, current 23 It fits #1 perfectly just by looking at his latest work which was cited over 6,000 times. Not many academics have such high praised works. I seen from 300 to 500 citations per work, but not over a thousand for a single one. The required h-index to sustain notability is 19, mine is slightly above it.--Mishae (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've chosen to disregard the guidance about H-Indexes, specifically that they "may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution since their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used". Usually criteria #1 would be demonstrated by showing reliable sources that attest to the importance of this subject.
 * Could you kindly show the relevant rule or policy which backs up your statement: "The required h-index to sustain notability is 19" --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know the policy, but what Randykitty says I follow, he is an expert in this field. For further info leave him a message. There was numerous deletion discussions in which both him and me participated, now that you should find on your own. As an example, I can give you this to read.--Mishae (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't usually think that one article could make someone notable, but Karp has one that was cited over 6000 times since 2000. Can't remember ever seeing something like that. But let's just shove it aside for a moment. Even without that one phenomenal article, he has 1200 citations and a GS h-index of 22. That alone would make him meet WP:ACADEMIC#1, but in combination, there's no doubt at all. --Randykitty (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Would you care to respond to Mishae's suggestion above? I would be grateful if you could cite relevant policy that shows h-index values can be used to show notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * One has to wonder if those Google Scholar numbers for Brad Karp are correct. It's extremely rare for a computer science paper to have that many citations and ... drum-roll ... it's topic not to have a Wikipedia article. Taking another (Richard) Karp's work as example, Karp's 21 NP-complete problems - the original paper has about 8K citation according to GS, but that founded a sub-field... On the other hand Greedy perimeter stateless routing?? Hell, it beats Cook's Theorem according to GS which has a bit lees than 6K gcites , Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've asked someone "in the know" and got told that it is possible... because there was a huge academic publication bubble in wireless mesh networks / wireless ad hoc networks / mobile ad hoc networks / vehicular ad hoc networks / wireless sensor networks, most of which (I was also told) has yet to have any real-world impact. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is what WP:SCHOLAR warns us about: What may be considered a remarkable h-index value varies across fields of study and time, hence no single score gives inherent notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems right. The paper for AODV (a more notable protocol than B. Karp's — I would think — because even I had heard of it) has ... 16715 gcites. Now Samir Das is going to have heart attack when he hears that he is much more famous than R. Karp, but he still doesn't have a Wikpedia page! Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And to round it up, OSPF, which is widely used, unlike the above, only scored 3K gcites. Ok, ~5K if we magnanimously add the cites for the multicast extension paper and the 500 gcites the book has.) I guess John T. Moy is going to have to suck it up! Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, User:Mishae obliged us with a quickbio for Das in which we are told that "he did many researches in computer engineering and computer science fields". I also had a similar moment of hilarity reading Anastasia Ailamaki. He is doing these people a disservice, probably without realizing. If I were to read those not knowing who wrote them, I'd assume some recently arrived F1 student (of these profs) put those up... Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "He is doing these people a disservice" - Wow, so that's how Wikipedians talk of their fellow users. Stop criticizing me, and lets wait till Randy peeps in.--Mishae (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus, can someone explain to me what is so funny in my articles. English is my second language, that's why I mostly do stubs. Is there is a problem in being a foreigner?--Mishae (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For people that think that my articles are funny and that GS is a unreliable and funny source check out Shlomo Havlin, he too is mentioned on GS with an h-index of 97! Does that mean that GS is unreliable? Look at his works!--Mishae (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Citations pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment I'm putting it here, because the above discussion is becoming a bit too disorganized. As WP:PROF says, one needs to be cautious when interpreting citation data (including the h-index). Low figures do not necessarily mean that someone is not notable (it just means the absence of proof of notability through citation data, not proof of non-notability, which is something that cannot be proven). Also, citation rates differ over different academic fields, being much lower in the humanities and mathematics, for example, than in physics or the life sciences. In mathematics, 500 citations and an h-index of 10 would generally be considered enough evidence of notability. In this field, citation rates are higher, but Karp is significantly above what is usual in this field. I don't see why his article with over 6000 citations should be ignored because it has no WP article of has no real world applications yet. The fact that other articles that did have real-world applications have fewer citations is even less relevant. Whatever may be the case, as I pointed out above, even if we completely ignore that incredibly highly-cited article, Karp obviously passes the bar of notability. As for the articles that Mishae creates, I think it reflects badly on WP editors to make fun of another editor's efforts. Mishae is not a new editor here (with over 50,000 edits), but clearly has some things to learn about writing bios of academics. However, belittling his efforts does not behoove WP editors and reflects badly on themselves. Instead of wasting everybody's time by taking a bio o an obviously notable person to AfD without apparently even checking GS, that effort should better be used to improve said articles and help Mishae improve his editing skills in this area. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm concerned that we are giving undue weight to this scholar's h-index value. Unless we can find a reliable source that attests to the importance and notability of this individual score, we will be guilty of bringing our own point of view to the article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is NOT the h-index alone. Apart from his one exceptional article, there are 1200 frigging articles citing his work. That is what an h-index of 22 means. --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You miss my point: Who says that's something we should take note of? For all we know it could be a quirk or bug in the system used to calculate these things. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A bug. Really. You're grasping at straws now, please be serious. --Randykitty (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if we discount his top-cited paper as being work with his doctoral advisor and hard to disentangle who should get more credit for it, the rest of the publications have easily enough citations for WP:PROF even in a highly cited field. And the Wolfson Award may be enough for #C2 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2013 (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.