Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dror Bar-Natan


 * 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. Courcelles 00:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Dror Bar-Natan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unremarkable mathematics professor. Fails WP:PROF minimum standards. Jayron  32  04:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He does not seem that notable, but the Bible-related proof might make him just pass the notability threshold. Nergaal (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Tons of GS cites to satisfy WP:Prof. What a time-wasting nomination. Nominator should carry out WP:Before. Xxanthippe 22:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep Mathscinet citations are 275,60,58,43,38,32,31 ... gscholar h-index of 21. Remarkably high for a mathematician. More than passes C1 of WP:PROF. Ray  Talk 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a direct link available at wp:PROF to search a person's h-index. Nergaal (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Click on the scholar link and count. The nominator should be required to provide the h index. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep for a h-index of 21. Nergaal (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep see above.DrPhosphorus (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Regarded as a world expert on finite type invariants of 3-manifolds. Mathsci (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. WoS stats are less impressive, but GS cites certainly are plentiful. Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep: Web of Science seems to list only 9 publications with a total of 103 citations (top five publications with 41,20, 13, 11 and 9) and a h-index of 5 - but with the popular work on "the Bible Code" is in my view sufficient for notability. By the way are the citations reported in Google Scholar for some of his articles (Eg Topology Volume 34, Issue 2, April 1995, Pages 423-472 On the Vassiliev knot invariants - GS reports 700 citations ) reliable? 700 seems to me a lot for this. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment: Silly me - on WoS using as well BARNATAN D (no-hyphen) includes the other papers (now 17 in total) - his h-index is now 9 with top cites of 341, 57, 41, 41, 33, 25, 20, 13, 11. (613 total cites). Have added his Topology paper (most cited) to the article. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Re the 700 citations: for a pure mathematics paper that would be a huge number, but Vassiliev invariants are connected to quantum field theory, which is a much higher-citation-count field. 700 is still a lot, but I think that's sufficient to explain the higher number. (Also, I think this is evidence that the Google scholar cite counts may be better than mathscinet in this case, since I suspect mathscinet's coverage of physics is incomplete). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF, and possibly also #C7 for the Bible code stuff. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2010 (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.