Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Barkai


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Eli Barkai

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't think that the person qualifies notability per WP:PROF. I couldn't find any significant news about the person. However, the Scholar results may be notable, but I'm unsure because it's an area which I don't know that much. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Prof. Barkai has made seminal contributions that completely revolutionized the field of non-stationary statistical physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrerc (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. His top-cited papers are cited 749, 620, 537, 448, and 371 times according to Scopus, and he has an h-index of 51. JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. clearly notable by his citation counts and various awards that he won, he passes WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 17:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify Keep Although the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 with the high numbers of citations, none of the stated facts is supported by IRS - I failed to find anything as well. We might need some help from Hebrew speaking editor, but for now per WP:BLP we can't keep the article in the mainspace. Less Unless (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Changed to keep after the JoelleJays fair point. Less Unless (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Less Unless, meeting NPROF supersedes GNG, so it's not necessary to find independent RS. His university profile is considered adequate for verifying the routine info currently in the article, and reasonable summaries of his research can be crafted from his high-impact scholarly output. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * JoelleJay, You are right, it slipped my mind the academic guideline is independent. Changing my vote to keep then. Thank you.Less Unless (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep under WP:NPROF. Article needs better referencing, but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, impressive citations in pure science domain. Passes WP:NPROF. Though the article needs improvement for sure. ☆★  Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 12:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think full professor at Bar-Ilan University should be enough. Furthermore, He has an impressive citation index. Tzahy (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * according to WP:NPROF and current consensus, it is not enough to be full professor somewhere, even full professor at Harvard is by itself not enough. However, most full professors at large western research universities have done enough research to pass the actual bars set in NPROF. In most cases it stands to reason that the faculty at a major university have promoted him to full professor which means that his academic contribution are substantial.  (note that not all full profs are research profs, they could also be doing other work such as teaching which would not make them notable)  --hroest 17:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi hroest, thank you for acknowledging me, how do you know that ? However it doesn't matter, he has a very impressive citation index, more than many or most of the full professors in research universities, and it should be enough I think. Tzahy (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2021 (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.