Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itay Neeman


 * 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. North America1000 06:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Itay Neeman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The nomination is extremely faulty because it is based around the wrong notability criterion; this article should be evaluated in terms of WP:PROF, which does not consider SIGCOV, and not in terms of WP:GNG, which does. Pure mathematics is an area that, despite being journal-focused rather than book focused, doesn't work well with WP:PROF-based evaluation based on citation counts, because the citation counts are small and don't really concentrate on the works the mathematicians think are most important — see for instance https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202101/rnoti-p114.pdf and https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05389 for some bibliometric analysis in this area. Neeman does have one paper with over 100 citations, but it appears that this paper obtained its high citations by shading over into computer science (a much higher citation field) rather than by being any way central or important to Neeman's main research, so it would be wrong to base notability on it and even more wrong to judge his other papers by their lower citations than it. His book has three signed and published reviews, but that does not really count for much because two are in MR and zbl, for which reviews of pure math publications are expected and routine. I think the Hausdorff Medal is more determinative in this case, enough for #C2, and that's the basis for my weak keep opinion. His full professor rank at UCLA, while not by itself sufficient for any WP:PROF criterion, also suggests that his research is well respected within mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (EC)Comment. Among set theorists, the Hausdorff Medal is a pretty big deal. This is also a very low citation field--Shelah is like the next Erdős and his h-index is only 38 (Paul Erdős himself is only 57!). Donald A. Martin is an emeritus professor in math and philosophy at UCLA with only a 12. Among Neeman's coauthors (even including people who have CS appointments that boost citations) he's around the median for citing documents (N: 248, med: 168, avg: 557), total pubs (N: 37, med: 33, avg: 73), and h-index (N: 9, med: 9, avg: 10). BUT, most math papers are monographs, so collaborations are often between well-established researchers. So he probably weakly meets PROFC1. JoelleJay (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see David Eppstein posted basically the same conclusion a bit earlier while I was lollygagging around Scopus; I'll upgrade my !vote to weak keep as well. JoelleJay (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Week Keep from me too. Having viewed the refs I agree with David Eppstein and JoelleJay. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as others have said. WP:NPROF is what matters here, not WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, due to the Hausdorff Medal and citation record that is strong for his sub-field.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 08:54, 2 February 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.