Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milivoje Kostic


 * 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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Milivoje Kostic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article with no encyclopedic content, started by User:Mkostic2, about a full professor with a low h-index (~11), and claims of being in Who's Who. Abductive (reasoning) 07:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete an h-index of 11 can mean 10 publications with citation counts of 200, and one of 11, or 11 papers with 11 citation counts. It makes a difference. Using Web of Science, the only adequate index for this area of study in the time he was most productive, I find 38 papers listed, highest citation counts 28, 25, 11, 10., which is not impressive, but not terrible. (Scopus gives a similar result) Neither of them  include the citations to his review articles such as the one in Advances in heat transfer,  or his encyclopedia articles, but they are in G Scholar. He is a  full professor at U Northern Illinois, a reserarch university , though not of the highest level. Advances in Heat Transfer is a major review series. The encyclopedia articles might be considered to give him some degree of notability regardless of the citations, since many of them are likely to be much more read than cited.    DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That he's been invited to do a review is a sign of notability. Invited reviews are written by notable professors. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's a fair amount of wikipuffery: who's who listings, minor travel awards, etc., but once one gets past that there seems to be no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The low h-index isn't itself a reason to delete, but it does eliminate one way of proving him to be notable, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. H-index is not impressive for the kind of field he works in and nothing else in the record appears to indicate WP:PROF notability. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Strong keep  Delete - he's not a cartoon, doesn't belong. He has been invited to write review articles, and he's notable enough to be the writer of encyclopedia articles, also an invited position of noted authority. Professional journals and encyclopedias find him notable, but wikipedia relies solely upon h-index? This, and his full professorship is enough to establish notability. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, this one does not satisfy PROF in the way we normally assess articles/people by that standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS cites 87, 11, 3, 2.... Does not make it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. I find the same figures from WoS as  DGG: 28 pubs with cites of 28, 25, 11, 10, ..., but these indicate an h-index of only 6 (the other figure of 11 comes from GS, I presume) – not a notable research record for a senior-level full prof. While it's probably true that full profs at top-tier institutions are mostly notable (not by virtue of their position per se, but because one does not typically get such a position without first being notable), I don't think the same thing can be said of NIU (e.g. from the article "NIU is listed in the fourth-tier rankings"). All the who's-who and other WP:PUFF do not confer notability by themselves. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete Almost no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 23:25, 2 December 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.