Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasily Pestun


 * 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. Consensus indicates failure to satisfy WP:PROF/WP:GNG. Article can be recreated should that change at some future date. Philg88 ♦talk 04:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Vasily Pestun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An early-career physicist who fails WP:PROF: no evidence of broad impact in his field, no major awards, no high-profile academic posts, etc. He's worked at some fancy schools, but notability is not inherited. He may have promise, but it's too soon to say whether he will one day be notable. Lagrange613 00:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your claim -- he does have a very, very high-profile academic position. IHES is no joke. He is a permanent professor there. This is perhaps equivalent to being a permanent professor at the Institute for Advanced Study. Pestun hence complies at least with criterion 6 in the list of WP:PROF. --Zatrp (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Criterion 6 is about holding a "highest-level" post, i.e. being president of a university or a society. See WP:PROF. Lagrange613 00:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At IHES, permanent professorship is indeed the highest academic position available. Other positions, like president or director, would be of a more symbolic/administrative nature. --Zatrp (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I don't believe a full professorship alone, even at IHES, is enough for WP:PROF. And in a high-citation subject, his Google scholar profile shows only one big hit, a good start but not enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. (Incidentally, although GS shows this paper as an arXiv preprint, it has been reliably published, in Communications in Mathematical Physics 2012.) Is there something else besides these two things that I'm missing? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google is kind enough to provide his h-index; 14 in a high hindex field. Buh bye. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those claiming that IHES permanent professorship is not enough should produce an example of such a professor that was not notable in the past, I think. That would be very surprising -- so much so that it would make him notable! --Zatrp (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This invocation of the interesting number paradox is cute. Were it valid then Wikipedia would have to have on article on every member of every ordered set of people containing at least one notable person. But fortunately it's not, because notability depends on an article's topic, not analogy to other hypothetical article topics. Notability is not the absence of a non-notable point of reference. It's a positive quality, not a negative one. Lagrange613 00:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see the sourcing required to meet WP:GNG nor do I think he meets WP:PROF. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2014 (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.