Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vugar Ismailov


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Vugar Ismailov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be quite an ordinary mathematician. All the references given are to his own work. Very low citability, both in MathSciNet and in GoogleScholar. Nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Based on the username of the article's creator, appears to be a WP:AUTO case. Nsk92 (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Autobiography, no indication that he passes WP:PROF. Joe Roe (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even without the autobio issue, the citation counts are too low to give a pass of WP:PROF (as is typical for working but non-star pure mathematicians) and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

theoretical scientists only on the ground of their citation counts (see, e.g., http://www.nature.com/news/the-focus-on-bibliometrics-makes-papers-less-useful-1.16706 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Declaration_on_Research_Assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vugaris (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I quote from WP:PROF: "Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones". As everybody knows, in pure mathematics, citation counts are usually low. Besides, it is not always a good practise to assess
 * Yes, low citation counts are to be expected in this area, and are not evidence of a problem. But neither are they evidence of notability, and we need such evidence to keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even though the citation counts are low, his results are presented in detail in serious works, for example, in Allan Pinkus, Ridge functions, Cambridge University Press, 2015, 218 pp. —Boorey1 —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Vugaris, User:Star the beautyyy and User:Boorey1, regarding, and the post above, identical to an earlier post by User:Star the beautyyy at Talk:Vugar Ismailov that User:Vugaris removed from there prior to User:Boorey1 posting it here: you should read Sock puppetry. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nsk92, Joe Roe, no evidence that this is an autobiography. I could have easily used any other username. I just wanted to take the username similar to the title of article I created, since I am not planning to create any other articles in Wikipedia. Even if the posts are identical, no evidence that this is sock puppetry, as in fact User:Vugaris, User:Star the beautyyy and User:Boorey1 are different persons. We are all students of Ismailov.
 * Keep. The first criteria for WP:PROF reads as follows. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Ismailov's research area is approximation by ridge functions. The only book on this subject is "Allan Pinkus, Ridge functions" which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2015. A quick glance at the Author Index of this book shows that he cited more times than many other researchers (see http://assets.cambridge.org/97811071/24394/index/9781107124394_index.pdf). A close examination can show in addition that several sections of this monograph are based on his results.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vugaris (talk • contribs) 04:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. However, you are misapplying WP:PROF. It is explicitly meant not to be applied in such a narrow way. The full sentence of WP:PROF, which you truncated, reads: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." WP:PROF gives a fairly detailed explanation of how WP:PROF may be satisfied, and arguing that a scientist's area of study is so narrow that there is only one book dealing with it, and that notability can be inferred from the fact that this book mentions this scientist more than it does anyone else runs completely contrary to what WP:PROF demands. In this particular case the value of the book as a reference is diminished by the fact that the book itself is very new, just published last year, and has not had time to become a widely acknowledged authoritative text on the subject. Moreover, the book is written by a recent co-author of Vugar Ismailov (Pinkus and Ismailov had a joint paper in 2013), which somewhat diminishes the value of Pinkus' book as an independent source for evaluating notability in this case. Compare this situation with that of Allan Pinkus himself, a pure mathematician research-wise close to Ismailov. His GScolar profile shows the total of 4099 citations and h-index of 23. He would have had no troule passing WP:PROF just based on that (Although I should say that for a pure mathematician, Pinkus' citability is unusually high). Also, looking at his CV, one can see that he was an editor-in-chief of the Journal of Approximation Theory in 1990-1999, so he probably passes WP:PROF as well. The point is, here is someone mathematically close to Ismailov, who easily passes WP:PROF, on several counts. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, Pinkus could easily pass WP:PROF on many counts. There are many other notable mathematicians in the world, who are not in Wikipedia, but could easily pass as well. Take, for example, former and current Editors-in-Chief of the Journal of Approximation Theory, which you mentioned. Note that although none of them in Wikipedia, many of their descendants are here. Thus, what you write, is not applicable only to Ismailov's case. You write many things about citability and h-index. Unfortunately, WP:PROF takes all these into account as a criterion. Based on WP:PROF, a researcher "A", who is cited only 10 times but in papers of great mathematicians, makes less impact in his discipline than "B", who is cited 1000 times only in papers of ordinary mathematicians, does. This is because "B" satisfies the criterion WP:PROF, whiles "A" does not.  Nowadays, there are many and many mathematicians who have more than 1000 citations as a result of various manipulations. They did it because they know, for example, Wikipedia experts count citations. Note that there are a number of independent investigations showing that such an approach is fallacious (see, e.g., papers of Douglas Arnold on this subject at https://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/integrity.html).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boorey1 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SPI report filed, Sockpuppet investigations/Vugaris. Nsk92 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing admin: I will not cross out their comments and 'keep' votes above, but User:Boorey1 and User:Vugaris have been indeff blocked for abusing multiple accounts, see Sockpuppet investigations/AynuraJafarova/Archive for details. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Writing initially that someone's article is an autobiography (only on the basis of a username) is a big mistake. This can be thought as a deliberate action against that article at the very first stage of AfD. Who can prove that a randomly chosen article in Wikipedia is not an autobiography?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic5 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I read carefully this Afd and also looked at its history. The discussion is evidently one-sided. Many users were blocked and excluded from discussion, comments of some users were deleted. I recommend the closure of this discussion. Arctic5 (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2016 (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.