Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevan Pilipović

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Itointegral (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 9 January 2008 (→‎Stevan Pilipović). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stevan Pilipović

Stevan Pilipović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

contested CSD. Corresponding membership of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is strong evidence that this scientist is notable Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The speedy was inappropriate in any case as the article asserted notability (full professor, corresponding member of national academy of sciences - yes, I know, the Serbian one). It would have made more sense to start with a prod. Very often, people start an article with a stub and then build from there on. I don't think I have seen new article fully-hatched pop-up from nowhere at creation, yet. --Crusio (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very weak keep - fails WP:PROF, and the speedy tag was clearly placed appropriately and in good faith. The article made no assertion of notability - being a professor, having a field of study, etc. are not assertions of notability. I believe that it still makes no reasonable assertion of notability, and more importantly, it falls well below WP:PROF. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a corresponding member of a national Academy of Sciences is an assertion of notability and one that merits serious consideration. Mind you, I haven't made up my mind about this AfD yet, I may still vote for delete, but I have not yet seen any good arguments and I'm inclined to wait and give the creator a chance to improve the article. --Crusio (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really consider that alone to be notability. Third party sources would be nice, but of course I realize that academics tend to be the authors of the publications that make them notable. I still think the article fails WP:PROF, and that its subject is not really notable ... but there are marginal, though not necessarily adequate, reasons to keep at this point. I've changed my !vote to a very weak keep, but would like to see more evidence of notability put into the article if possible. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment S. Pilipovic has 96 publications in the Web of Science, cited a total of 179 times. In my field (neuroscience), that would not be much at all, but in mathematics this may be different (I do know citation rates are much lower there). Google Scholar gives higher citation counts, with 50, 27, 26, etc. --Crusio (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment which National academies do we accept as being certainly notable, and which not? I know what I think in certain cases, but how are we to justify the decision, given the need for a world-wide perspective? DGG (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
query Is that not a little like asking which national governments we consider notable? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep it's a good many articles, but the 4 most cited has been cited only 14, 8, 8, 7, times. I thinks that's only borderline notability.DGG (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Based mainly on the membership in the National Academy. The number of publications is good, but they are not cited much (this may be field dependent, but I have no real idea about what is a notable citation rate in mathematics). Some more info on the subject's notability would be very welcome. DGG, you are certainly correct that it wold be good to have some idea about which National Academies are automatically notable. The extremes are evident: the US Academy confers immediate notability on any member, but an academy of a small country without even a single university (if they even have an academy in that case), would not. In between is where it gets problematic. --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has an amazing amount of publications. I'm not an analyst, can't judge the quality of the papers, though. But anyway, few people have that much publications. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The sheer number of publications is enormous for most fields of mathematics. Since I cannot judge their value, as I am working in a different field of mathematics, I would not normally vote at all. But since some non-mathematicians do not seem worried in the slightest about such minor points of competence there must be a counter-weight. See also Wikipedia:PROF#Caveats: It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. Typical numbers of publications vary greatly by field. Paul Erdös had 1500 publications, Saharon Shelah has about half that amount. These are extreme exceptions. Mathematical Reviews returns 113 articles for Stevan Pilipović. At the other end there are many recent Fields medalists with less than 10 publications on Mathematical Reviews. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - hanging on a hair of notability doesn't cut it for me. Jauerback (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mostlyharmless. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Hans Adler. Based purely on the number of publications, I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Besides, of all the things Wikipedia's detractors may say, no one's going to argue that we have too many articles on academics. Zagalejo^^^ 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your interest. It seems my entry is interesting even for a non mathematical audience.Itointegral (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stevan_Pilipović&oldid=183268172"