Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Zaman

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. Valid notability arguments were raised in the discussion and not refuted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Zaman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low index, fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet academic notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar shows citation counts of 546, 504, 161, 116, 105, 67, 44, 41, ... I think that's enough for WP:PROF#C1, especially for a mathematician. I'm more interested in the high end of the citation count (the ones with over 100 citations) and in this case the h-index doesn't really show that. I think this record is a lot stronger than someone with the same h-index=12 but with peaks in the low double digits. I deleted some unsourced content from the article and added another source, so I don't think we have a big problem with verifiability or sourcing for content. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NPROF C1 case made by David Eppstein. Weak, as I notice that all his high citation papers are coauthored with George Marsaglia, so it's a bit difficult to separate his impact from Marsaglia's. His highly cited articles all appear to be about random number generation, and it might be worth adding a sentence to the article along these lines. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Keepers above for now. Soon I'll try to improve it further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.