Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Aronov

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. Perhaps he's not super notable, but consensus is that he is notable.--Kubigula (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Aronov

Non-notable professor, no evidence that he meets WP:PROF. Speedy was declined. --Finngall ^talk 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on this, and as he's my co-author (one of two through whom I have my low Erdős number, his being one), I'm reluctant to express my opinion at all. He hasn't racked up huge citation numbers, but his Google scholar results (h-index ~ 20) show that he's a respected and successful computational geometry researcher. On the other hand, I've got a little list of computational geometers whom I think should be mentioned on Wikipedia, and while Boris would be on the list if I'd remembered him before someone else added the article, he'd be near the bottom of it, not from any fault of his own but because we're missing many who are clearly more notable: there's nothing I can point to beyond his publication record and Erdős number to prove him notable, while many of the others on the list are there because they've chaired or co-chaired the annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, or have some other external recognition. And if one looks internally, at what other articles already here should link to him, it's a nonempty set (including K-set (geometry) for instance) but not large. So for now I think I'll remain neutral. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sixty-one published papers. I don't have to evaluate them because a/ the peer-reviewers did, & they are the third party sources., and b/David E did, and he I interpret DE's comment above that he's on his list to be added as an endorsement, considering his very high standards. How one can say that and also not oppose the deletion of the article if someone else write it is a little too complicated for me, unless he means that there are other people without articles that are yet more notable. The proper response to that is to go write the other articles. OTHER STUFF DOESNT EXIST YET is not an argument for deletion. If one needs something beyond the papers he edited a volume in a major series. Aronov, S. Basu, J. Pach, and M. Sharir, eds, Algorithms and Combinatorics, volume 25, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2003, ISBN: 3-540-00371-1. Springer-Verlag catalog entry here. And his web page refers to David E Three times. Our local equivalent of Erdos numbers? DGG (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Sixty-one published papers" in 24 years amounts to an unimpressive 2.5 articles/year figure. --Damiens.rf 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of the annual performance evaluation/merit pay increase process at my institution, 2.5 papers a year is *way* more than that expected in the math department. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I am a mathematician myself and work at a large research-oriented midwestern university. Having 2.5 publications per year in math is considered more than sufficient to demonstrate being research-active. In any event, it is not the total number of publications but their significance that should count. Thus an h-index and citation rates are more reliable indicators of notability than the total number of papers published. Nsk92 (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your experience probably informs you very well. there is a large difference between disciplines as to the average number of papers authored by active researchers. Protonk (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that an h-index of 20 is good enough for a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evidence by DGG and Pete Hurd's knowledge of the norms in math. (that's not weird: if someone got out 2.5 peer-reviewed papers a year in musicology, he or she'd likely be on the fast-track to major success) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2008 (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.