Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Sahasrabudhe

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Sahasrabudhe[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)

Doesn't yet reach WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor other more general ones. Only at Associate Professor level, in an institution where this is the lowest standard tenured entry point for academics. Early in his career, with Scopus showing an H-factor of 6. Has collaborated with some notable people, but notability can't be inherited from them. The article is well-written and clear, but this doesn't compensate for the fact that this is too soon. Klbrain (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, Canada, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C2. Even at Cambridge, I think assistant professors are not usually notable yet, but there can be exceptions when we have evidence that someone is already recognized as a star. I think the Salem Prize and European Prize in Combinatorics are sufficient evidence. That the prizes are for outstanding work in such different major subdisciplines of mathematics (analysis and combinatorics respectively) only makes the double win more remarkable. These are low-citation fields so the low citation counts aren't evidence of much of anything (they aren't evidence for notability, but they also aren't evidence against). The fact that these are prizes for young mathematicians is I think an artifact of the cult of youth in mathematics (the Fields Medal, the most prestigious prize in mathematics, has an age limit only slightly higher, and the Salem prize is seen as a precursor to the Fields) and should not be used to argue that these prizes are less significant than a "senior" award: there is no senior award for them to be less significant than. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein, although the citation record is not yet overly impressive. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
One of his splashiest results [1] is still just a 2023 arXiv preprint, not yet published. So it's not surprising to see low citation numbers for it, on top of the fact that it's in a low-citation field. (I think this also postdates both prizes.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Those are both selective prizes, so getting two impresses me anyway. We don't expect high h-factors in most of math. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; the awards put him over the PROF test. I should be surprised he hasn't gotten tenure, but I haven't gotten there myself. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the British system really has tenure, in the sense that it is understood in the US system. They have permanent or temporary contracts, but I think the permanent contracts exist at all levels. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (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.