Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semjon Adlaj

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semjon Adlaj[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)

Fails WP:NPROF. Google Scholar: 12 published papers of (23, 10, 4, 3, 1, 1, 0, ...) citations. Scopus: two papers of (14, 0) citations. Web of Science: no record. The most cited paper is an expositional paper in the Notices.

Also no evidence of passing any other notability guideline (e.g. WP:GNG). — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Busy academic doing some keen stuff (that's an interesting homepage), but this is an early-career researcher who hasn't yet had the required impact or recognition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. The only third-party source in the article (mysteriously not linked but online here) is a letter to the editor, by a notable researcher, that is quite critical of one of Adlaj's papers. That paper, Adlaj's most cited, appears in the Notices of the AMS (more a newsletter than a serious research journal) and only has 23 citations in Google scholar. That is not worth much as a basis for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reasons:
1. His article which appeared at the cover page of the Notices is not expositional but devoted to a new concept, so it was chosen for translation by the Chinese Science Academy. The fact that the Modified Arithmetic-Geometric Mean can be calculated in two equivalent ways, one of which is mediated via the AGM obviates the need for its future research.
2. The Galois elliptic function (see slide 7) enables new efficient calculations such as the calculation of integrals of elliptic functions (see slide 16). The same idea was apparently used for obtaining record calculations of special values of the j-invariant.
3. The Galois axis alone is sufficient to keep. Its introduction to rigid body dynamics is historical and irreversible. Quite intriguing to know that it originated in a formula for the speed of precession, which is symmetric in the moments of inertia. Once again, there are some nontrivial improper integrals involved here. This is quite deep with lots of applications. 46.242.8.153 (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — 46.242.8.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No evidence of passing WP:PROF. If his work is as grand as the above single-purpose account says, then other mathematicians will eventually recognize it, and we can write about him then. (I rather doubt it is, though.) XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for too soon: The warning sign is "In 2018, ". That's simply too soon. The new idea might turn out to be significant and has lasting impact (which would make the subject notable). Or not. Wikipedia should not be in business of determining whether a new idea/concept is significant or not. -- Taku (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Fails both GNG and WP:NPROF at this point in time. — Ched (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this informative article. The link to 2018 is simply most recent. There are other earlier links which can gradually be linked to the page. Markioffe (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — Markioffe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Struck sock !vote. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, per above. No present notability. If/when his work is recognized, we can reconsider. (Seen on WT:MATH.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopefully sometimes in the future he will be notable, but today he does not pass WP: GNG or WP:NPROF. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above opinions. KingofGangsters (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2019 (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.