Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevan Pilipović

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 - original creator of the article endorses deletion, and it fails WP:PROF. KrakatoaKatie 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stevan Pilipović[edit]

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]

  • Keep - notable Serbian mathematician. His work is significant and well known (200 peer reviewed papers is a very high number) and clearly regarded as an important figure by other scientists (corresponding membership of the SASA, restricted to the top scientists in Serbia) Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did you !vote "Keep" after starting the AfD? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on a discussion on my talk page, I think that Mostlyharmless either believes that AfD is a place to contest a speedy or they are nominating the article for me. NF24(radio me!) 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Theres no way this belongs in speedy, and PROD is for things that aren't contested. I refuse to get involved in a one on one argument over the notability of a particular page, and want community feedback on the notability of the article. On the basis of those considerations, AfD (which is also often AfKeep) seems like the best place to list the article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet the relevant notability guidelines. NF24(radio me!) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not prod it? That way the creator(s), would have 5 days to show notability and if they failed, the article would be deleted all the same. AfD seems a bit early right now. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But isn't prod for uncontroversial deletions? This clearly isn't such an article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:57, 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]
  • I think Crusio's question is more, so why not just contest the speedy, and then not put it up for AfD. An AfD isn't a necessary part of contesting the speedy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • this article was put up for speedy deletion the same minute it was created, which was earlier today... and other oddities. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, someone was watching the recent changes and checked this one, and nominated it for speedy deletion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was me. I do admit that a speedy probably wasn't necessary in this case. NF24(radio me!) 00:18, 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]
  • I've changed my vote back. I know I keep flip-flopping, but I should have trusted my gut on this one. Pmanderson has now pointed out that this is (in part) a copy-paste job from his CV. I'm also going to stick with my assessment that being a CM of an NAS is not enough for notability, not automatically. While it might seem germane to say "what about CMs of the US NAS?" but honestly, they'll establish their own notability elsewhere - corresponding members of prominent NASs are not notable because USA is "better" than Serbia or something, but because prominent NASs tend to have notable members. I do not count Serbia among them, and I think the non-notability of this person verifies that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:50, 10 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]
I don't think so. We already make distinctions between membership in particular organizations and others. For example, being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame confers notability. Being inducted into the hall of fame for the bowling alley down the street from me does not. And yet they are both halls of fame. As I said, this article need not answer the question "which NASs do we consider as notable enough that their members inherit notabilty?" NASs that imbue notability generally have members that are already notable (and likewise for the not notable case). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:29, 10 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]
I removed my vote because the original creator voted for deletion. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:19, 12 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.
Weak keep per Terraxos. 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]
  • Weak (added) Delete We should not include every corresponding member of every National Academy of Sciences in the world; and this article is a CV (in fact, large parts of it, including the ungrammatical book titles, are cut and pasted from his CV). What has he done? If we cannot make that clear, why have the article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was written before the section on his notability existed; but that section is unsourced and labelled autobiography. I join the flip-flop brigade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Like Cheeser1 I am flip-flopping, all evidence of notability rely is borderline. Many articles, but hardly ever cited. My previous "keep" vote was based on the mebership of the Serbian NAS, but Cheeser1 has convinced me: members of the US NAS all have plenty of other sources establishing notability, the Serbian NAS is apparently easier to get into. --Crusio (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Hans Adler.Weak delete per Cheeser. Like others, I'm swinging on this one. I'm no longer as convinced he's a notable mathematician. Notable Serbian mathematician, definitely, but not sure what his standing is outside Serbia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm not too sure on this one either, and wouldn't really object if it were deleted; but his number of papers published suggests (marginal) notability. We really need someone to do a more in-depth investigation to determine notability here. Terraxos (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by citations to extensive publication list. Spacepotato (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest deletion of this article. Itointegral (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly support destructive acts involving the article in question.

Itointegral (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with deleting the article (though I !voted weak keep above), but I did restore the accomplishments/notability section forthe time being. I thought it was important that if the article is deleted it is done by editors who have read the claims of notability and discarded them. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile the author agrees on the fact that the article does not meet the notability criterias. This is supported by the fact, that only for 2 serbian members

of the acedemy wikipedia pages are created, both of them being stubs (the rest which have wikipedia entries seem to be foreign members throughout). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.195.165 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 January 2008

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stevan_Pilipović&oldid=1138795464"