Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Shende

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. (non-admin closure) GSS ^💬 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Shende[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vivek Shende

[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)

Sources based mostly on a few of the subject's publications; while an early to mid-career researcher accomplished in their specific field, but otherwise not notable. Reads somewhat as promotional. Jfo17 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would the nominator like to give their opinion on how the subject's GS citation record affects his notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and comment. While I do think he passes WP:PROF#C1, both for his work in mathematics and in computer science, I want to note that the usual difficulties of comparing citation counts are significantly magnified for someone like Shende (or me) who publishes both in computer science and in mathematics. You can't compare the numbers from different of his publications to get an idea which are the important ones, and you can't compare aggregate numbers against his coauthors, without first splitting the computer science papers from the mathematics papers, because those areas have very different rates of citation. (The same thing happens even more frequently with statisticians, who are expected to do the statistical analysis on papers in other topics, frequently with high citation rates, and also to do basic research in statistics, frequently with much lower citation rates. The statisticians have probably developed methods for doing the citation analysis properly but I don't know what those methods might be.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass of WP:Prof#C1 with reservations above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 9 February 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.