Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vugar Ismailov

Vugar Ismailov

Vugar Ismailov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be quite an ordinary mathematician. All the references given are to his own work. Very low citability, both in MathSciNet and in GoogleScholar. Nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Based on the username of the article's creator, appears to be a WP:AUTO case. Nsk92 (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Autobiography, no indication that he passes WP:PROF. Joe Roe (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Even without the autobio issue, the citation counts are too low to give a pass of WP:PROF#C1 (as is typical for working but non-star pure mathematicians) and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I quote from WP:PROF#C1: "Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones". As everybody knows, in pure mathematics, citation counts are usually low. Besides, it is not always a good practise to assess theoretical scientists only on the ground of their citation counts (see, e.g., http://www.nature.com/news/the-focus-on-bibliometrics-makes-papers-less-useful-1.16706 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Declaration_on_Research_Assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vugaris (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though the citation counts are low, his results are presented in detail in serious works, for example, in Allan Pinkus, Ridge functions, Cambridge University Press, 2015, 218 pp. —Boorey1 —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Vugaris, User:Star the beautyyy and User:Boorey1, regarding [1], [2] and the post above, identical to an earlier post by User:Star the beautyyy at Talk:Vugar Ismailov that User:Vugaris removed from there prior to User:Boorey1 posting it here: you should read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Nsk92, Joe Roe, no evidence that this is an autobiography. I could have easily used any other username. I just wanted to take the username similar to the title of article I created, since I am not planning to create any other articles in Wikipedia. Even if the posts are identical, no evidence that this is sock puppetry, as in fact User:Vugaris, User:Star the beautyyy and User:Boorey1 are different persons. We are all students of Ismailov.
• Keep. The first criteria for WP:PROF reads as follows. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Ismailov's research area is approximation by ridge functions. The only book on this subject is "Allan Pinkus, Ridge functions" which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2015. A quick glance at the Author Index of this book shows that he cited more times than many other researchers (see http://assets.cambridge.org/97811071/24394/index/9781107124394_index.pdf). A close examination can show in addition that several sections of this monograph are based on his results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vugaris (talk • contribs) 04:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)