Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vugar Ismailov

Vugar Ismailov

(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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - Comment. User:Nsk92, instead of accusing people of creating autobiography and sockpuppetry accounts only on the basis of narrow observations please read carefully what they write. And never lose your neutrality (by writing on their talk pages that "they are in awkward situation", etc.) even if your arguments against someone's article get destroyed. Your arguments against my article "Vugar Ismailov" were as follows.

1) All the references given are to his own work. Right, but this can be easily corrected following Boorey1's advice.

2) Very low citability, both in MathSciNet and in GoogleScholar. Just for your attention: It is wrong to assess mathematicians only on the ground of their citation counts. Please look at 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.

3) Nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Wrong. Vugar Ismailov is the only Azerbaijani mathematician who has the Erdős number as low as 2.

4) Based on the username of the article's creator, appears to be a WP:AUTO case. No evidence. I could have easily used any other username. I did not know the rules and took the username very similar to the title of article I created. Vugaris (talk) 7:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)