Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam B. Sefkow

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Adam B. Sefkow}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Adam B. Sefkow}})

Assistant professor who works on team projects in high-energy physics with no major awards, WP:TOOSOON. Page was Prodded since his h-factor of 35 is small for the field, particularly as almost all of his publications have 5-32 coauthors. PROD was opposed by Espresso Addict with the argument that 35 is enough to possibly pass WP:NPROF#C1, it appears unaware of the consensus that h-factors have to be field normalized. As has previously been discussed at WT:NPROF, an h-factor of 35 is very notable in math; a good start in solid-state physics and low for high-energy physics. There is also the need to consider the number of authors, de-emphasizing large team citations such as he has been involved in. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Not unaware of any of that, just unkeen to set a trend of uncontested prods of academics with that kind of citation profile. I don't pay much attention to the h-index, more to the total citations and the citations of the top papers. Here both appear healthy (5386 in total, with the top papers 732, 506, 242, 189, 178 and a further ten papers >100); I don't think the wider discussion of AfD is unwarranted even if it turns out I'm the lone soul opposing deletion. Will look into it a bit further on the morrow. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Very few of these papers have anything like 150 coauthors; they are mostly in the range of ~12–20. Ignoring those with >=10 coauthors, the top papers seem to be 732, 189 (1st author), 120, 110, 72. Several of those I've omitted, Sefkow was placed third, which at least in fields I know would be one of the major contributors (1st, 2nd, 3rd, last). There's also the award, which I'd say was more early to mid (under 42 years) than early career. I'm coming down on neutral; I don't feel an urgency to delete, but I'm willing to go with the flow. It would be good to hear from the article creator, {{u|Debrah Minkoff}}. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. In a field where some of his highly-cited publications have 150 coauthors, we cannot set much store on h-index and citation counts of all publications. This sort of pattern of publication immediately gives most researchers publications with high citation counts, and the h-index is merely an indicator of longevity, not of being a leader. It is too indiscriminate and I don't think the standard should merely be that all high-energy physicists are notable. Alternatives are to look for notable awards and society fellowships, distinguished and named professorships, or heavily-cited first-author papers. His "Design of magnetized liner inertial fusion experiments using the Z facility" is first-author and has triple-digit citations, but it's the only one. He is an assistant professor so WP:PROF#C5 is out of reach. There is a 2017 reference for two awards [https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/adam-sefkow-recognized-research-fusion-high-energy-density-physics-263772/], but one is really just a startup grant (not a prize or medal) and the other is also an early-career award [https://fusionpower.org/Awards.html]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The highly cited papers are also highly coauthored, and middle coauthor from a long list does not convince me of much. Getting past these, the citation numbers are much smaller, and in a high citation field. Although I note that the subject here is a bit later career than the assistant professor title suggests, I still think this is a moderate bit WP:TOOSOON for NPROF. No other notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.