Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gennadi Sardanashvily

: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. v/r - TP 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

=[[Gennadi Sardanashvily]]=

:{{la|Gennadi Sardanashvily}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Gennadi Sardanashvily}})

Does not pass WP:PROF. This article was created by Gsard, whose username closely resemble that of the subject. Possible COI. H-index of 19 as per [http://code.google.com/p/citations-gadget/ Citations Gadget]. Only one paper with over 100 citations according to GScholar. No major positions held in any major university. — Fιnεmαnn (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

::Comment: On the website of the journal, he is listed as managing editor. ([http://www.worldscinet.com/ijgmmp/mkt/editorial.shtml website]) — Fιnεmαnn (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Reply:That appears to be the same thing, in this case. -- 202.124.74.25 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  • CommentKeep. I find a GS h-index of 13 19 by counting on my fingers. (Although the citation gadget gives the same number for this uncommon name, I don't recommend its use for more common ones). A pass of WP:Prof#C1, may also pass WP:Prof#C8. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC).
  • Comment. According to the article about the journal, it has an impact factor of about 0.752. The article was also created by Gsard. This low impact factor may not be sufficient to pass WP:Prof#C8. — Fιnεmαnn (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable theoretical physicist (by works) with a notable post (principal research scientist of the Department of Theoretical Physics) at a notable university (Moscow State University). Editorship of the notable journal: International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics - seems to me to indicate a clear pass of our WP:PROF. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

::Comment From what I see from GScholar only one of his paper have over 100 citations. AFAIK a principal research scientist is lower than an assistant professor in hierarchy. And again, the journal he is an editor of has a very low impact factor of 0.752. I don't understand how that counts as notable. — Fιnεmαnn (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments. (i) In Russian university staff hierachy, "principal research scientist" is equivalent to "full professor": this staff hierachy is: assistant research scientist, research scientist, senior research scientist, principal research scientist. (ii) GScholar does not provide all quotations. The Citation list in Sardanashvily's CV contains more than 1500 quotations, that is rather strong for a mathematical physicist. In mathematical physics, 20-30 references to an article is believed well. (iii) The Impact Factor of IJGMMP is higher than that of such authoritative journals in mathematical physics as J. Geom. Phys., Rep. Math. Phys., Theor. Math. Phys., and it is close to IF of Lett. Math. Phys. The 5-year IF of IJGMMP (1.136) is much more than those of Lett. Math. Phys. and the above mentioned journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.242.77.174 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

::Reply Could you provide references which support what you said about staff hierarchy? And I don't see how a journal is notable because it has higher impact factor than other journals, unless you establish that these other journals are notable for themselves. Also, it is advisable to use an account while commenting on an AfD discussion page. Your IP seems to indicate that you are from Moscow, Russia. To a lot of people this might look like COI. Thank you!— Fιnεmαnn (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments Dear Fιnεmαnn, sorry, but my Comment first of all is for Administration of WikipediA. Yes, I am from Russia, I am theoretician, and therefore I am an expert in that I say. About Russian scientific staff, one can verify in the article Research fellow (see Russian Federation) where the position "principal research scientist" (Ведущий научный сотрудник) is called the "shief scientific worker" (see Russian variant of this article for details). Let us mention that this position required the second degree D.Sc., after Ph.D. About Journals that I mentioned in the previous Comments, all theoreticians and mathematical physicists know them as very authoritative in mathematical physics. IJGMMP also is not bad if one looks through the list of its authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.242.77.174 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

::Reply I don't want to sound like a dick, but this page is not just for the admins. This is a public page and anyone can comment. And saying that you are an expert in something is not welcomed on Wikipedia (WP:NVC). Actually the article Research fellow seems to contradict your statement. The article is about a research fellow in general, not just in Russia. In U.S. a research fellow is lower in hierarchy than a tenured assistant professor. Since the article is about such people as in the U.S., I find your statement hard to believe. I'm not against research associates having an article. What I am concerned is about is a possible COI in the article. Again from a GScholar search, IJGMMP does not seem to have any papers over 500 citations. And it is relatively new too. Also, please try using an account while commenting. Hope you understand. — Fιnεmαnn (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Research fellow indicates that in the UK, for example, "a senior research fellow may be a position of comparable academic standing to a full professorship." :ru:Ведущий научный сотрудник indicates that the subject's rank is 2nd from the top in a range from "Junior Researcher" to "Chief Scientific Officer." -- 202.124.72.60 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

::Information In Italy, a Russian principal research scientist is considered to be equivalent to an Italian full professor. Namely, in accordance with Schema della correlazione ha i titoli conferiti dal MURST Italiano e dal Ministero della Scienza Russo: Si dichiara inoltre che il titolo di Professor si ottiene per concorso ed e analogo ai titolo italiano di Professoro ordinario - I fascia. Esso e inoltre analogo al titolo russo di Capo di Dipartimento, Direttore di laboratorie e Collaboratore scientifico principale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.242.77.174 (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

:::The discussion of the academic rank held is of little relevance. What counts under WP:Prof is the extent that the person's work has been recognized by others in the form of citations, fellowships, prizes etc. The only recognition by WP:Prof of academic rank is in categories 5 and 6. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

:: It should be noted that Sardanashvily also is cited as Sardanashvili. The total number of citations of Sardanashvily(i) in GScholar is more than 2.000, including 3 (but not 1) works of more than 100 citations. GScholar's citation list is far from to be complete, and it does not include Russian citations. As was mentioned above, Sardanashvily's CV indicates more than 1600 non-self citations. Let us emphasize that GS is a mathematical physicist, what is an essential difference from theoreticians about a number of citations (in 2-3 times). His publications are qualified more than 100 times in Mathematical Reviews. His works are quoted more than 40 times in English WikipediA and more than 30 times in the others. Google gives about 25.000 results on Sardanashvily(i) search. These are the facts that, in my opinion, point out the GS nobility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.108.148 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

::: Is WikipediA for information or about notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Meets WP:PROF#8. Journal is ranked 38th among 54 journals in the ISI category Mathematical Physics. Note that ISI is rather selective and that many journals are never even listed in their databases (Scopus is much less selective). This is an area with a low citation density, so an IF of 0.7 is not that bad at all. --Crusio (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to what Crusio said, having even one paper with over 100 citations is highly unusual outside of biomedical sciences, and strongly indicates notability . And, in response to Gsard's ;last question, Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate information, but for information about notable things--both factors are needed for there to be an encyclopedia. But in this case, the individual does pass the bar for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

: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.