Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Greiter

:{{la|Martin Greiter}} ([{{fullurl:Martin Greiter|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Greiter}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

A smart, studied man, but probably not notable. No published books, but only a handful of works in journals and publications etc. Was PROD deleted recently by myself, but restored and sent to AfD per an emailed request. Jmlk17 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The paper that the article describes as his most widely read article has only been cited 4 times, according to web of knowledge and other online databases. He is a good solid physicist but it is hard to see him as notable. Dark Formal (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3Am-greiter Google scholar] shows two papers with over 100 citations each. It may be true that the review mentioned in the article is cited fewer times, but if so then it's an easily corrected inaccuracy in the article. The nomination is stated in a seriously misleading way that implies that none of his work has been heavily cited; that's clearly not true. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per the Google Scholar listing cited above which shows a 1991 publication which has been cited 161 times and numerous other widely cited papers. Edison (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete based on the Google Scholar listing cited above. His h-index is 7 which is low-normal for an assistant professor (see h-index, first para says h=12 is expected for tenure at a decent university). Two papers with over 100 citations is not at all exceptional in physics. He is simply a good solid physicist, not exceptional or notable. If wikipedia has a bio page for him then it should have one for every professor in a decent research university. Dark Formal (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::: DF, are you citing established criteria, or is this your opinion that an H index of 7 is low, and that two papers with over 100 citations is not abnormal? I'll assume good faith on your part, but it does seem that these are matters of opinion and not specific criteria established through normal processes at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No independant sources. Cxz111 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The paper quoted as the "probably most widely read article" is one of the for students most useful review articles in the field of condensed matter physics. I just googled "electromagnetic gauge invariance" and it showed up as the third entry. The paper is just not cited a lot because the students don't cite the papers they learn fundamental physics from. If it shows up so prominently in google this should count as an independent source. Bettina1959 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:— Bettina1959 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The review paper "electromagnetic gauge invariance" is the first paper I would think of if I need to know the gauge invariance in superconductors. As a graduate student, this review article is definitely very useful, and I learn some basic concepts there. Although such article probably will not be cited a lot, it is one of the most widely read article. There should be a reason that it shows up in the first few entries when you google. Albert1003 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:— Albert1003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Greiter has published two very well cited articles on the QHE, and many other interesting results on related subjects. His review on superconductivity is just excellent, and one can hardly overestimate the importance of this article for young physicists. I think that Greiter deserves to be notable, although the current entry on Greiter may need some improvements. Dave.Johnson 09:30, 14 March 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.247.214 (talk)
• Comment Two 100+cited papers and a very useful review article are par for the course for an assistant prof at a decent research university. Are we going to have a wikipedia bio for everyone who is good at their job? The three votes above, from "users" who appear out of nowhere and are never seen again, are just blatant vote stacking. I hope we can get some real votes from editors with a visible wikipedia track record. Dark Formal (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Actually, I think it's only one 100+cited paper; the other is his thesis which contains the same material. It seems premature in his career to asses the significance of his work, and WP:BIO1E seems relevant. The sockpuppetry on show in this AfD isn't helping, but I hope we can just ignore that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:::David, you say: "It seems premature in his career to assess the significance of his work..." But is it up to wikipedians to "assess" at AfD or should we be trying to apply semi-objective predefined criteria from WP:N, BIO or PROF? --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

::::I don't believe that those criteria are, can be, nor should be reducible to mechanical calculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

::::: That being said, then specific criteria are useless if not objective. To have successful AfD in this field, we will need specialized closers, otherwise it's just who sounded the best. We have the same weakeness in the US jury system, where successful expert witnesses are the better showman, not the more informed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am not happy about Dark Formal referring to my entry as "blatant vote stacking". It is true that I am a novice to Wiki but everyone starts at some point, and I think it is legitimate to start with an entry I have an opinion on. Dark Formal proposed deletion reasoning that the review mentioned is cited only four times, and hence that the entry was ridiculous. To students of condensed matter physics, however, it is as useful as any textbook is. Why can't I point out that it googles up so prominently without being accused of "vote stacking"? I think is is absolutely reasonable if my vote as a novice doesn't count for much, but I don't think I should be discouraged from having an opinion. Bettina1959 (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Dark Formal & David Eppstein (FWIW, I calculate his h-index as 8, using ISI rather than GS, not that I'm advocating any particular number as a criterion for notability...) Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There appears to be either one or two highly cited publication from early 1990s containing actual original research, namely his thesis. The h-index is quite low, especially for a physisist. I looked up his web page [http://www.tkm.uni-karlsruhe.de/~greiter/] and did not see there any additional biographical material that could qualify as notable (no mention of prizes, honors, fellowships, etc). He appears to be a good, but at the moment not particularly active physisist. Unless some new significant information is brought to light, I think his entry should be deleted for the time being. Nsk92 (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No independent secondary sources to show that anybody has written about the subject. If the publications are outstanding, write an article about the publications. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per SJ, who is one of the few who cite a valid reason for deleting an article at WP. The rest seems to be opinion based. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (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.