Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nail H. Ibragimov

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. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 10:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nail H. Ibragimov

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. A quick Google search shows that the subject of the article has no coverage in reliable sources. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reviews of his books over multiple respectable sites/publications but this ain't social science. ∯WBG^converse 07:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What's social science got to do with it? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I have no clue as to how I ended up here. This was for some different AfD:-( ∯WBG^converse 09:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pages 326–329 of the memoir of Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat are in part concerned with Ibragimov and provide some information about his life and career. As this is a personal memoir, I'm not sure whether it is suitable as a source. Will Orrick (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (massive citation counts on Google scholar, especially as some of the heavily cited works are in pure mathematics, usually a very low citation field) and WP:AUTHOR (17 books with 15 published reviews just counting the ones on MathSciNet; probably others available elsewhere as well). As for GNG, (1) it's not the relevant notability guideline here, and (2) my strong suspicion is that the opinions above based on "a quick Google search" did not bother searching the Cyrillic version of his name, Ибрагимов, Наиль Хайруллович, because if they did they would have likely found many more sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Even just looking at Wikipedia would have provided more. ru:Ибрагимов, Наиль Хайруллович cites a 3 page detailed biography of the subject, by Raphael Gazizov and published to celebrate the subject's 70th birthday. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. The nominator first tried to get this speedy deleted, then prodded, before taking it to AfD, starting less than 20 minutes after the article was created. The deprod edit summary already clearly pointed to the subject's citation record, and to WP:PROF#C1, something the nominator seems to have ignored or not understood in making the AfD nomination. So a trout may be in order as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously per the above. "A quick Google search" is never enough to determine whether any topic is notable, and I would advise the nominator to listen to experienced editors rather than argue every time that mistakes are pointed out. It gets very tiresome when someone first tries to get an article speedily deleted, then goes on to propose deletion without discussion, and then nominates it here, without at any point pausing to think whether those contesting deletion might have a point. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:PROF#C1. --Tataral (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Work has had influence in multiple fields: pure mathematics, mathematical physics, mathematical finance. Numerous published works with triple-digit, even quadruple-digit citation counts. Clearly meets requirements of WP:PROF#C1. Will Orrick (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very highly cited works in analysis. Definitely passes WP:PROF#C1. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:Prof#C1. Nominators should do more than a "quick google search". Xxanthippe (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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.