Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amer Iqbal

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 no consensus. There is no agreement that the subject is of borderline notability, and his deletion request, Ticket:2012013010003568, is not compelling because it does not tell us what is wrong with the article or why it should be deleted. Sandstein 06:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Iqbal

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

At the best borderline notability, subject has requested that his page be deleted via OTRS ticket 2012013010003568 Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no good sourcing, and per request of subject (living person)--MLKLewis (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at request of subject despite excellent sourcing. Google scholar gives cites 318, 107, 86, 82 etc, with an h-index of 19. For most areas of physics this would lead to a pass of WP:Prof#1. However in the area that the subject works in, fundamental physics, citation rates tend to be high (for example a Google Scholar search for Michael Duff (physicist) (as M J Duff) returns cites of 776, 609, 384, 336, 328...etc. and a search for Lee Smolin gives cites of 771, 712, 544, 514, 468, 434 ...etc. Therefore notability could perhaps be considered to be borderline and there can be no harm in acceding to the request of the subject to delete. It may be that more people are coming to perceive Wikipedia as a tacky area of the web that they would rather not be associated with. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The citation rate is sufficient in any science, and notability is not borderline. I do not know why the subject is modest, but it would be a strange encyclopedia if we left out the i modest people at a given level and included the others. This would destroy NPOV--giving the right to people lets them in essence dictate the contents of the article, not that I think this subject has done so. The reason the problem is there is that if the inclusion would really be disproportionate in a given case, we have a way to make an exception, and I've voted and even closed that way when necessary. If there is some special reason why it's necessary, please let me know privately off wiki. The ticket isn't in the part of OTRS I work in. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I comment that the argument that someone with a great many citations is not very notable, because there are people with higher citations yet, is in effect an argument that notability = famous. That's not the guideline--such a rule would give a very abridged Wikipedia, DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:notability is borderline combined with the fact that the subject want's the article deleted. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me the citation counts are enough for WP:PROF, despite being on the low side compared to the average for Category:String theorists. But more than cite counts (which can mean many things, and are hard to calibrate from one field to another) I prefer considerations of whether we can find multiple specific important research contributions that can be attributed to the subject. In Iqbal's case there is M-theory#Mysterious duality and some work on crystal melting in Topological string theory. (We also cite him in Del Pezzo surface but in that one I have no clear statement that he made an important contribution to the subject.) That seems like enough to convince me that he has indeed made an impact as criterion #C1 asks. I don't give a lot of weight to requests from the subject, especially in this case where we're not even given a reason for the request. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable scholar in M theory (what is popularly known as 'string" theory). I could not locate that ticket. What does the subject want redacted? If it's harmless, I see no problem. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know why you couldn't locate it, I just checked and the ticket number is correct. He states he isn't a public figure and has the right not to have an article. He complained that there was a pdf uploaded without permission, which was true and I removed it. He also says some of the information isn't accurate and I've asked him (just now) to be specific. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Bearian, it's in the quality queue (which desperately needs more eyes) so if you don't have access to that you won't be able to see it. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, folks. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2012 (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.