Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assaf Rinot

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 delete. Tone 20:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assaf Rinot

[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)

For the same reason as another recently created article by the same creator. No claim to notability here besides being a decent researcher. A review of his work does not suggest that he made significant contributions to set theory based on his 29 existing papers (most cited paper has 11 citations not from himself). None of his works are mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia either. Therefore fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and most importantly WP:NACADEMIC. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. Citability (in GScholar and in MathSciNet) is too low, for math, to satisfy WP:PROF#C1, and there is nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds yet. Nsk92 (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rinot solved several open problems in set theory, as indicated in his list of publications ([1]). Two noteworthy examples are the solution of the Hedetniemi's conjecture for uncountable graphs in [2], and his paper described here which improves on a 35-years old theorem of Saharon Shelah who is the world leader in set theory. Tzahy (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how WP:PROF works. We can't go by his own publication list or by what he says in his own papers about the significance of his results, we have to rely on WP:INDEPENDENT sources for establishing notability. For the argument you are trying to make to be convincing for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, we would have to see either evidence of high citability of his results in the work of others, or some examples of in-depth detailed discussion in the work of others of importance of his specific results. I am not seeing evidence of either here yet. E.g. for his most high profile publication (at least in terms of the journal's standing), in JEMS with the proof of Hedetniemi's conjecture for uncountable graphs that you mention above, MathSciNet lists just two citations, and both are in Rinot's own papers. Nsk92 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation counts reported by MathSciNet and Google Scholar are too low for a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and the subject is "only" (quotes because I am a mere postgraduate student in Mathematics, and at my age don't expect to get any further than that) an associate professor, and as such would have to be pretty exceptional to pass any count of WP:PROF. The paper on Hedetniemi's conjecture, which is claimed above to be one of his crowning glories, has more citations listed on Google scholar than on MathSciNet, but it's still only 5, with 3 having Rinot as a co-author, and the other claim of notability above, the "Putting a diamond inside the square" paper, has 6 citations, of which all 6 are self-citations Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough citations. Doesn't pass other PROF criteria or GNG. FWIW - his output and citation trajectory is such he probably will pass NPROF#1 in 3-5 years - but not at present.Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 3 March 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.