Misplaced Pages

Sucharit Sarkar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This not-newly-created (then) article was speedily deleted without notifying the original creator (which smacks of avoiding scrutiny) but some backlinks weren't removed. Deleting admin says, "holding a professorship at Princeton is not of itself an adequate assertion", which is true, but that is also a sufficient assertion not to speedy deleting (and again without notification it is hard to figure out the article existed in first place). The subject has highest citation count of 171 and 97 in a low citation field that is mathematics which, at least considering recent academics afd debates, should be enough. His colleague at Princeton, Manjul Bhargava (a Fields Medalist), has in turn has highest citation count of 107. Someone speedy deleting the Bhargava article without full discussion would be considered vandalism. Why double standards here? Solomon7968 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

temp undeleted for review -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy and list at AfD. WP:A7 is for articles which make no credible claim of importance. This guy won a gold medal in something. I doubt the article will survive AfD, but IMHO, the gold medal is enough of a credible claim of importance to make A7 not apply. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. The International Mathematics Olympiad is generally considered the most difficult mathematics problem solving competition at the pre-collegiate level. Winning a gold medal is a rare feat. It may not be enough to make him notable, but it is a strong enough claim of notability that the article should not have been speedied. Ozob (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn, no prejudice against relisting at AfD. Most research-level academics are ineligible for A7 deletion (even though many have been deleted at AfD), as it is not a career one can get into without doing something of note. Sarkar has an IMO gold medal; this is probably not enough by itself for notability at an AfD but it should be enough of a claim of notability to prevent speedy deletion. Finishing a doctorate and achieving employment at an Ivy League university is also not enough to pass WP:PROF by itself, but it again should be enough to create the suspicion that there might be some notability there and save the article from speedy deletion. And the statement "He is working on Heegaard Floer homology" wasn't written in a way that would make it obvious to non-experts, but it can also be viewed as a claim of notability when one pokes around a little further and discovers what it actually means: that he has two highly-cited publications on the subject, both of which are in Annals of Mathematics, one of the most highly regarded and highly selective journals in mathematics. Although it looks the weakest, I think this third claim is actually the strongest one, since unlike the other two it could be used under WP:PROF#C1 at an AfD. If the admin who deleted this didn't see any of these as being signs of notability, it's not something to be ashamed of, but it indicates an ignorance of academic notability that suggests that working on other subjects would be a better choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm not sure the article should be kept, but it should be discussed. I don't understand why the deletion was speedy rather than a "proposed deletion". The latter results in deletion if nobody challenges it within a specified time (a week, I think?) and if somebody does challenge it then the person proposing deletion can take it to AfD to be discussed. However, one thing puzzles me: doesn't "speedy" mean "speedy"? "Speedy" means with no discussion, and I thought if one administrator can delete an article with no discussion, then another can equally speedily undelete it and then a discussion must ensue unless those wishing for deletion decide not to pursue it. In about 2005–2007 we had a huge number of new articles on mathematical topics getting deleted by administrators who saw that an article was on a mathematical topic and treated that as grounds for speedy deletion. I speedily undeleted some of those and took the deleters to task for behaving irrationally, and I'm glad I did those things. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn personally I would say that holding an associate professorship at Princeton is an assertion of significance sufficient to get past A7, and even if it isn't then the Olympiad medals clearly are. A7 is meant to be a lower bar than notability, it is entirely possible for a non-notable subject to not qualify for A7, and the description of A7 as requiring an "assertion of notability" is wrong. Hut 8.5 06:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Assistant professorship, actually. Assistant professors are usually WP:TOOSOON to be notable enough to pass AfD but I agree, it should be enough to get past A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Why is there a link to some random FFD page in the header? Stifle (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No clue why, but I fixed it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn. This might or might not be deleted at an AfD (I suspect that I would !vote keep), but the medals alone are enough that an A7 Speedy was not justified. Other claims of significence are less obvious, but also enough, as per others above DES 11:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn, but with no prejudice against it being taken immediately to AFD. Clearly not a valid A7, as there are clear assertions of importance in there. The deleting admin's defense that there is no "assertion of notability" is not relevant as CSD A7 does not require any such assertion. Lankiveil 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC).