Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

I have been providing a little advice to an editor who has written Draft:David M. Grobman who is half of the Hartman–Grobman theorem. The question is whether he passes NPROF 1b. There is a little discussion related to this in the archives, in 2021 (search for theorem) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryna Viazovska. However those seem to be different.

My suspicion is that this is a relevant case to set some precedent, which is why I am bringing it here. If we apply "classic" NPROF criteria there are not enough citations, and GNG is tricky because so much of his work was Soviet. However, if we consider that being associated with a highly cited theorem passes 1b then he qualifies as notable. Thoughts? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the draft page, and something that stands out to me is the serious extent to which there are problems with WP:PEACOCK and promotional language. But your question is about notability, and I'm going to preface what I'm going to say with noting that this kind of math is very far from my own areas of subject expertise. To some extent, these kinds of cases are always going to be borderline cases, but I think the best way to go about it is to focus on what 1b actually says. In general, I would tend to think that having one's name in the name of a notable equation does constitute a pass of 1b, but 1b is worded in terms of independent sourcing demonstrating significant interest in the concept developed by the page subject – in this case, the equation. So instead of just considering the name of the equation, I would want to assess the amount of independent sourcing that treats the equation as having had a significant impact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I like this answer. I think 1h is also relevant: "Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1." Rather we have to be able to demonstrate that (1b) "this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant", which I think is a higher bar than merely being notable. We also need sourcing that the person made significant contributions to the subject, which is definitely not the same as being the person it was named after (see e.g. Gröbner basis). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Having a theorem named after you doesn't hurt, but it doesn't particularly help except in an incidental way. It's not that hard to get a small group of people to use your name to refer to something, or in other words, plenty of people have a concept "named for" them if we include names that are used in sufficiently tiny niches. And on the other hand, not everything gets named for a person. Sometimes the terminology that sticks involves notation and repurposed adjectives. (There's the Yoneda lemma but also the weak n-categories.) So, a researcher can be influential for an idea that isn't named for them. I'd treat a named equation or theorem as a hint for where to look for more solid notability evidence, and an indicator that a topic is worth including in a biography of a person already established to be notable. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I have seen a significant number of recent cases where academics are being declined at AfC (e.g. Hideo Aoki) or nominated to AfD (e.g. Omar Guerrero) based upon having written some of the sources (papers) and/or not passing GNG. Anyone else noticed this? Has something changed in the general notability pages, and/or do we need a few tweaks to reinforce that criteria are different? Ldm1954 (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

New page patrollers are often ignorant of WP:PROF and need reminding of it; this is not new. I don't know why we're seeing so many AfDs where the nominator shows off the same ignorance, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do give those AfC reviewers a reminder when you come across that sort of thing. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

If a subject was named a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), but their fellowship were revoked a few years later. Would they still be notable under WP:NPROF? MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not supposed to be temporary, so one presumes the answer is yes. Depending on the circumstances, there might be an argument for "no", but "yes" is certainly the default. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just curious since I found some fellows whose fellowships were revoked in the website. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

They state that their revocations are for ethical or scientific misconduct but unless they publicly detail their reasons (unlikely) we can't make any assumptions about what it might be for. For all we know it might be letting their annual dues lapse (although I don't think they revoke for that). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In cases of misconduct, if there is adequate (BLP-compliant) sourcing about that misconduct, the person can also be GNG-notable because of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I have written this draft in return for compensation. Can I please get an opinion on whether he meets C1? His work has been cited over 22000 times according to Google Scholar. Although he is an associate professor, but his research output has been significant. He has over 14,000 citations according to Scopus. On Google Scholar, he is the last author on two papers with over a 1000 cites. Most of his papers do not have a lot of co-authors, only 4 to 5. I have also used OpenAlex to conduct a comparative analysis of his citation count with his co-authors, capping co-authors to over 50 published articles, so that student co-authors are not included in the analysis. Pool mean was 4803 citation count, whereas he has 10,602 citations. Finally he received the Highly Cited Researchers awards from Clarivate in 2025. HRShami (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@HRShami, despite the fact that his citations would normally mean a pass of WP:NPROF#C1 I am not positive about this case. The big issue is the width of the topics in Google Scholar which seems to be very unusually large. If he was someone who did some core characterization such as x-ray diffraction or theory such as density functional theory then it would not be too surprising. However, I don't see indications of this here. I also checked on his books and the publisher does not have a good reputation, with indications of "pay-to-publish".

I think this is a case where additional peer recognition and promotion to full professor really matters to dispell any doubts which I or others have. I don't see any such recognition, and his personal pages have too much self-promo for me. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, to me the unrelated nature of the topics of the highly cited papers is a bit of a red flag. Socio-economics, solar energy, and food production from pond scum? What research focus would have led to those three topics as being his top three cites? And then, a little farther down, cooling of electronic devices, 3d printing, and the materials science of hydrogen storage? It does happen that people have success in multiple unrelated topics (see for instance both Alan Turing and less famously Dan Willard as people who made significant but unrelated contributions to both computing theory and biology) but it also happens that people who are part of citation mills are indiscriminate in the topics of the highly-cited publications that they gain through the mill but to which they are not serious contributors. It makes me mistrust the raw citation counts, and without that trust I don't want to use WP:PROF#C1 as the only indicator of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked the publications and came to the same conclusions as the two editors just above. I don't think he passes on the basis of C1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)