Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Vázquez Martínez

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Vázquez Martínez

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

I do not believe that this individual meets Wikipedia's notability criteria under either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Although the link to his Google Scholar profile shows thousands of citations, many of these are clearly to a different "L. Vazquez," so his actual notability is unclear. I can't find evidence that he satisfies the "average professor test" described in WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, this BLP is a written as a lengthy resume with no in-line citations, making it seem promotional. Astro4686 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The research and arguments put forth by @David Eppstein have persuaded me that Dr. Vazquez is notable under WP:ACADEMIC. I therefore withdraw the AfD. I am grateful to the participants in this discussion, especially David Eppstein. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Identity of citations has to be sorted out. Will nominator help? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply. Hi @Xxanthippe: Yes -- I'm happy to pitch in. I'll begin sifting through the citations when I have time tomorrow. Before nominating, I did track down 4 of the 5 papers for which he was listed as the lead author, and they weren't very heavily cited (fewer than 20 per paper, except for one with ~30, if I remember correctly). But obviously, that's not a comprehensive analysis. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have completely rewritten and stubbed-down the article, so that it no longer looks like a cv. Regardless of the messed-up scholar page, and whatever his actual citations are, I think the corresponding membership in the Spanish Royal Academy gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hi @David Eppstein: thank you for your revisions to the article. I'll have to give some thought to your WP:PROF#C3 argument. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've also gone through a comparison of a Google scholar search for his name (ignoring the bad profile) and the papers he lists as his own on his web page. This gives me the following list of his top-cited works (the ones with over 100 citations):
    - Numerical solution of a nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation (1978; 217 cites)
    - Nonlinear Random Waves (1994; 207 cites)
    - Resonant soliton-impurity interactions (1991; 155 cites)
    - Numerical simulation of nonlinear Schrödinger systems: a new conservative scheme (1995; 131 cites)
    - Localization decay induced by strong nonlinearity in disordered systems (1990; 126 cites)
    - Numerical solution of the sine-Gordon equation (1986; 121 cites)
    - Resonant kink-impurity interactions in the sine-Gordon model (1992, 112 cites)
  I think that should be enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Hi @David Eppstein: many thanks for looking these up. My only question is whether it matters that he's not the first author on these papers. I've been searching for highly cited papers on which he was the first author. I haven't gone through all of his papers yet, but here's what I've found so far. All citations are from Google Scholar.
    - "Relation between Two Variational Methods to Calculate the Energy Levels" (5 citations, 1990)
    - "A More Accurate Explicit Scheme to Solve Certain Quantum Operator Equations of Motion" (1 citation, 1987)
    - "About the Ultraquantum Limit" (no citations listed, 1987)
    - "Long Time Behavior in Numerical Solutions of Certain Dynamical Systems" (8 citations, 1987)
    - "Particle Spectrum Estimations for the Quantum Field Theory ?F + s sin ?F = 0 on a Minkowski Lattice" (4 citations, 1987; the title is shown as it appears on his website, and the ?F stands for a formula that couldn't be reproduced in plain text)
    - "Explicit Schemes to Solve the Schrödinger Field on a Galileo Lattice" (4 citations, 1986)
    - "Discretization Effects on a Classical Lattice" (no citations listed, 1986)
    - "On the Discretization of Certain Operator Field Equations" (12 citations, 1986)
    - "Fractional heat equation and the second law of thermodynamics" (14 citations; 2011)
    - "Spectral Information Retrieval from Integrated Broadband Photodiode Martian Ultraviolet Measurements" (13 citations; 2007)
    - "Fractional Diffusion Equations with Internal Degrees of Freedom" (29 citations; 2003)
    - "Numerical Investigation of a Non-Local Sine-Gordon Model" (34 citations; 1994)

The final four papers in this list were identified as "relevant publications" in the original resume-like article. (One other paper was listed as a relevant publication, but I could not find it on Google Scholar.) Since a resume will typically list a person's most highly cited papers, I am skeptical as to whether he has authored more widely cited papers that these. Of course, if citations on a co-authored paper count, then I would agree with Eppstein and @Xxanthippe: and would withdraw the nomination accordingly. Thoughts? Best wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is math, so the authors should mostly be alphabetical. They aren't, completely, but I think that still explains most of the author ordering. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 on basis of helpful work done by Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Per above, and the edits done by Eppstein. Article subject appears to pass WP:PROF. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:25, 5 March 2016 (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.