- 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. Star Mississippi 15:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Abdon Atangana
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Abdon Atangana ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comparison with academic papers published in journals, mostly predatory or pay-to-publish, in particular comparison of the types of language error that run at almost one per sentence, show a strong likelihood that this article is self-written. Quite simply it is fantastical to claim this person is the number one mathematician in the world or the number one academic researcher in Africa. He has had many papers retracted, as can be verified at Retraction Watch, where there is also copious other relevant information. This page was deleted before. I don't know how it came to be recreated. It should be deleted again, and a watch should be kept out for any attempt to recreate it. JJ209 ( talk) 11:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, Cameroon, and South Africa. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 8. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 20:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and salt, more or less per the previous AfD. His raw citation counts are higher now but heavy self-citation and heavy use of predatory publishers make me unwilling to rely on those numbers for notability. And beyond that, we have only "heavily cited researcher is also frequently retracted" from Retraction Watch, not a great basis for an article on a BLP. Protection is called for if this is deleted, because of its re-creation after a previous deletion. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- PS from the early history of the article, in which the creator added the Retraction Watch info and then was one of many participants working to keep that information in the article through a big edit war with anonymous removers, I have complete good faith that this was not a COI re-creation. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete There seems to have been two listings for this fellow, I commented on the other one. I don't see GNG or PROF. Most of this article is about his math formula, not much enough about him as a person. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: My take is that there are mild cases for
WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1 & 3 and
WP:GNG:
- Mathscinet citations aren't high for analysis and there are research concerns (already expressed by others here); there probably isn't enough from the research side to pass WP:NACADEMIC#1.
- The subject being a fellow (not just a member as stated in the current article) of
The World Academy of Science (
link) lends some credible claim to
WP:NACADEMIC#3. It's somewhere between a
minor and non-notable societ[y]
and ahighly selective and prestigious scholarly society
. - There's mild support for WP:GNG from the local news articles IOL 1 and IOL2, but the two articles are very similar and mostly interview-based. Almost but not quite.
- So this isn't actually too far off from being notable, but it still doesn't quite meet these or any of the other standard criteria. — MarkH21 talk 21:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Despite it is claimed that this person is the number one mathematician in the world, he is not a rated researcher by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (see [1]) which is the most important agency for evaluating researcher in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSpo ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC) — MarkSpo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Question: if this ends in delete, should the Atangana–Baleanu derivative and integral also be trimmed from the
fractional calculus article?
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
10:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The section there seems in reasonable proportion. That said, it suffers from multiple instances of the telltale omission of indefinite and definite articles, a language error which is also frequently apparent in many of Professor Atangana's papers and in his own entry that may be about to be deleted (again), so the section in the fractional calculus article should perhaps be looked at carefully. Notability of the AB derivative and integral can usefully be discussed on the talk page there. Personally I feel they pass the notability test. JJ209 ( talk) 14:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and salt: insufficient notability in reliable independent sources. Predatory journals and self-citation are not reliable. But I agree that the Atangana-Baleanu subsection in the fractional calculus article should stay. This is assuming someone can find a few serious references (by researchers who are not Professor Atangana himself), which it seems to me as a non-mathematician that they probably can, but in any case that's a matter for discussion in relation to the FC page not this one. Jeeely ( talk) 20:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)— Jeeely ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete and warn the editor of any further recreations of the page. The page is only about spam and selbpromotion. -- 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 08:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted to a much earlier version of this article that does not include so many maths formulae and so much self-aggrandisement - just to give the article its best shot at being kept. I am not sure it meets the criteria even now. But the presumably bona fide Springer book Derivative with a New Parameter: Theory, Methods and Applications (978-0081006443) perhaps leaves a small room for doubt?
JJ209 (
talk)
11:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Someone has unreverted and also removed the deletion discussion notice. I will de-unrevert. JJ209 ( talk) 19:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- His work has also been referred to
in the New Scientist magazine: "How an upgrade on calculus is taking maths into uncharted territory". Both the Springer book and the New Scientist article should be referred to in the "best version" of the article. I haven't got time to add them. Sorry! Can someone else add them please?
JJ209 (
talk)
11:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- New Scientist is a sensationalist rag, not a reliable source. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Information: I have revised this article to try to bring it up to standard. I don't know whether I have been successful, so perhaps it should still be deleted. But it is now far more like a normal Wikipedia article than it was. Can contributors to the deletion discussion please read the revised version and say what they think. Although I proposed the deletion, I am in two minds about it now. The subject is not the number one mathematician in the world, but he has made a contribution to a legitimate field of mathematics and the New Scientist magazine is a reliable secondary source.
JJ209 (
talk)
20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Mathematics in Africa started to edit this article disruptively again (putting it back to its previous lengthy self-aggrandising "number one mathematician in the world" form) as soon as he was unbanned. I have reverted to my constructive edit. Sadly I think he may act the same way again and have to be banned again, but as a note to my rv I told him he was welcome to participate in the discussion on this page. Mathematics in Africa also removed the AfD template, but this has been restored. JJ209 ( talk) 14:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Some may find it strange that an article that FlyingFoxBoi wrote some time ago was deleted using false information. The key justification is that according to the Stanford ranking, he was ranked number 1 in general mathematics and number 186 in other subjects. Additionally, it was said that there was no credible source for the statements. Nevertheless, I know the source. https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/3, table https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/3/files/b3e31af2-054c-4b3a-b9c5-6fd9bf10557a. Anyone can verify these statements here. "
- Description
- Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of over 100,000 top-scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, co-authorship adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions and a composite indicator. Separate data are shown for career-long and single year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 176 sub-fields. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists who have published at least 5 papers. Career-long data are updated to end-of-2020. The selection is based on the top 100,000 by c-score (with and without self-citations) or a percentile rank of 2% or above.
- The dataset and code provides an update to previously released version 1 data under https://doi.org/10.17632/btchxktzyw.1; The version 2 dataset is based on the May 06, 2020 snapshot from Scopus and is updated to citation year 2019 available at https://doi.org/10.17632/btchxktzyw.2". Nearly every top university in the globe is recognizing this list; here are just a few examples: " https://lsa.umich.edu/psych/news-events/all-news/faculty-news/stanford-university-names-world-s-top-2—scientists—2021.html"
- It was also asserted that the author self-cited himself and had published in predatory publications. However, because all self-citations were removed during the selection of highly cited scholars, the assertion stated is untrue because " https://recognition.webofscience.com/wos-op/awards/highly-cited/2021/methodology/" holds a different perspective on the subject.
- Strangely enough, knowing the history of black people in South Africa, I'm willing to wager that the person who brought up NRF may have some problems with Atangana personally. It is therefore very odd that only two South African mathematicians have been chosen as fellows of The World Academia of Science, the first in 2003 and the second in 2022 (Atangana), if this very important grade is actually so essential. Given that he only received his PhD in 2013, it also appears that he is one of the youngest candidates ever chosen.
- Strangely enough, knowing the history of black people in South Africa, I'm willing to wager that the person who brought up NRF may have some problems with Atangana personally. It is therefore very odd that only two South African mathematicians have been chosen as fellows of The World Academia of Science, the first in 2003 and the second in 2022 (Atangana), if this very important grade is actually so essential. Given that he only received his PhD in 2013, it also appears that he is one of the youngest candidates ever chosen.
- The next prize ( https://twas.org/article/abdon-atangana-wins-twas-hamdan-award) is further evidence of his notoriety, although UNESCO and TWAS have lost respect for him as a result of his name. Mathematics in Africa ( talk) 15:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Please provide exact sources for rankings of Professor Atangana's work by creditable institutions which state that they have disregarded self-citations. The page at webofscience.com does not say that self-citations were disregarded. It says "All Highly Cited Researcher records are reviewed for any research behavior which would detract from demonstrating true community-wide research influence. Factors such as retractions, misconduct, and extreme self-citation are all considered—and may lead to an author not being considered as a candidate for our list." That is not the same as saying they calculate rankings after disregarding all self-citations.
- 2. Do you have any objections to the Abdon Atangana article as it stands? Would you prefer the article to be deleted, kept in its present form, or changed? If you would prefer it to be changed, in what way and why?
- 3. What are your points relevant to the deletion discussion when you refer to the NRF, UNESCO, and TWAS? JJ209 ( talk) 16:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- 1. I want you to acknowledge right now that the rating indicated in the preceding post is accurate.
- 2. I want you to acknowledge that the claim made about the citations is unfounded, as his web of science account demonstrates.
- 3. NRF is subjective and local and cannot be used to rank any world class researcher
- 4. He is distinguished since he is the second mathematician in South Africa to be elected as a fellow of the international academy of science.
- 5. He is the first African mathematician to join as a fellow of African academia of science under the age of 40," https://www.aasciences.africa/affiliates"
- 6. He is the pioneer of several concepts in mathematics that are used all over and have made subject of several special issue, books, PhD thesis and many others.
- I have modified the article to also reflect his achievement as a 37 years old African Mathematicians, I am sure JJ209 will not deny the notability of this Young Talent.
- 7. I have checked all the retraction notes, i noticed that in all he disagreed therefore such section should not be included. For example, i have read ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042719306272?via%3Dihub) two methods are the same but one is not reliable this make no sense. Mathematics in Africa ( talk) 04:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Star Mississippi 15:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Abdon Atangana
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Abdon Atangana ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comparison with academic papers published in journals, mostly predatory or pay-to-publish, in particular comparison of the types of language error that run at almost one per sentence, show a strong likelihood that this article is self-written. Quite simply it is fantastical to claim this person is the number one mathematician in the world or the number one academic researcher in Africa. He has had many papers retracted, as can be verified at Retraction Watch, where there is also copious other relevant information. This page was deleted before. I don't know how it came to be recreated. It should be deleted again, and a watch should be kept out for any attempt to recreate it. JJ209 ( talk) 11:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, Cameroon, and South Africa. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 8. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 20:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and salt, more or less per the previous AfD. His raw citation counts are higher now but heavy self-citation and heavy use of predatory publishers make me unwilling to rely on those numbers for notability. And beyond that, we have only "heavily cited researcher is also frequently retracted" from Retraction Watch, not a great basis for an article on a BLP. Protection is called for if this is deleted, because of its re-creation after a previous deletion. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- PS from the early history of the article, in which the creator added the Retraction Watch info and then was one of many participants working to keep that information in the article through a big edit war with anonymous removers, I have complete good faith that this was not a COI re-creation. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete There seems to have been two listings for this fellow, I commented on the other one. I don't see GNG or PROF. Most of this article is about his math formula, not much enough about him as a person. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: My take is that there are mild cases for
WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1 & 3 and
WP:GNG:
- Mathscinet citations aren't high for analysis and there are research concerns (already expressed by others here); there probably isn't enough from the research side to pass WP:NACADEMIC#1.
- The subject being a fellow (not just a member as stated in the current article) of
The World Academy of Science (
link) lends some credible claim to
WP:NACADEMIC#3. It's somewhere between a
minor and non-notable societ[y]
and ahighly selective and prestigious scholarly society
. - There's mild support for WP:GNG from the local news articles IOL 1 and IOL2, but the two articles are very similar and mostly interview-based. Almost but not quite.
- So this isn't actually too far off from being notable, but it still doesn't quite meet these or any of the other standard criteria. — MarkH21 talk 21:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Despite it is claimed that this person is the number one mathematician in the world, he is not a rated researcher by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (see [1]) which is the most important agency for evaluating researcher in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSpo ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC) — MarkSpo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Question: if this ends in delete, should the Atangana–Baleanu derivative and integral also be trimmed from the
fractional calculus article?
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
10:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The section there seems in reasonable proportion. That said, it suffers from multiple instances of the telltale omission of indefinite and definite articles, a language error which is also frequently apparent in many of Professor Atangana's papers and in his own entry that may be about to be deleted (again), so the section in the fractional calculus article should perhaps be looked at carefully. Notability of the AB derivative and integral can usefully be discussed on the talk page there. Personally I feel they pass the notability test. JJ209 ( talk) 14:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and salt: insufficient notability in reliable independent sources. Predatory journals and self-citation are not reliable. But I agree that the Atangana-Baleanu subsection in the fractional calculus article should stay. This is assuming someone can find a few serious references (by researchers who are not Professor Atangana himself), which it seems to me as a non-mathematician that they probably can, but in any case that's a matter for discussion in relation to the FC page not this one. Jeeely ( talk) 20:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)— Jeeely ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete and warn the editor of any further recreations of the page. The page is only about spam and selbpromotion. -- 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 08:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted to a much earlier version of this article that does not include so many maths formulae and so much self-aggrandisement - just to give the article its best shot at being kept. I am not sure it meets the criteria even now. But the presumably bona fide Springer book Derivative with a New Parameter: Theory, Methods and Applications (978-0081006443) perhaps leaves a small room for doubt?
JJ209 (
talk)
11:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Someone has unreverted and also removed the deletion discussion notice. I will de-unrevert. JJ209 ( talk) 19:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- His work has also been referred to
in the New Scientist magazine: "How an upgrade on calculus is taking maths into uncharted territory". Both the Springer book and the New Scientist article should be referred to in the "best version" of the article. I haven't got time to add them. Sorry! Can someone else add them please?
JJ209 (
talk)
11:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- New Scientist is a sensationalist rag, not a reliable source. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Information: I have revised this article to try to bring it up to standard. I don't know whether I have been successful, so perhaps it should still be deleted. But it is now far more like a normal Wikipedia article than it was. Can contributors to the deletion discussion please read the revised version and say what they think. Although I proposed the deletion, I am in two minds about it now. The subject is not the number one mathematician in the world, but he has made a contribution to a legitimate field of mathematics and the New Scientist magazine is a reliable secondary source.
JJ209 (
talk)
20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Mathematics in Africa started to edit this article disruptively again (putting it back to its previous lengthy self-aggrandising "number one mathematician in the world" form) as soon as he was unbanned. I have reverted to my constructive edit. Sadly I think he may act the same way again and have to be banned again, but as a note to my rv I told him he was welcome to participate in the discussion on this page. Mathematics in Africa also removed the AfD template, but this has been restored. JJ209 ( talk) 14:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Some may find it strange that an article that FlyingFoxBoi wrote some time ago was deleted using false information. The key justification is that according to the Stanford ranking, he was ranked number 1 in general mathematics and number 186 in other subjects. Additionally, it was said that there was no credible source for the statements. Nevertheless, I know the source. https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/3, table https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/3/files/b3e31af2-054c-4b3a-b9c5-6fd9bf10557a. Anyone can verify these statements here. "
- Description
- Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of over 100,000 top-scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, co-authorship adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions and a composite indicator. Separate data are shown for career-long and single year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 176 sub-fields. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists who have published at least 5 papers. Career-long data are updated to end-of-2020. The selection is based on the top 100,000 by c-score (with and without self-citations) or a percentile rank of 2% or above.
- The dataset and code provides an update to previously released version 1 data under https://doi.org/10.17632/btchxktzyw.1; The version 2 dataset is based on the May 06, 2020 snapshot from Scopus and is updated to citation year 2019 available at https://doi.org/10.17632/btchxktzyw.2". Nearly every top university in the globe is recognizing this list; here are just a few examples: " https://lsa.umich.edu/psych/news-events/all-news/faculty-news/stanford-university-names-world-s-top-2—scientists—2021.html"
- It was also asserted that the author self-cited himself and had published in predatory publications. However, because all self-citations were removed during the selection of highly cited scholars, the assertion stated is untrue because " https://recognition.webofscience.com/wos-op/awards/highly-cited/2021/methodology/" holds a different perspective on the subject.
- Strangely enough, knowing the history of black people in South Africa, I'm willing to wager that the person who brought up NRF may have some problems with Atangana personally. It is therefore very odd that only two South African mathematicians have been chosen as fellows of The World Academia of Science, the first in 2003 and the second in 2022 (Atangana), if this very important grade is actually so essential. Given that he only received his PhD in 2013, it also appears that he is one of the youngest candidates ever chosen.
- Strangely enough, knowing the history of black people in South Africa, I'm willing to wager that the person who brought up NRF may have some problems with Atangana personally. It is therefore very odd that only two South African mathematicians have been chosen as fellows of The World Academia of Science, the first in 2003 and the second in 2022 (Atangana), if this very important grade is actually so essential. Given that he only received his PhD in 2013, it also appears that he is one of the youngest candidates ever chosen.
- The next prize ( https://twas.org/article/abdon-atangana-wins-twas-hamdan-award) is further evidence of his notoriety, although UNESCO and TWAS have lost respect for him as a result of his name. Mathematics in Africa ( talk) 15:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Please provide exact sources for rankings of Professor Atangana's work by creditable institutions which state that they have disregarded self-citations. The page at webofscience.com does not say that self-citations were disregarded. It says "All Highly Cited Researcher records are reviewed for any research behavior which would detract from demonstrating true community-wide research influence. Factors such as retractions, misconduct, and extreme self-citation are all considered—and may lead to an author not being considered as a candidate for our list." That is not the same as saying they calculate rankings after disregarding all self-citations.
- 2. Do you have any objections to the Abdon Atangana article as it stands? Would you prefer the article to be deleted, kept in its present form, or changed? If you would prefer it to be changed, in what way and why?
- 3. What are your points relevant to the deletion discussion when you refer to the NRF, UNESCO, and TWAS? JJ209 ( talk) 16:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- 1. I want you to acknowledge right now that the rating indicated in the preceding post is accurate.
- 2. I want you to acknowledge that the claim made about the citations is unfounded, as his web of science account demonstrates.
- 3. NRF is subjective and local and cannot be used to rank any world class researcher
- 4. He is distinguished since he is the second mathematician in South Africa to be elected as a fellow of the international academy of science.
- 5. He is the first African mathematician to join as a fellow of African academia of science under the age of 40," https://www.aasciences.africa/affiliates"
- 6. He is the pioneer of several concepts in mathematics that are used all over and have made subject of several special issue, books, PhD thesis and many others.
- I have modified the article to also reflect his achievement as a 37 years old African Mathematicians, I am sure JJ209 will not deny the notability of this Young Talent.
- 7. I have checked all the retraction notes, i noticed that in all he disagreed therefore such section should not be included. For example, i have read ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042719306272?via%3Dihub) two methods are the same but one is not reliable this make no sense. Mathematics in Africa ( talk) 04:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- 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.