Deletion of Panos Papasoglu

Comment: Ok, fine, I was avoiding expressing a clear opinion because I didn't have one, but with the comment above from Crusio I think I should take a side. I think the papers in Crelle and Inventiones and Annals (journals famous enough that I can abbreviate them like this, with Crelle not even being part of the official title of the journal, and still any working mathematician will know which ones I mean) are not themselves notability, but are a strong sign that he is on the track of notability. These are the kind of journals that many mathematicians have dreams about someday publishing in, and he has three. I think the fact that one of his papers has 150+ citations in Google scholar is starting to show the impact needed to pass  #1. I think that we shouldn't be here to evaluate the quality of his work, but on the other hand we shouldn't be setting our standards so strictly that we eliminate people who are clearly doing top-quality work merely because they are doing it in a low-key style. And most importantly for my opinion on this particular case, I think it's important to notice that his name appears in several others of our articles on technical mathematics: Bass-Serre theory, Geometric group theory, Dehn function and also on another biography, Zlil Sela. If someone's name is dropped once or twice, that's not enough for me to use it as an argument in this way, but I think this is starting to rise to the level where Wikipedia:Build the web comes into play
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I agree with David Eppstein on this one. Based on http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=P-Papasoglu these citations, I am leaning toward a weak keep. He seems to be the sole author in the third most cited paper in the list. Having gotten his PhD in 1993, with these pubs he could be a senior faculty, possibly a full professor, in a pretty good (possibly not very research intensive) American university. So I would not place too much weight on the assistant professor designation. I’d say the subject either meets  criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), or is very close to meeting it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: For this area, MathSciNet is the more appropriate tool to use. He has 14 papers listed there, five of which have numbers of citations in the 10-20 range (not exceptional, but not bad for mathematics papers — my experience is that mathematics citation numbers tend to be smaller than some other subjects and that MathSciNet numbers of citations tend to be less than half of the Google scholar numbers for the same papers). Several of the reviews are unusually long and thorough: a typical review there is just a one-paragraph abstract, often copied from the original paper's abstract, but {{MR|1346209}}, {{MR|2221253}}, and {{MR|2300450}} are signed reviews (by three different reviewers) that are considerably longer than that. I'm not convinced this is enough to show a pass of  #1, but it at least demonstrates that he is a successful working research mathematician
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Passes  under criterion 1. This is not just a citation count, and more of an examination of his publications as listed on MathSciNet. Journals in which he has published include Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae, and Crelle's journal, which are more influential than the norm
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I am not too familiar with this fiueld so I am refraining from !voting. However, I am worried a bit by some of the arguments brought forward here. As far as I see, whether or not a researcher is notable does not depend ''at all'' on our evaluation of the quality or lack thereof of his work, nor of the quality and standing of the journals that he has published in. We are not the right people to judge those things and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Notability means that someone or someone's work has been noted and has made a notabe impact on the work of others. This can be sourced by showing citation counts or reviews or interviews. Bad researchers can be very notable (e.g. ) and excellent researchers can be non-notable, according to WP's standards. That's how it should be, because we ''can'' judge notability, but should stay away from judging the works quality. By the way, I note that David Eppstein has not yet voted himself and remarked "not exceptional, but not bad " and " I'm not convinced this is enough to show a pass of WP:PROF #1", which is less than a ringing endorsement. I am a bit surprised, therefore, to see some "keep per David" votes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)