Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadel Adib: Difference between revisions

Fadel Adib (edit | 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)

Associate prof who has made a good start, but an h-factor of 31 in a high citation field is WP:TOOSOON, particularly as almost all his awards (e.g. Sloan, Career, ONR) are starter grants. I do not see a rationale to treat a MIT academic any different from elsewhere, so we should not open the flood gates. He can wait until he reaches the same bar we would apply to others. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Massachusetts. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Doherty Chair in Ocean Utilization is an associate-level named chair so it doesn’t count for WP:PROF#C5, but I think the citation counts (2 quad-digit and 16 more triple-digit) are enough even in a high-citation field for WP:PROF#C1. Weak because that’s the only criterion I see a pass of; the awards are early-career grants, best paper awards, and the like, which don’t pass #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @David Eppstein, did you compare to his co-authors such as Dina Katabi , Robert C. Miller , Shyam Gollakota? They have h-factors etc is the normal range for WP:NPROF in a high citation area. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Miller’s GS profile is badly curated with publications #1, #2, and #6 by other people with similar names. And for topics such as this with consistently high citation counts, the h-index is the wrong statistic to use: it is more about seniority (having the time to have published enough papers in that high citation range) than it is about research impact. The peaks are more important. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (Weak) Keep — per Eppstein’s citation count research (h-index alone isn’t the only factor when certain individual citation numbers are so high). And while any individual early career award isn’t enough, when there is an ocean of them they add up to conferring general notability (on this ocean researcher). — Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that MIT is one of the few universities that has two levels of associate professor: pre- and post- tenure; Adib is post tenure which makes a significant difference in my assessment. (Oh, and a semi-COI to declare: I was a professor at MIT until recently, though I never crossed paths with Adib). — Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, I don’t think MIT is that unusual, Northwestern also has untenured & tenured assoc prof. Full prof is a step up and normally is tenured, although I know someone who was hired as an untenured prof with a promise of a rapid tenure decision. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting primarily because the Keeps are Weak Keeps so allowing this discussion to continue on for a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON he seems to be making lots of inroads in the field of computer science and has an impressive publishing record for someone so young but not enough solid coverage or secondary sources yet for the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]