623:, which works pretty well for high energy physics (Motl's area) and theoretical computer science (mine) but badly for some others. (2) Get a list of publications of the subject, sorted by number of citations. To find publications for Motl in Google scholar, for instance, search for author:l-motl. In some cases you need to be more careful to include variant spellings of the subject's name or to exclude hits from different people with similar names. Google scholar mostly sorts by number of citations (although there are exceptions that I don't really understand the reasons for). (3) Scan down the list until reaching a position x such that the paper in that position has fewer than x citations. The h-index is x−1. —
541:: These assorted citation counts and h-index values are good, but can we cite them in the article? And how do we source them? I've had a not dissimilar problem in an article about a book that's been cited several hundred times in the primary literature. In that case there seemed to be no good way to cite this information, since dismissive editors cried
545:
because I'd done the count. In passing, Abductive - I don't think that we can reasonably describe the subject as a "failed" academic. Yes, people leave academia because they find it too difficult, but given this subject's apparent significance to his field, it sounds like other factors are in play.
434:
needs to provide evidence for this notability. Although, I say that but have no idea how one does this for an academic who's "gone feral". Usually one can rely on a strong publication record together with leadership of scientific societies or receipt of prizes, but that probably doesn't apply here.
306:
Subject is notable as a blogger and a major contributor to and provocateur of the debate on string theory. See for example . There was considerable discussion of this side of his notability on the article talk page; whether or not he made major scientific contributions to string theory is the kind of
450:
The publication record is sufficient to meet WP:PROF; the awards and leadership factors are an easy way of showing notability when present, but they are not necessary. Our standards for researchers have gotten considerably more consistent since the earlier AfDs, but they have not gotten more
233:
significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources; he has plenty of mentions in blogs, but as I understand it they are generally not reliable sources. A search for his name on Google
Scholar finds 51 results, which does not seem like a great deal. In short, there seems to be nothing
592:
mentioned by
Robofish and the oft-cited publications. Without a good secondary source about Dr Motl's move back to the Czech Republic, we're not going to be able to write a really good encyclopedia article about him, but we can have a article significantly better than the current one.
286:
Comment. It appears so, but that only prevents him from increasing his notability as a physicist; it does nothing to diminish the notability of his existing accomplishments. We don't delete articles on dead academics just because they have become inactive.
451:
exclusive. And , as I said last time, a physicist "prepared to defend the
Bogdanov brothers' papers in public" is notable all the more, in a perverse way". There really ought to be some material to cite commenting on his decision to do that.
220:
Apparently non-notable scientist. This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2005 and 2007, but our standards have changed since then, and I believe it does not pass our inclusion standards today. Specifically, it fails
605:. Given that everyone above is satisfied he meets our guidelines, I'm happy to withdraw this. Just one request: could someone explain to me how to find out someone's h-index, so I avoid making more silly AfDs in future?
189:
249:
It is possible, however, that the diacritic in his name is making him difficult to search for. I have found a few reliable sources that mention him as 'Lubos Motl', and this New York Times article from 2001:
352:
89:
84:
79:
430:: From what David says it sounds like the subject has been significant in his former field (100 cites seems a lot to me), but the article itself does a very poor job of conveying this importance. It
546:
Possibly he's just had enough of string theory? It is a vast theoretical edifice scraping around for observations to test it against - hardly a satisfactory field to find oneself in. Cheers, --
413:
that the case for being notable for that is quite plausible as well. He appears not to have been tenured at
Harvard but that's par for the course there and nothing to be ashamed of. —
144:
183:
149:
378:
326:
74:
518:, and since he is in fact a failed academic trying to get publicity by bloggery, maybe the best thing is an article that simply tells the truth about him.
307:
thing people can debate in the case of almost anybody but it seems indisputable that he created a widely followed blog and a strong community of interest.
585:
251:
492:
Due to cited publications: Using (Motl L) Web of science calculates a h-index of 8 and total citations of 419 for the 12 articles (see here
53:
17:
661:
632:
614:
597:
571:
553:
533:
505:
483:
462:
442:
422:
393:
367:
341:
316:
296:
281:
262:
243:
117:
112:
57:
121:
410:. And (though it's a trivial mention of him) I think when one's blogging activities rise to the level of attention in the Times
649:
204:
594:
411:
171:
104:
49:
272:: I believe he has left string theory, his speciality in physics. Notabiliy may have to be established on other grounds.
680:
36:
562:
I agree with the above comment. There are many physicists of Motl's age who who be happy to have his citation record.
515:
277:
165:
679:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
628:
418:
312:
292:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
402:. It doesn't matter how many pubs he has, it matters how good they are. Four with over 100 cites each and an
234:
particularly significant or exceptional about him that justifies him having a biography on
Knowledge (XXG).
161:
273:
211:
567:
479:
646:
657:
624:
528:
414:
308:
288:
197:
610:
258:
239:
108:
501:
493:
389:
363:
337:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
407:
222:
177:
226:
563:
475:
542:
620:
520:
606:
547:
458:
436:
254:
235:
100:
63:
497:
385:
359:
333:
474:
of 16, although these include some arXiv papers, plus fame as a blogger suffices.
138:
453:
638:
471:
403:
673:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
353:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
253:. I'm not sure that's sufficient for our purposes, though.
619:(1) Choose an index of academic citations. I usually use
134:
130:
126:
196:
406:
around 20 is somewhat above our usual threshold for
210:
90:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (4th nomination)
85:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination)
80:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (2nd nomination)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
683:). No further edits should be made to this page.
48:with no calls for deletion. Non-admin closure.
8:
379:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
327:list of Science-related deletion discussions
373:
347:
321:
377:: This debate has been included in the
351:: This debate has been included in the
325:: This debate has been included in the
72:
496:). Scopus also yields a h-index of 8 (
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
70:
24:
584:. Subject is WikiNotable, given
75:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl
1:
516:"Leading European scientist"
637:There's also an article at
700:
662:22:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
633:20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
615:19:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
598:11:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
572:09:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
554:08:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
534:05:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
506:01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
484:00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
463:23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
443:21:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
423:19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
394:19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
368:19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
342:19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
317:19:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
297:19:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
282:16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
263:16:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
244:16:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
58:00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
676:Please do not modify it.
50:Regent of the Seatopians
32:Please do not modify it.
514:. Fox News calls him a
69:AfDs for this article:
645:per Xxanthippe). --
46:Nomination withdrawn
44:The result was
551:
494:User:Msrasnw/Motl
440:
396:
382:
370:
356:
344:
330:
691:
678:
653:
549:
532:
525:
438:
383:
357:
331:
274:Charles Matthews
215:
214:
200:
152:
142:
124:
34:
699:
698:
694:
693:
692:
690:
689:
688:
687:
681:deletion review
674:
654:
651:
521:
519:
229:. I can't find
157:
148:
115:
99:
96:
94:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
697:
695:
686:
685:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
650:
625:David Eppstein
621:Google scholar
600:
588:New York Times
578:
577:
576:
575:
557:
556:
536:
509:
487:
465:
445:
425:
415:David Eppstein
397:
371:
345:
319:
309:betsythedevine
301:
300:
299:
289:David Eppstein
266:
265:
218:
217:
154:
150:AfD statistics
95:
93:
92:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
696:
684:
682:
677:
671:
670:
663:
659:
655:
648:
644:
640:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:AFD Withdrawn
601:
599:
596:
591:
589:
583:
580:
579:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
555:
552:
544:
540:
537:
535:
530:
526:
524:
517:
513:
510:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
464:
460:
456:
455:
449:
446:
444:
441:
433:
429:
426:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
405:
401:
398:
395:
391:
387:
380:
376:
372:
369:
365:
361:
354:
350:
346:
343:
339:
335:
328:
324:
320:
318:
314:
310:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
232:
228:
224:
213:
209:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
163:
160:
159:Find sources:
155:
151:
146:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
91:
88:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
675:
672:
642:
602:
587:
581:
538:
522:
511:
489:
467:
452:
447:
431:
427:
399:
374:
348:
322:
303:
269:
230:
219:
207:
201:
193:
186:
180:
174:
168:
158:
45:
43:
31:
28:
184:free images
564:Xxanthippe
476:Xxanthippe
408:WP:PROF#C1
101:Luboš Motl
64:Luboš Motl
641:(oh, and
586:the 2001
529:reasoning
523:Abductive
428:Weak keep
386:• Gene93k
360:• Gene93k
334:• Gene93k
647:Radagast
607:Robofish
255:Robofish
236:Robofish
145:View log
639:h-index
590:article
550:LUMBAGO
539:Comment
512:Comment
498:Msrasnw
472:h index
439:LUMBAGO
404:h-index
270:Comment
223:WP:PROF
190:WP refs
178:scholar
118:protect
113:history
227:WP:BIO
162:Google
122:delete
543:WP:OR
470:. GS
459:talk
432:still
205:JSTOR
166:books
139:views
131:watch
127:links
16:<
658:talk
643:keep
629:talk
611:talk
582:Keep
568:talk
502:talk
490:Keep
480:talk
468:Keep
448:Keep
419:talk
400:Keep
390:talk
375:Note
364:talk
349:Note
338:talk
323:Note
313:talk
304:Keep
293:talk
278:talk
259:talk
240:talk
225:and
198:FENS
172:news
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
54:talk
595:CWC
454:DGG
435:--
384:--
358:--
332:--
231:any
212:TWL
147:•
143:– (
660:)
631:)
613:)
570:)
504:)
482:)
461:)
421:)
392:)
381:.
366:)
355:.
340:)
329:.
315:)
295:)
280:)
261:)
242:)
192:)
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
56:)
656:(
652:3
627:(
609:(
574:.
566:(
548:P
531:)
527:(
508:)
500:(
486:.
478:(
457:(
437:P
417:(
388:(
362:(
336:(
311:(
291:(
287:—
276:(
257:(
238:(
216:)
208:·
202:·
194:·
187:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
164:(
156:(
153:)
141:)
103:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.