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 keep‎. as I see no support for Deletion other than from the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlos Savvidis (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)

Academic with a decent publication record (h-factors 43) but no significant awards to verify peer recognition, and no significant coverage beyond a mention back in 2008. Tagged for notability in NPP; no action taken beyond an unexplained and unwarranted removal of notability tag. Does not pass any section of WP:NPROF, and there is no evidence that any other notabilities apply. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Another scientist with high GS citations in a high-cited field. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  @Xxanthippe, an 43 h-factor, 7726 total cites and 459 total in 2023 is definitely not high, particularly for a highly cited field, not close to passing WP:NPROF#C1. He has one highly cited paper from his PhD thesis, but not much else. In terms of his GS area of Condensed Matter Physics he comes in something like number 300 or lower. If he had been elected as an APS Fellow it would be different, but there is no such evidence of peer recognition. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My vote is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. I'm a little baffled by this afd, given the expert credentials of the nom. In Web-of-science, Savvidis shows >100 papers, ~2600 citations, and H=35 (goes to PROF 1). While it's true that semiconductors (one area of research) is a high citation field, what I find here is the usual gigantic variance in research metrics of WP BLPs working in this field. There are folks both much high and much lower, for example Herbert Kroemer (~700 papers, ~23,000 cites, H 90) and Janice Hudgings (31 papers, ~500 cites, H 11), as well as lots of BLPs having similar stats, like Cyril Hilsum (96 papers, ~1700 cites, H 20). On balance, I have the distinct impression that Savvidis has a research impact appreciably higher than the average professor in this field, suggesting PROF 1 is satisfied. 128.252.210.3 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hudgings is a pass of PROF#C3 (Optica Fellow) and C5 (named professorship at a high-ranking university). Her case for C1 is more borderline. For Savvidis, though, it seems C1 is the only suitable criterion. So their cases are not really comparable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @David Eppstein. Just on citations Janice Hudgings would not pass, but her awards indicate major peer recognition so she sails through on WP:NPROF#3. Similarly Cyril Hilsum is NAE plus a stack of other major peer recognition awards, WP:NPROF#3 and perhaps also WP:NPROF#1b and WP:NPROF#2. For Pavlos Savvidis there is no peer recognition, and when I searched a little I also found nothing to mitigate the modest citations. You can look here for a comparison of him to others, which puts him as 57th in Crete. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. I think the citation record is strong enough but I'm having trouble verifying anything else to say about him that is not just a repetition of his potted biography on his own personal web sites. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting owing to the WP:V concerns raised by David Eppstein. We have clear consensus that the subject meets WP:PROF by citation count. How concerned are we that we don't have independently verifiable information about him?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree about the statement "consensus by citation count" particularly for a high citation field and when the citations are not significantly increasing. This is why I nominated the page because there was nothing in WP:V to back up the citations. Academics get awards, the lack of any here including none that are notable concerns me. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Like Eppstein and XXanthippe, I think the citation record is enough. The polariton amplifier work is reasonably significant; that PRL paper has been cited over 1000 times, and he's the lead author. The article is pretty thin and could use more information and better citations, though - I tried to tune it up a bit. Qflib (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (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.