Talk:Abdul Jerri
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Notability
editExcept a mention on his birthday (75) I have found no evidence of notability, neither from IEEE Xplore or New York Times. His editorship is for a (no longer existing?) journal that he founded himself on a publisher that he owns himself (see [1]). I doubt that there will be other evidence turning up about notability. Ketil3 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the prod & notability tags. His four books are with highly reputable publishers, and several publications show high citations in Google Scholar.[2] The journal was still running in Sept 2008 and, however it is funded, claims a large international editorial board.[3] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- From the research I have done, the journal is not notable. Unless I missed something when looking, the journal is not indexed in Science Citation Reports and does not have an impact factor. That is usually a rather bad sign already. It is indexed in MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH. However, looking at the Zentralblatt MATH record for this journal, almost no article has been actually reviewed with a signed review and most of them are just listed with author summaries taken from the papers themselves. I had to go back all the way to 2003 to find one paper with a signed review. That is also a very bad sign, since Zentralblatt MATH actually sends all papers to reviewers and if they choose not to write a review but rather recommend that an author summary be printed instead, that's a polite way of saying that the paper is not interesting. The situation in MathSciNet is a bit better, but still the percentage of papers with author summaries rather than signed reviews for this journal is rather high there too and I even see some entries that are marked "there will be no review of this item" which is really bad (basically when a reviewer recommends that there be no review, not even an author summary, of the paper, that's an impolite way of saying that the paper is not interesting and this happens very rarely). I am not sure about the significance of the four books. The reviews in MathSciNet are polite but rather tepid. The one thing that definitely does stand out is a 1977 paper "The Shannon sampling theorem—Its various extensions and applications: A tutorial review" from Proceedings of the IEEE, that has 477 citations according to googlescholar. That is indeed a very high number (the paper appears to be expository). WoS gives 393 citations for this paper. Together with other things (the books and the journal), that's probably enough to pass criterion 1 of WP:PROF. While the case for notability is not overwhelming, I think that this entry would probably be kept if the article is AfD-ed. Nsk92 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into this, Nsk. I certainly think the article is sufficiently close to the threshold to merit discussion at AfD not just prod. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- From the research I have done, the journal is not notable. Unless I missed something when looking, the journal is not indexed in Science Citation Reports and does not have an impact factor. That is usually a rather bad sign already. It is indexed in MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH. However, looking at the Zentralblatt MATH record for this journal, almost no article has been actually reviewed with a signed review and most of them are just listed with author summaries taken from the papers themselves. I had to go back all the way to 2003 to find one paper with a signed review. That is also a very bad sign, since Zentralblatt MATH actually sends all papers to reviewers and if they choose not to write a review but rather recommend that an author summary be printed instead, that's a polite way of saying that the paper is not interesting. The situation in MathSciNet is a bit better, but still the percentage of papers with author summaries rather than signed reviews for this journal is rather high there too and I even see some entries that are marked "there will be no review of this item" which is really bad (basically when a reviewer recommends that there be no review, not even an author summary, of the paper, that's an impolite way of saying that the paper is not interesting and this happens very rarely). I am not sure about the significance of the four books. The reviews in MathSciNet are polite but rather tepid. The one thing that definitely does stand out is a 1977 paper "The Shannon sampling theorem—Its various extensions and applications: A tutorial review" from Proceedings of the IEEE, that has 477 citations according to googlescholar. That is indeed a very high number (the paper appears to be expository). WoS gives 393 citations for this paper. Together with other things (the books and the journal), that's probably enough to pass criterion 1 of WP:PROF. While the case for notability is not overwhelming, I think that this entry would probably be kept if the article is AfD-ed. Nsk92 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Abdul Jerri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601164306/http://www.clarkson.edu/news/view.php?id=302 to http://www.clarkson.edu/news/view.php?id=302
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)