Talk:Alessandro Chiesa

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: There is no proof of notability. In general assistant and associate professors do not pass WP:NPROF unless there are major awards or something else.

Ldm1954 (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Note to others: we discussed on my talk page. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Notability

@Memer15151: thank you for reviewing! I agree that the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. However, since WP:PROF is the more specific guideline, I wonder if you had thoughts on that?

In particular, I think there's a case for notability based on citation count. I don't have access to the other databases, but Google Scholar puts it at at 10,820 citations. It seems to rank Chiesa around #150 in the field of cryptography, and #17 in the field of complexity theory, although those rankings may have some flaws. I thought this might suffice, in conjunction with other contributing factors like the awards (which aren't prestigious enough to suffice on their own).

If you have suggestions for strengthening the case for notability, I'll try to implement them, but my sense is that there may not be much more I can do in the article itself; it may come down to more of an off-wiki assessment based on factors like citations. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Memer15151. WP:NPROF is close, but not yet strong enough -- as was discussed on your talk page. Without a major award it is WP:TOOSOON. If you move to main you are asking in effect for an AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest waiting 1-2 years Ldm1954 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree waiting 1-2 years would make the notability case more clear, but I can't guarantee that I'll be remain active throughout that period, so it could end up deleted as an abandoned draft. We could add Template:Promising draft but still, if we're risking deletion anyway, might as well let an AfD play out now? I'm optimistic that it would survive one, though I agree it's close and I could be wrong. I'll hold off for now in case Memer15151 or others have input. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Though to be clear, if there are other recommended changes (especially ones that might help demonstrate notability) from you, Memer15151 or anyone else, I'll try to implement them before any move. But if we've already done what we can for now to demonstrate notability, I'd rather risk an AfD with an uncertain outcome than abandon the draft. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you'd rather not get drawn into a discussion of this, maybe I can proceed with the move to mainspace (if there are no objections) and we can leave it to a potential future AfD to reach a decision on notability. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPROF needs only one of the criteria to be met. Criteria #2 is the one that is very close to being met in my opinion, and I think that some of the awards might meet the criteria as "highly prestigious academic award[s] or honor[s] at a national or international level". I'd say you might be able to argue for notability here. I declined it as I didn't think that the awards were enough to establish notability, but maybe it could survive an AfD, it's really your choice. And sorry this reply took long, I was not available when I was mentioned in this comment. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 12:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the first 3 of his awards are all junior startup grants. Important for tenure, but not beyond. The IEEE award is a "best paper" type, and he is not the first author (who did most of the work) or the last (who managed the project). Not enough for #C2 yet. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I was having a bit of trouble understanding if those awards would meet the criteria. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 12:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW the authors were alphabetical, which is common in the field. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I think I'll try moving then. My argument for notability would be

• Citation count of 10,820 is respectable.
• This should probably be looked at in the context of zero-knowledge proofs, a young but significant subfield of cryptography.
• About 150 cryptographers have higher citation counts, but if we only consider works in this subfield, Chiesa's citation count is about as high as it gets.

• I guess Silvio Micali is higher, but he's a co-inventor of the subfield, and his classic 80s papers have had much more time to accumulate citations.
• Current leaders of the subfield would include Eli Ben-Sasson or Jens Groth, whose metrics are comparable to Chiesa's.
• Dan Boneh is also a leader of the subfield, but his higher citation count is due to prior work outside of it.

• While not sufficing on their own, the awards seem significant enough to be a contributing factor.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPROF warns against using Google Scholar because it can inflate the amount of citations. It suggests using Web of Science or Scopus instead. Scopus puts the amount of citations at 4,558, which is half of Google Scholar's count. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 15:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue with GS is that it can include papers which don't belong, for instance conference articles by ABC if D edited the proceedings can get included under D. Plus sometimes it makes mistakes, so has to be checked, particularly if the name is common.

Unfortunately both WoS & Scopus miss far too many journals and archives. GS is the standard, not just in science AfD but also in promotion & tenure. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh interesting, I wonder would WoS & Scopus also intentionally exclude preprint sites? The subfield has a lot of preprint-only work from researchers who either left academia for industry, or have unusual career paths, such as the authors of [1] with no higher degrees in the field. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The way I (and I will argue other academics) view the GS h-factor is a bit like written exams. We know they are not perfect, but they are currently the best we have available. Sometimes an academic who moved from industry may have a low h-factor but major awards such as being elected a Fellow of IEEE -- this is why #C2 exists. Those awards also cross-validate h-factors.

N.B., you would have to check, but I would not expect WoS/Scopus to include all preprint sites or conference cites. I just checked mine in Scopus and it does not have my highest cited as it is a software docu. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Moving to mainspace, I understand if it's challenged at AfD but I'd like to make the case there (if needed). Going forward I'll try to focus on cryptographers with somewhat higher citation metrics to avoid borderline cases. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)