User talk:GITSK

This is GITSK's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Hello, GITSK! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 22:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ldm1954:, Thank you again for taking the time to review the notability concerns. Below is additional verifiable evidence with direct links supporting Kaufman’s academic impact under WP:NACADEMIC.

Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexander_Arkadyevich_Kaufman_(geophysicist)

1. Citation metrics (meets NPROF #1)

Kaufman’s publication record is indexed in Scopus under Author ID 7201910143: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7201910143 Verified metrics: 59 publications, 942 citations, h-index: 11 (For electromagnetic geophysics — a narrow field — these numbers are substantial and in line with other notable EM geophysicists already on Wikipedia.)

2. Highly cited research with long-term impact Example major paper: The electrical field in a borehole with a casing (Geophysics, 1990) https://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/1.1443643 Cited 176 times (Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=13397162791741281636) This paper underpins modern through-casing resistivity logging.

3. Independent secondary coverage of scientific impact (not teaching) a) Colorado School of Mines — Faculty Spotlight (Spring 2005) Direct PDF: https://www.mines.edu/geophysics/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2017/08/geophysics-newsletter-spring-2005.pdf This article explicitly states he made: “extraordinary contributions to virtually every aspect of EM techniques in geologic mapping and mineral exploration,” and describes his casing-through-resistivity patent as “a breakthrough patent.” b) Colorado School of Mines — “Professor Kaufman: A Perfect 10” (Spring 2002) PDF: https://www.mines.edu/geophysics/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2017/08/geophysics-newsletter-spring-2002.pdf Includes detailed independent account of his research career and industry technology adoption. c) Independent academic review (Geophysical Journal International) Review by M. N. Berdichevsky (1996): https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/127/2/559/592834?login=false Describes his monograph as: “unique… no other work presents modern geophysics with such clarity, comprehensiveness, and rigor.”

4. Evidence of industrial impact (NPROF #7) Through-casing resistivity logging patent (US4796186A): https://patents.google.com/patent/US4796186A Independent demonstration of industrial use (GeoIndia Conference, 2015): https://apgindia.org/documents/geoindia/papers/2015/2005167.pdf “CHFR measurement has achieved significant success in terms of incremental oil gain.” This confirms real-world technological impact, not teaching.

5. Evidence of major scholarly authorship. Colorado School of Mines library search showing 17 scientific books published by Elsevier/Academic Press: https://mines.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,KAUFMAN%20ALEXander%20BOOKS%20GEOPHYSICS&tab=Everything&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&vid=01COLSCHL_INST:MINES&facet=domain,include,Elsevier%20ScienceDirect%20Books%20Complete&offset=0 Elsevier is one of the highest-prestige scientific publishers; multiple monographs in this catalog indicate clear disciplinary recognition. Together, these satisfy at least two WP:NACADEMIC criteria:

1. 1 Significant scholarly impact (citations, highly cited papers, independent scholarly reviews)
2. 7 Significant impact outside academia (industry-standard technologies)

Thank you again for your thoughtful review and sorry for being very detailed — I appreciate your time and will gladly provide any additional documentation.

~~~~ GITSK (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you think is irrelevant, and writing long essays like this does nothing. The article must prove notability, and what you have written above provides evidence that he is not notable. You cannot redefine the criteria. N.B., an h-factor of 11 is definitely not notable. A well notable academic has an h-factor of > 45, and more that 8K cites. Papers with > 1K cites (often 2K) are considered notable, not 179. N.B., I am going to move this to your talk page as it does not belong here. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hello @Ldm1954:, Thank you for the follow-up. I want to clarify one point with respect to WP:NACADEMIC, because I believe there is a misunderstanding. Wikipedia’s notability criteria for academics do not require:

• an h-index over 45
• 8000 citations
• 1000 citations per paper

These thresholds are not part of WP:NACADEMIC and vary widely between disciplines. Electromagnetic geophysics is a small research field where citation volumes are far lower than in biomedicine or computer science. Under WP:NACADEMIC, an academic is considered notable if they meet any one of the listed criteria. The draft provides independent sources for several:

1. SEG Honorary Membership, which is a major international field-level distinction.
2. Numerous monographs published by Elsevier and Academic Press (over 14).
3. Independent academic reviews of his theoretical work (e.g., Geophysical Journal International).
4. Industrial adoption of patented methods (through-casing resistivity logging).
5. Significant impact in exploration geophysics, documented in independent institutional publications (CSM Faculty Spotlight).

Because the interpretation of WP:NACADEMIC can vary across fields, I have already requested additional input from WikiProject Geology and WikiProject Physics (as you suggested earlier) so that editors familiar with geophysics can help evaluate the discipline-specific context. Thank you again for your time. GITSK (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hello @Ldm1954:,   One more small detail that may help clarify the publication record:   A public **Google Scholar** search for “Kaufman Alex geophysics” provides an additional list of his works and citations, including many not indexed in Scopus due to Russian/Soviet journals:   https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=KAUFMAN+Alex+geophysics   GITSK (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]