Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Reeves (mathematician)

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 delete. per comments pointing out that GNG is not met, and per consensus Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Reeves (mathematician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person is not notable enough Mohit Singh (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmm, he's cited a good amount of times on Google Scholar, but nothing completely conclusive yet. I'll keep digging. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 22. Very high for a mathematician. Please will nominator expand on why thinks notability is not achieved? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. The titles of his most highly cited papers look like theoretical computer science / economics to me rather than pure math, making their citation numbers much less surprising. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but even for an applied mathematician in a popular area it is should still be sufficient to satisfy WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks actually a lot more like a CS/econ researcher than a mathematician, as David Eppstein notes. I think the citation rate is high enough to justify WP:PROF#C1, but will defer to David Eppstein's opinion when he offers one, since CS is his field. I will go edit the article to recharacterize the subject as a computer scientist, but will refrain from moving the article until the AFD is complete, if it should be kept. Ray^Talk 19:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He does have some high-citation papers (aven normalizing for which field they're in), and ordinarily that would be enough. But to me that's mitigated by a couple of other points: (1) they were apparently all written when he was a student (e.g. although the journal publication date of his highest-cited paper is 2007, it also has a 1999 working paper version, and he was a student until 2005), so it is hard to disentangle his contribution to their impact from his more senior co-authors; (2) there is very little sign of notability for anything he's done since then (this is the only in-depth independent source I know of for Beeminder, although it in turn cites a WSJ article that mentions the system more briefly), and (3) because of the lack of secondary sources it is difficult to write a properly sourced article about the subject, and per WP:BLP articles about living people need good sources. I'm willing to change my mind if we get better secondary sources about what he has been doing since graduating, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per David Eppstein. Ray^Talk 14:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 18:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not keen on using h-index alone as an indicator of notability. Certainly a failure to have a sufficiently high h-index is a clear indication of a lack of notability. But even with a decent h-index, there must be some tangible sources on the subject that indicate how the subject is notable, since we cannot write an encyclopedia article just from an h-index. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the h-number test is one factor, I think his publication record has "impact", per WP:PROF#1. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the h-number is just an indicator, not proof, of notability. We still need to meet the GNG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2013 (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.