Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bellow

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 SNOW Keep considering the noticeable suggestions of Keep, and therefore no comments of Deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bellow[edit]

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

Nominated at request of anonymous editor after declining a prod with the rationale: "As discussed in the Talk section, this article was clearly created by the subject of the article (cf. the posted CV}, or someone very close to her. As also discussed in the Talk section, this person is not notable, at least not for mathematics. (such notability is indicated by an achievement such as a major prize, a talk at the ICM, etc.; this person does not even have an article published in a top journal." See also talk page for further discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Humboldt Prize and Noether Lecture should be enough to show notability per WP:PROF#C2. Note that her most noteworthy publication (Topics in the theory of lifting, with nearly 500 cites on Google scholar, an enormous number for pure mathematics) is under a different name than the one she uses now and under that same name she does have publications in PNAS, TAMS, etc., contradicting the nomination statement. In any case the nomination is bizarrely justified: it names specific honors that she doesn't have and journals she doesn't publish in rather than looking at what she has done. Anyone, even the most blatantly notable, could be criticized in the same way, because there's always going to be some specific honor that they haven't achieved. Additionally, I find the sudden appearance (on the article talk page) of three different IP-address editors with very few other contributions other than to try to delete one other female mathematician's article (Eugenia Cheng) quite suspicious. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. I agree that the article needs some work, but most full professors at a place like Northwestern are going to pass WP:PROF. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear pass of WP:PROF as David explained. At best, the anon. IP is confusing deletion for clean up. Joe Roe (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:PROF on several grounds. In addition to passing WP:PROF#C2 as explained by DE above, also certainly satisfies WP:PROF#C1 based on the citability data and the journal editorships. Note that all three journals where she was an editor are high level journals. Nsk92 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for clear reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
""Remove"" - I am the person who proposed deletion. Eppstein mis-characterizes my criticism. I did not indicate the someone must have *every* indication of notableness that I mentioned, but they

should have at least one. Bellow has none. As for journals, PNAS hasn't been a top journal in math for at least 50 years, and TAMS is a lower-tier journal - as is well-known and easy to check via impact factors (although I personally don't love these). Bellow has a lot of citations for a textbook, but then a very small number for all the rest of her papers. Eppstein's implication that I somehow have a bias against female mathematicians is insulting and wrong (especially since I am married to one!). I simply think these kinds of very weak, self-promotional Wikipedia entries are harmful. It seems like I am in the minority here. I accept that. But I would love to hear an explanation of how people think Bellow's detailed CV got entered into this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.176.43 (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WoS h-index of 10 plus the material discussed above is pretty persuasive. @Anon: you're arguing on the journals themselves, which might be relevant if they were junk publications, but these are all mainstream. I agree that there are tons of "boosterism" articles on WP (in fact this is one of the biggest problems WP has, moving forward), but this article is not one of them. Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep: per David Eppstein and others. Academic and major award winner. Article does need work, though. Montanabw^(talk) 07:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that the page looks less like a CV. (The CV copy-pasting does not necessarily done by someone close to her.) − Pintoch (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tone down: Undue weight. These topics are hardly the mainstream of the probability theory, and these results are of interest for a rather narrow circle of experts. Section "Mathematical work" is too detailed for a general encyclopedia. Such details could fit a professional encyclopedia, such as EoM. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, but needs a rewrite in places.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has rough parts, but the subject is clearly notable, per David Eppstein's excellent summary. Ozob (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article could use clean up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Notability requirements clearly met. Hmlarson (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2016 (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.