Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Shader (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Shader[edit]

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

Appears utterly non-notable and probably a vanity article (based on the name of the original creator). Was tagged for notability which was removed without explanation. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has a GS h index of 14, respectable for mathematics so passes WP:Prof#C1. Also appears to pass WP:Prof#C8. Please will nominator explain why he discounted these factors? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, somewhat weakish, but still. For a 20 year career with 81 published papers an h-index of 14 is not particularly impressive. I also looked carefully at his record in MathSciNet; he does have a lot of publications, but all of them in rather mid-level journals. However, he is an Editor-in-Chief of the Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra and he does have a teaching award from MAA (although a regional one, not a national one). So overall there does seem to be enough here to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete (unless...) We cannot rely solely on the h-Index (here's why). The teaching award he has received is certainly not a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". In my interpretation, the subject fails WP:PROF (and there is a lack of evidence of additional notability) unless it can be demonstrated that the Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra qualifies as a "major well-established academic journal". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra (ELA) is a publication of the International Linear Algebra Society (ILAS). Also ELA has impact factor 0.808 (2010) which is really good for mathematics journals. Therefore the Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra indeed qualifies as a "major well-established academic journal" of its field. So the article passes WP:Prof#C8. Also Bryan Shader works in Linear Algebra and Combinatorial Matrix Theory. If we look at his publications in MathSciNet we will see most of his articles were published in best journals of these fields. So the article passes WP:Prof#C1. Myuwmath (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I'm unable to access the Ams.org website cited just above and that "impact factor gauge" is something I'm unfamiliar with. If the community feels that is adequate then I will support a Keep decision. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:22, 10 August 2011 (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.