Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Baxter

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. no consensus, I'm going to restore all revisions, contact me if any need deletion--Salix alba (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Baxter

Laurence Baxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I had deleted this article via CSD due to 1/ Non notable with no indication of importance, 2/ speedy deleted due to relevance in an "outing" case; it was subsequently nominated at WP:DRV. I have restored a slight modification of the last, non-BLP version of the article with unverifiable/nonfactual information removed; details of the removed information have been noted on the talk page of the article. I believe that this article falls far below the requirements for WP:PROF; the only verifiable remotely notable fact about him is that, following his demise, his faculty named an annual half-day lecture, held on campus, in his honour. Risker (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Laurence A. Baxter of the State University of New York at Stony Brook is a published professor, see [1], therefore meeting WP:PROF. Neıl ☄ 08:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue, but I do want to point out - 22 results. Result two is as an editor. There is a memorial in there. The last is not him also. That is less than one article per year, and most weren't that important. I think the rest need to be thoroughly checked and compared to other academics every day that come under attack for not being notable enough for PROF. To use your words "by existing standards, applied evenly." By these words, we would have deleted the page without second thought based on how we apply PROF standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He was also editor of the International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management and Naval Research Logistics, which is a further push in the right direction, I think. I'll keep digging. Neıl ☄ 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

While you are digging, it would be important to identify whether or not these journals are of sufficient significance for his editorship to be considered noteworthy. Are they considered important within their field? Did they have a significant circulation at the time he was editing them? When did he edit them? By whom were they published? Does all of the information about them come from reliable third party sources? (The latter is a serious concern because of the amount of mirroring and the extracts from the original article found on various websites.) Risker (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If he is sole editor, then the journals aren't notable enough to mention. If he is not, chances are his job as an editor isn't notable enough to mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep per Neil. Needs to be carefully watched for obvious reasons. George and FTs points make perfect sense.Minkythecat (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment At the risk of an "elephant in the room" moment, may I point out that the only thing sourced in the article at the present time is the memorial lecture. The rest of the information appears to be added by someone who we cannot rely on to add accurate information, following recent revelations. However, there do appear to be sources out there. May I suggest - and I know this is out of the norm, but so is the situation - the article is deleted and then recreated so there is no link to the original creator of the article. Sadly, I think this may be the first of quite a few items that appear at AFD, throughout the Wikimedia George The Dragon (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not check the history or talk page and now I can see the article has been deleted and recreated prior to the AFD. I applaud the decision to do so George The Dragon (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on WP:PROF - Academics routinely get published. WP:PROF #1 is that The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed. This is what would need evidencing, not merely "has been published". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  "Comment on the content, not the contributor". FT2, a record of numerous publications (such as those of Baxter) would meet "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". Whilst Poetlister may have been behind the creation of the article, Laurence Baxter is almost certainly notable by existing standards, applied evenly. Neıl ☄ 10:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. It would need discussion and evidence whether he made "significant impact" in his academic field (as opposed to marginal or low impact). That's not something to deduce from "had a lecture named after him" or "was published" or "who wrote the article". One needs to consider the effect of his work on his field of study. Was it "significant"? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• It would strike me that a sign of "significant impact" would be evidence that his work continued to be referred to by other professionals in the field over the 12 years after his death. I am not seeing any evidence of that in my searches; however, others may find something, and I won't discount the possibility. As to the lecture, I myself have attended many "memorial" lectures that are little more than lectures that would have happened anyway, but someone decided to name it in honour of a particular departed colleague. The lecture might be noteworthy if there is indication in independent, third party references that it is considered a significant lecture; for example, a report in a large-circulation specialty journal. Risker (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Risker. Very little in the original article was verifiable and read like a resume for obvious reasons. Though the article has been substantially cut down it still suffers from the same problems regarding assertion of notability and verifiability per George above. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the deletion it does not meet current notability guidelines and verifiability guidelines and that is all this AfD really needs to consider. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  I have given evidence above that the article can be improved; I will do so over the next day or two. Neıl ☄ 10:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  My !votes are rarely set in stone so if that happens then fine but work on it from where it is now rather than restoring the old revisions as suggested by Anthony below. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't have verifiable sources to go off of to claim this person is the person that some have thought may have published enough to fit. When it comes to identities that may or may not be true, this one seems to fall under that. I have worked on many academics when trying to deal with PROF, and I feel this does not fit the case if the identity is true. If someone at Stony Brook later comes by and remakes the page with reliable and well sourced information, then sure. I couldn't find anything in notable newspapers to suggest that he was big enough to warrant even a mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and undelete history. Clearly notable as there are a lot of people looking at this article. History should be restored both to show the historical development of the article and to comply with the GFDL. Anthony (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When did multiple people looking at an article = notability? Lets be more scientific: this shows that there aren't any worth while articles linking to it to really say that there is much of connection to anything on Wikipedia. If he was notable within a subject or a topic, there would have to be something at least. You'll need a lot more than a vague "lot of people looking at this article", which could easily be dismissed as them looking at it because of the recent scandal that is not real worldly notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"When did multiple people looking at an article = notability?" IMO, this has always been the key factor in notability. It is certainly more objective than trying to figure out whether or not people should be looking at an article. Anthony (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article traffic statistics: From Henrik's Tool(incomplete data for June/July 2008)

August 2008 - 216 views, average 7.2/day, peak 23/day

May 2008 - 259 views, average 8.3/day, peak 16/day

April 2008 - 177 views, average 5.9/day, peak 12/day

September 2008 -Sept 1-5, 41 views, average 8.2/day. Sept 6 had 17 views. Sept 7 had 97 views. The increase was directly related to the linking of this article with the Poetlister matter. This is not even close to being a frequently viewed article.

--Risker (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say 97 views in a single day clearly qualifies as notable (your featured article Jacques Plante barely got more than that yesterday), and Sept 8 is probably going to be even higher. And as I've said above, I don't think it's appropriate or objective to try to tell people what articles they should be looking for, especially since we're not dealing with a BLP. As far as I'm concerned, 2 or 3 views a month is notable enough. Hard drive space is cheap. Anthony (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"this has always been the key factor in notability" Honestly, I am very bothered by your definition of notability and I do not think it conforms to any of Wikipedia's policies, especially when these "views" are directly linked to the poetlister scandal and nothing else. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Concurr with Ottava Rima, that Wikipedia pagehits seem a highly ideosyncratic criterion for establishing notability, one I've never seen used before. I've never seen anything like it in any of the notability guidelines. It runs completely against the spirit of WP:N. Substituting WP pagehits for extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject also bypasses all notions of verifyability etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone ought to fix WP:N, then. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The whole point of this project is to provide people with information they're looking for, no? Use common sense. ("verifyability" is a separate issue, and I see no one even challenging the fact that a verifiable article can be written. If "verifyability" -> "notability", then this is a slam dunk and you don't need my opinion.) Anthony (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteWeak deleteDeleteKeep. Fails WP:PROF. All professors publish. I checked Web of Science and (being rather liberal to err on the side of caution, meaning some of these publicaitons may have been by another "LA Baxter") found 24 publications. These have been cited a grand total of 174 times. The most-cited article was cited 31 times. The h-index is 8. In the last 5 years (2008 only partly, of course), all articles together were cited 4, 4, 6, 2, and 1 times. (For those not used to these kind of figures, this is all rather marginal and far from notable). Naval Research Logistics is listed in the Journal Citation Reports and has a 2007 impact factor of 0.548 (its highest IF in the last 5 years, my access does not go back farther). That ranks it 40 out of 60 journals in the category "OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE". The International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management is not included in the JCR and according to its website started in 1995, so Baxter cannot have been an editor of this journal for very long. I cannot find out from their website whether Baxter was editor in chief, regional editor, or just member of the editorial board. In any case, the journal itself is not really notable. The same goes for the other journal. The only possible claim to notability left is the "memorial lecture", Risker has commented upon that above. Unless something more substantial is found, this is a clear delete to me. --Crusio (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• weak deletekeep whups I see Crusio has beat me here with the WoS search results, I was going to add that those papers in journals like BIOMETRIKA, AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, APPLIED STATISTICS-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES C, tended to have low citation counts (under a handfull each). The paper in COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS PART B-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION 10:281-288 (1981) has ten hits... I agree with Crusio that the claim to notability seems to rest mostly on the memorial lecture, which I don't think moves it over the bar. I'm not convinced that there isn't something out there that could sway my opinion, but on the basis of what I've seen, I don't think he's had a notable academic impact greater than typical for someone in his line of work. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC) changed to "(weakish) keep" per Nsk92 below. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, edit conflict with Pete... Here is a reliable source, an obituary in the journal Naval Research Logistics. I still think this does not establish notability conclusively, but change my vote to "weak delete". I would like to know what it means that Baxter "was a member of the Royal Statistical Society, the American Statistical Society, and the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences." Are these societies where one can become a member just by paying dues and by being a scientist working in that particular field or is there something more? --Crusio (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Royal Statistical Society, note that American Statistical Society != American Statistical Association (?), Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, and I'm also interested whether Baxter as a member in the sense of "pay your annual dues and get the journal", or whether this is to be taken as an honour akin to being a member of Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Statistical_Association (from the wording I assume the former, but I would not think that would belong in an obit...) Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a journal editor myself, if (God forbid) one of my Associate Editors would pass away, I would certainly publish an obit and do my darnedest to make it look as impressive as possible. So I think that I would certainly list memberships in learned societies if there were nothing else, even if that was no particular honor. All this still doesn't say much about Baxter, though. In any case, I think it is evident that he was "up and coming" and most probably would have been notable by now, if he had lived.... --Crusio (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The evidence in terms of citability is certainly weak and I am fairly sure that memberships in various societies mentioned were just ordinary memberships rather than elected ones. However, in addition to the memorial article in Naval Research Logistics[2] mentioned by Crusio, MathSciNet also gave another memorial article about him: Leitmann, George. In memoriam: Laurence Alan Baxter [1954--1996]. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 210 (1997), no. 2, pp. 417--418. It should be noted, however, that Baxter was an editor for both of these journals. I downloaded the memorial article from Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. It does say the follwing regarding his work:"Dr. Baxter was internationally renowned for his work in applied probability and reliability theory. He published over 45 papers and did extensive consulting in this area. The results of his work on separately maintained components have been incorporated into a widely used AT& T Bell Laboratories software package for calculating various characteristics of system availability. Dr. Baxter also extended several classic theorems of reliability theory for discrete structures to continuous structures, using functions that he named continuum structure functions." The article does not list any particularly impressive acolades but it does say that he was an editor of several journals and other publications: that he "conceived of and was Editor-in-Chief of Stochastic Modeling, a series of books published by Chapman and Hall of London from 1993 to the present". Other journals where he was an editor that are listed in that article are: Applied Probability Newsletter, Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Naval Research Logistics, and International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management." WP:PROF does mention journal editorships as valid contributing factors towards satisfying criterion 1 of WP:PROF (item 3 in Notes and Examples). According to this[3], there was a one-day memorial conference in his honor at Stony Brook in 1997. Together with the two memorial articles and a lecture series named after him, I think this does pass WP:PROF, albeit weakly. Nsk92 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This article says in its LAST line that this person has a memorial lecture named after him. That seems to presuppose that he's notable for some reason. If the eponymous lecture is the reason, it should say so in the first sentence. If there is some other reason, it should say so in the first sentence. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed unsourced claims of notability that I was unable to find any non-mirror-site support for (they are noted on the talk page of the article, in case someone can find a reliable third party source for them), but the lede is as I found it. Of course, I don't consider him to be notable, and won't until the article has independent sourcing given the history of the primary editor and the fact that there was false information in the article when it came to my attention. I still don't find the memorial lecture to be notable, as I attend many similar lectures every year , often named in honour of non-notable people who were well-liked or whose death had an impact on the sponsoring organisation. Some places plant trees in honour of their deceased colleagues; universities name lectures after them. Risker (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In my experience named lectures are named either for people who are quite notable or sometimes for people whose family members/friends have set up an endowment for a lecture series in their honor. In the latter case there is always a mention of the endowment in the series announcements. In this case there is no mention of any private endowment[4] On the countrary, in the series announcement the university is actually asking for money and donations to sustain the series. This seems to indicate to me that the lecture series was established by the department itself. Having said that, the lecture series was not a particularly major factor in my !vote, although I still view it as a plus. Nsk92 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why it was named after him, should be tracable, and would attest to notability or otherwise. Can we find that out? Anyone able to check for a reason? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked up the obituary published in IMS Bulletin. It says the following about the lecture series:"A memorial fund has been established at the university to accept contributions to endow a lecture series in Dr Baxter's honor". I don't think it is easy to get much more information than that. Based on similar practices at our university, when something like that happens, there is an e-mail to the faculty, an article in the departmental newsletter and maybe an article in a college-level newsletter. These kinds of publications are not held by other libraries and given the fact that it was back in 1997, they would not be available electronically now. Nsk92 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a fundraising ploy. The boathouse at my undergrad had a floor named after my roommate after a car accident to try and raise money for its renovations. It didn't work. If you want to see the gush about it Laurence and why Stony Brook needs money, look here. "Your contribution will help ensure that each year the Fund will be able to present the Laurence Baxter Memorial Lecture. " I think based on that, we can remove any mention of the Laurence Baxter Memorial Lecture as fundraising SOAP. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. If we actually posted their fundraising pitch in the article, that would be a WP:SOAP violation. Merely mentioning that the lecture series has been established is not. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The lecture series = a fundraiser only under another name. The two are the same. If his notability is related to a fundraiser, this is a clear case of SOAP and needs to be burned as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To equate an established academic lecture series with just a fundraiser under another name that "needs to be burned" is rather a stretch. Nsk92 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note - the page needs to be burned, not the lecture series. Response - You can through academic infront of whatever you want, but I've been part of academia my whole life and not once have I attended a "lecture series" (especially one held only once a year with limited response) as anything worth being "notable" for. This one is used to raise money. Just like every other group, they use a dead man in order to try and connect to the emotions of the school and raise money. I can name many people who have died and have memorial fundraisers connected to them, and I would hate if that became a source of notability. My roommate had a boathouse named after him, this guy only has an annual low attendance lecture. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am an academic myself and in my own field, mathematics, named lectures are a fairly traditional and well established format of colloquia-type lectures. Most respectable departments have one or two of these named lecture series. My own department has three of them, funded by a combination of private endowment and additional fundraising. There is nothing untoward about this. I don't think the department gets or can get much else for this other than to have this named lecture itself and be able to invite some particularly prominent scientists to deliver such a lecture. The endowed funds that finance such lectures cannot be used for any purpose purpose than the lecture itself, so the department can't hire anyone else with this money or do any repairs or by any equipment or anything else of the sort. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is the proper forum for any kind of fund raising, even if it is only insignificant or isolated. The lecture series is not notable, and it only operates as a fundraiser and then a once a year lecture. It is named after the individual in question to raise money. I don't think it is right for Wikipedia to promote such things and it would be an awful standard to allow. Even if there was no money involved, the promotion of the lecture series seems highly questionable to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The lecture series is not a fundraiser. Attendees will not be asked for contributions. There may be other fundraisers where the department will try to raise money to keep this lecture series going, but those are not mentioned in the article. In addition, I do not see how the inclusion of this lecture series in the article would constitute "promoting" it. And finally, even if it were, what does "promoting" in this context mean? People can attend, they don't have to pay anything, it's a freebie.... Anyway, I cannot imagine anybody being interested in "promoting" such a departmental lecture series on the Internet, even less Wikipedia. --Crusio (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Say what you want, but I already provided direct evidence that contradicts that claim. The name and the rest is there to collect funds. Otherwise, they wouldn't have it in honor of him. Read the link above. Also, read WP:SOAP. This is a clear violation, especially with the obvious conflict of interest. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's bring this back to how one determines if an event is notable. It strikes me that the criterion should be whether or not independent third parties consider it notable and comment on it. Are there any reviews of this lecture series in any of the relevant journals? Is it mentioned in published commentary by other professionals in the field? Are the lectures published? Is there any information to demonstrate that new research has been presented there first? These things would make the lecture series notable. I think we've quite exhausted the discussion about whether or not a subject's notability should be dependent in part on having a lecture series named after the subject posthumously. Strikes me, given the different experiences of the participants in this thread, that it depends more on the notability of the lecture series, and to assess the notability of the lecture series requires independent third party references to the lectures. Risker (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Named lectures like this are never reviewed as such in academic journals (not even the ones at top places like Harvard or Princeton). It is just something that a person who gave a lecture like that puts on their CV under "honors". The department who hosts a named lecture of this type gets to invite some particularly prominent people and is able to pay them a better honorarium than for a typical colloquium talk. That is usually it. As I said above, the named lecture is not a very big deal but id does confer some degree of honor on the person it is named after. I based my !vote primarily on other factors, such as three published memorial articles in academic journals and extensive journal editorships. The named lecture is a plus, but not a very big one, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of lectures such as those included in Category:Lecture series, all of which meet most of the above criteria. I concur, though, that if notability is to be found here, it will be from something other than the lecture series. Risker (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Neil. Giggy (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

and you noticed that Neil said "published professor [...] therefore meeting WP:PROF" while WP:PROF is pretty explicit that merely publishing as a professor doesn't amount to notability? Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:PROF may differ from mine. Perhaps I should have said "well-published professor". Neıl ☄ 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pete. This is the first time I see somebody interpreting WP:PROF in the sense that many publications amounts to notability. It doesn't and is rather irrelevant for notability. Somebody with many insignificant publications can be completely ignored in his field, whereas someone with only a few, but highly-cited publications can be quite notable. WP:PROF clearly stipulates that for notability "either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" is necessary. Evidently, just having a lot of articles is not enough. --Crusio (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete Small number of papers. Editor of a...specialist journal. That his work has been cited (and it isn't very much, as far as I can see) doesn't mean he meets WP:PROF. It's not a slam dunk, but I think that he's shy of inclusion. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just one journal, it's five journals and a book series. Plus there are three published obituaries/memorial articles about him. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I have changed my vote yet again, this time back to delete. The reasons are the following. 1/ Editorships. WP:PROF criterium 8 states "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area." Baxter was associate editor, not editor in chief, of lower-tier journals. 2/ Although I strongly disagree with classifying a named lecture series as a fundraiser, the evidence brought forward up till now does not indicate notability. If a high-profile lecture at a major meeting in his field had been named after him, that would be something else. As pointed out above, many departments have such named lectures and although we all list this in our CVs as an "honor", I don't think that this bestows notability (either for the lecturer or for the person that the series was named after). 3/ The published obituaries would have swayed the balance to "keep" for me, if Baxter had not been an associate editor of these journals. Any journal will publish an obit for an AE that passes away during his tenure (or shortly therefafter). If being an AE is not notable, then such an obit does not confer notability either. This is reinforced by the fact that those obits seem to put in an effort to say something nice abotu Baxter. In short, my conclusion remains that this was a very promising person, who very probably would have satisfied WP:PROF by now if only he had lived. Sadly, he didn't. --Crusio (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

He was an editor-in-chief of a book series and an editor for 5 journals. I think that is quite impressive and an idication of substantial stature in the field. Regarding the three memorial articles, I think the key consideration is that they exist at all. One could argue that he was an editorial board member for these three journals because he was a prominent scientist and that is ultimately why those three memorial articles were published. In fact, if one sbtracts everything else and takes just those three memorial articles, there is arguably a case for weakly passing WP:BIO here. The articles do describe him personally in substantial biographical detail etc. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nsk92 has swayed me, changing my !vote above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nsk92 is right, I'm swayed too. --Crusio (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor in chief of a non notable series and non notable journals. If you are impressed, then feel free. However, it does not meet the standards. If he really was notable, there would be independent news stories on him. I failed to come up with anything in the US on him. There are no reliable sources on his history that are not part of a fundraiser. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF is pretty clear about the rationale for not requiring things like "independent news stories". If that's what you require, then I think you're quite at odds with WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that you misinterpreted me. What I stated was that he clearly fails PROF. PROF allows for professors notable outside academia, i.e. through independent news stories, to stay. Thus, he fails normal notability. I hope that clears this up. 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• keep, unequivocally. All the requirements are present. First, if one thinks the General criterion supersedes or is an alternate for prof, there is substantial independent discussion of him in reliable sources. That alone should be enough to settle it. That's nt a weak reason for keep, its as full a keep as anyone else using the general criterion. (weak might be if there were only one such source). Second, by the criteria for PROF, editor in chief of a major book series from an established publisher is analogous, though waker, than a major journal. The editorial board memberships add a little. If that were all, it would be borderline. As for the lecture, yes, many departments have lecture series, and the lecturers in them usually don't acquire much notability by that except for some really distinguished series, but despite what Crusio says, the lecture is usually named after someone important enough for the lectureship to be an honor or there would be no point to it at all. That comes to weak notability also. A memorial conference for someone, on the other hand, is a clear and unmistakable indicator of significance, and I think by itself would establish notability. Now, weak notability in different fields does not add up to make one notable in any of them. But having many less than fully certain indicators in the same field is another matter. And in any case there are two certain ones: the publications about him, and the memorial symposium. Either is enough beyond any reasonable cavil. If it wasnt for who wrote the article, we wouldnt even be discussing this. It is of course completely wrong that either US sources are needed or that news stories are. Absurd criteria. And the standard for an article is notable, not "really notable." And perhaps it shows a certain animus when one editor tries to refute everyone's comment. DGG (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Which part of Prof does he meet? He does not meet one. He does not meet two. He does not meet three. He does not meet four. He does not meet five. He does not meet six. He does not meet seven. He does not meet eight (not a well-established journal). He does not meet nine. Now, where is "there is substantial independent discussion of him in reliable sources" this? I haven't seen one reliable source discussing him. A "memorial symposium" does not make one notable, especially when less than 40 people attend and they don't have any notable lecturers. Also, if we gave a wikipedia page to every subject of a named lecture, there is going to be thousands of more unnotable people being given pages. This is a very bad precendent. This guy has done absolutely nothing in his field and PROF was made to make sure people like him didn't get a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, The Institute of Mathematical Statistics Bulletin, and Naval Research Logistics: an International Journal would all run obituaries suggests that he meets criterion 1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Most journals tend to put obits for those who have published in their journal. I don't believe an obit is a source of notability. Obits are short and give little detail, and tend to be based on emotion and not substance. If this was a front page type obit on the NYT, WSJ, London Times, etc, then maybe. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Most journals tend to put obits for those who have published in their journal" you must be joking. This is bears absolutely no resemblance to my experience. I've had a fair number of different journals accumulating on my bookshelves, and none have published obits any but the most historically relevant figures. I'm not saying that this is true of The Institute of Mathematical Statistics Bulletin, but your claim bears no resemblance to any reality I'm familiar with. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, this guy was not a "historically relevant figure", and would be barely notable to be in Wikipedia if so. Thus, I think your point is contradicted by your previous evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been a journal editor for 7 years now. In those years, we only just now published our 2nd obit, although unfortunately more then 2 colleagues passed away. The two obits concerned one person who was one of the founders of our field in the late 1950s, the other somebody who made important contributions to the field in recent years. Some other colleagues that passed away were probably notable in Wikipedia's sense (WP is rather inclusionist to my taste, including all kinds of minor sports figures and artists); they just weren't notable enough to merit an obit. AS I remarked above, I would publish an obit for an AE, even though according to WP:PROF an AE does not make one notable. As Nsk92 has pointed out, Baxter was an AE of multiple journals, not just one. And as DGG rightly pointed out, there are threee obits in reliable sources, that satisfies WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is my point, and here is notability - an obit does not make you notable. Being notable justifies having an obit. If you want to prove his notability, find out the notability that justified him having an obit. My experience with obits and journals is that there are many for those I would not consider notable on Wikipedia. Now, according to PROF, being an lead editor for a journal is not notable, unless the journal is one of the leading journals. None of these can be considered as such. He wasn't ground breaking. He only published 19 times so far as we know, and "ground breaking" rarely happens in such a situation. It took him a long time to make tenure, this should tip people off. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per Nsk92's and DGG's careful and convincing arguments. There are quite enough sources on him, for the GNG - and I don't think one can practically construe the GNG as not being able to "supersede or be an alternate." (or augment). I am reminded of a murdered Indian academic I deprodded a while ago. While I dug up other clear indicators of notability then, I was only able to find one memorial article, while this guy has three. And however weak they are understood to be individually, there are just too many PROF indicators enumerated above to definitively say this is a person with insignificant impact on his profession.John Z (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I have been following this discussion, and frankly have found myself moving back and forth on this one. In arriving at my delete !vote, although it's close, I consider the subject, to fail each criterion of WP:PROF as pointed out by Ottava Rima above. I also consider the subject fail the general notability guideline, and I don't think this one is particularly close. The real difficulty is that none of the memorial publications are independent of the subject. The essence of the notability that is that a subject's accomplishments have been sufficient to force outsiders to take notice of them. The fact that these memorials all appeared in associated journals dillutes their impact considerably. The memorial lecture series is certainly an indication of notability, but it is essentially an unquantifiable one. This is bit more of a mechanical application of the letter of the guidelines than I prefer, but given my lack of familiarity in the area, I think it's the most appropriate approach. I know that a number of commentors here are themselves in academia, and they are, perhaps, better qualified than I determine whether the various indicators mentioned, when combined, equate to the type of notability envisioned in PROF. I only wish all of our Afds saw this level of participation. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  My attitude has always been, "if it's this borderline, go with retention". Neıl ☄ 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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.