Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Langston

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) Coolperson177 (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Langston

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only one single reference. Not quite sure it meets point 2 of WP:NACADEMIC. This article was created back in 2006, where the policies were more lax. Either way, does not meet WP:BLPRS either. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on citation record this passes WP:NPROF#C1.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Eostrix says, his h-index on Scholar is given as 46, or 24 for publications since 2016; Scopus gives it as 33. We'd need some informed input on whether this is high or low for his field; he does not have a named chair or (it seems) any notable award, so this is I think the only way he could pass WP:NPROF. For the moment I'm doubtful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can look over his coauthors and calculate my usual Scopus metrics, but since the subject publishes in a broad array of fields (seemingly algorithmic approaches to bioinformatics/mathematical epidemiology, environmental science, systems engineering, op research, etc.) it will be difficult to assess relative impact as compared to others in his discipline. My hunch his that he is above the median in general, but we'll see how it pans out. JoelleJay (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leaning due to large scholarly output, 17 papers with 100+ citations are usually enough for WP:NPROF#1 and h-index of 46. However I dont see a single clear contribution but rather many contributions over many years. --hroest 21:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of his early papers are in parameterized complexity and in particular his "Nonconstructive tools for proving polynomial-time decidability" is a classic, one of the papers that founded this area. His later work appears to have shifted to computational biology, a different subject, and while it includes his top-cited paper it's also a higher-citation field (and the top-cited one is with many coauthors), so I think the parameterized complexity work is more significant. (This is all my personal evaluation; we can't say anything like that in the article itself without a published source.) I think we can call this a pass of WP:PROF#C1 not merely on numeric grounds, but on the basis of a focused and significant contribution to an important subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your analysis, it would be great if some of that could flow into the article, at least the "Nonconstructive tools for proving polynomial-time decidability" paper should be listed. In computational biology I would classify his impact as less transformative (even though his papers are more highly cited). --hroest 18:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I added a couple book sources for the significance of this work. One of them lists this work as being spread over five papers, so I'm not sure citing just the one would be best; anyway, secondary sources are better than primary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His Scopus metrics are still tough to compare since there are so many coauthors in pure medicine with billions of citations, but even including them in the analysis of his latest ~55 papers (~120 coauthors) he's a fair amount above the median across the board and above average in h-index, so I think that gives him a C1 pass. Incidentally, it's always amusing to run across very famous people hanging out among someone's coauthors; apparently Langston wrote a minor conference paper in 2011 with what seems to be three grad students (at the time) and Peter Shor. JoelleJay (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein passes WP:NPROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein.4meter4 (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2021 (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.