Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Topping

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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). While there is one delete !vote, its rationale that the topic does not meet WP:ACADEMIC has been countered by several other arguments in the discussion that delineate why the topic actually does appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Topping

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

The only claim for notability is the Whitehead Prize. Yet there is no evidence that the Whitehead prize is a notable award, and that is the only claim to notability in the article. It appears that multiple people receive the Whitehead prize, which is one of multiple prizes given by one of multiple mathematical societies in the U.K. While this may be notable, I can't locate any independent reliable source coverage to establish such notability for it in this case. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The Whitehead prize is not a major award, and there is no evidence that Topping has any other claim to notability. NJ Wine (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Neither the nominator nor the previous commenter appear to have followed WP:BEFORE, and inappropriately assumed that the article in its nominated state said all there was to be said about its subject. As well as the Whitehead prize he also has the Philip Leverhulme Prize and a book. Google scholar only gives him an h-index of 13, which is on the low side for WP:PROF#C1, but this is a low-citation field, and his book has 132 cites, so I think he does barely pass on this criterion as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on above arguments. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - Thanks for the tip, Xxanthippe and David. I'm well aware of WP:BEFORE and WP:ACADEMIC though. I did complete a search for Peter Topping in many of the usual places, particularly looking for mention of him and the Whitehead prize. That did not turn up any notability in reliable sources. I also looked at his citation patterns and had found the book with 132 cites, and had counted his h-index as 12, which is not normally sufficient. The discovery of an international prize does help to pass WP:ACADEMIC, even though he appears to just be on the cusp of passing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with David...h-index of 13 for someone who primarily works in mathematics passes muster. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2012 (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.