Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Simms

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 no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Simms[edit]

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

Prodded by User:BrownHairedGirl and deprodded by User:DGG, this associate professor does not meet WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I could find were primary sources and Wikipedia mirrors. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I deprodded because I was uncertain, and thought the math people should have a look at it. . His papers are not highly cited, but I see him as the author of two book-length vols. in distinguished series, series, Simms, David John, and N. M. J. Woodhouse. Lectures on Geometric Quantization. Lecture notes in physics, 53. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1976., and Simms, David John. Lie Groups and Quantum Mechanics. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 52. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1968. Though called by the deceptively informal title of lecture notes, they are major highly respected advanced secondary publications , generally written by experts. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Irish Times story linked from our article is about his wife, so it doesn't help. I did find another newspaper story about him, but it doesn't say anything about his academic notability (it's about his objection to a plan to build a factory near his holiday home) and would be a pretty slim basis on which to build a case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think his membership in the Royal Irish Academy may be enough for WP:PROF #3. I'm not convinced that the books are quite enough for WP:PROF #1, but at least they provide some substance to his record beyond the academy membership. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I would have liked to see more coverage, but membership in the Royal Irish Academy is indeed a significant honor, so probably passes WP:PROF on that basis. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not mention this membership, even though it has been around since 2004. His webpage also makes no mention of it. He comes from a well-known academic family and was was elected to the Irish Royal Academy in 1978. Given these facts, the lack of secondary sources and the fact that he retired as an associate professor, I say that the membership in the Irish Royal Academy should be considered anomalous. Abductive (reasoning) 15:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF 3 by virtue of membership in the Royal Irish Academy, where he is also on the editorial board of the Academy's Mathematical Proceedings. --JN 466 03:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on basis of above discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
keep - has authored good books. That's it.--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim would carry greater weight if you would give sources for it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

- The books referred there in Simms's page - hope this helps. Lie group is a complicated theory compared to --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same guy who proposed to delete this is proposing to delete S. M. Sarangi the one I authored.

--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the at least one of the books were notable in their own right then there might be something to that argument, but writing a good book isn't the criterion. If one of the books were notable then this should be a redirect to the book. So I think the most promising argument here is the RAI membership. There are two sections of membership, SCI and HON SCI. The HON SCI is the more prestigious and has such luminaries as Roger Penrose. But the subject is in the SCI section. There are several hundred members of the RAI with this level membership and about 20 in the area of mathematics, so while it's certainly an honor I'm not convinced that it's the "highly selective" honor that WP:PROF #3 requires. (Ireland is a small country after all.) Usually notability in WP:PROF doesn't come down #3 alone; you generally have to something else notable to qualify for a highly selective membership, so I'm a bit wary when #3 is the sole criterion being used. So while I'm leaning toward delete at the moment, there are still open issues such as exactly how prestigious is the MRIA title and what were the accomplishments that led to the subject receiving it.--RDBury (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe that this section of notability is screwed up. Ten or less participating cannot be called as Consensus. I'm finding here all through various opinions which are biased and politicized. I suggest removing the “notability” and just keeping the “celebrities”. A mathematician who is an expert on Topology may not be an expert on Algebra. Everyone tries to poke here. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2009 (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.