Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Schechter

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 02:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric_Schechter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eric_Schechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Irrelevant article with content not relevant to the subject's status as a mathematician Larry blyden (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the importance or relevance of this article. In this article I am not made aware of any significant results due to Schechter. Mathematicians with smaller Erdos numbers do not have Wikipedia pages and I do not understand why this author needs one.

Schechter's political views are totally irrelevant to his position as a mathematician and have no place in the article. The readers do not need to be informed of the political position of every person of prominence just as they do not need to be informed of the golf handicaps of politicians.

I disagree with this. For example, I'm fascinated to learn of Isaac Newton's religious beliefs. I also think they are relevant, because they shape the direction of his work. Or, for example, Marvin Gaye's views on the environment, because they shape his work as well. I think these sorts of things are always relevant and should be included in wikipedia whenever they can be referenced in reliable sources. In the example on this page, however, I haven't found a reliable source for Schecter's political views so I would agree with you that they should be removed from the page. Cazort (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection "Important Works" lists works that may or may not be important. I am not convinced of their importance, nor would anyone be from simply reading the article. The importance of these works and/or the results of the author should be found out or the article should be deleted.

Mathematicians at Vanderbilt University who are more deserving of Wikipedia pages, if Wikipedia needs more pages of mathematicians, include Bisch, DiBenedetto, Olshanskii, and Yu.

  • Delete. Let me note first that some of the reasons for deletion put forward by the nominator are not convincing: thus it is irrelevant to the decision regarding deleting or keeping this article that some other more deserving mathematicians at Vanderbilt do not have Wikipedia articles about them yet. However, upon closer inspection, the subject of the article does not appear to pass WP:PROF. I checked both WebOfScience and MathSciNet and citability results for his papers (except for one book) are low, mostly in single digits. I've looked through most of the reviews of Schechter's papers in MathSciNet (he has 21 publications listed there), and they are mostly tepid, with nothing particularly standing out and with few other reviews in MathSciNet referring to his papers. The book Handbook of analysis and its foundations actually has a rather negative review there, by James Bell Cooper. I don't see anything else in the record (such as significant awards, journal editorsjips, prestigious lectures, etc) to indicate passing WP:PROF at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the textbooks are widely used, he's notable by WP:PROF. any evidence of that? It does not matter in the least whether they are intrinsically good or bad: our job is not to judge the quality of textbooks. . DGG (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While his research papers appear not to be highly cited, his textbook Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations has 71 citations per Google Scholar[1]. I'm not sure whether or not this alone is sufficient to meet criterion 4 of WP:PROF? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly not, in my opinion as a mathematician. The number 71 is probably somewhat inflated (both WoS and MathSciNet give much smaller citation numbers for this book). But even if one accepts it as accurate, that is not particularly much for a math book or even for a math paper to signify, in and of itself, notability of the author. Regarding DGG's comment, I did not find any evidence of either of the two books being widely used as textbooks. I did some googlesearching but did not find any math course webpages claiming to use the book as a textbook; while I might have missed something, it is unlikely that I would have missed evidence of wide usage of the book as a textbook. In terms nominal library holdings, WorldCat shows Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations held by 172 libraries[2]. That is good, but certainly nothing special by math book standards. Nsk92 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just my 2 cents: while assessment notability based on Google Scholar citations is not always easy, and is contingent on the area and topic, my subjective thresholds for notability based on Google Scholar citations are 150 for the top two most widely cited publications, or 300 for the top ten. If one of these criteria is met, I generally believe the person then meets WP:PROF criterion #1, which is significant impact in a scholarly discipline. If not, I look for more evidence, and at the totality of it (as I did below), before making a recommendation.--Eric Yurken (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While I do not disagree with the points made by Nsk92, I think he possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #4 (significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions). Take a look at this search, which suggests that his impact as an educator makes him notable (even after discounting false positives - e.g., his own comments on discussion boards etc.).--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The search you gave has as the majority of its results online syllabi from various courses at various institutions that link to Schechter's webpage "Common Mistakes of Calculus Students," which I do not think is considered an "academic work" as stated in WP:PROF criterion #4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry blyden (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- Meets WP:PROF, his work is widely cited, Google Scholar.--Jmundo (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, these googlescholar results do not in fact show high citability. Most papers have citations hits in single digits, and the only one with double-digit citability is the book Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations, with 71 hits, which is not a particularly high number, especially for a textbook. H-index appears to be around 5, which is quite low, even for pure math. One can put forward arguments for satisfying WP:PROF on other grounds, as Eric Yurken does above, but high citability is not a convincing argument here. Nsk92 (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Prof doesn't define what is "high citability", your judgment is subjective.--Jmundo (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This notable. And Jmundo's argument on WP:PROF is spot on. Once you are cited in Google Scholar by independent third-party scholars, you are WP:PROF notable. It's basically automatic. This is a clear cut case on why we need a Criteria for Speedy Keep. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has written most of the text of the current WP:PROF and has participated in lots of academic-related AfDs, I assure you that you are incorrect. It has never been sufficient for establishing academic notability, under either WP:PROF or the de-factor consensus in previous academic-related AfDs, to simply have citations of one's work by independent third-party sources. Item 1 in Notes and Examples section of WP:PROF specifically says: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work: either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". That, and not simply having some citations of one's work, has been the standard of academic notability. Saying that somebody is notable one's their work has been cited by others, will actually make many graduate students notable already. Nsk92 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As shown by Nsk92, does not meet WP:PROF and some of the above "keep" votes are based on a misinterpretation of that guideline. My grad student has about as many citations as the subject of this article.... --Crusio (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable per WP:PROF for two significant textbooks; the Handbook was reviewed in SIAM Review. JJL (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is included. The 71 Google Scholar hits are for the author's name, unrestricted. They are an order of magnitude smaller than the 596 hits on the title and authors of a genuinely notable book; and an order and a half less than the hits on Serge Lang, a man genuinely notable for his textbooks. I would accept an account of his activism, if it made him notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you're setting the bar quite high with the likes of G.H. Hardy and Serge Lang. How about picking someone of more "average" notability? JJL (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm setting the bar at a quarter of Hardy's book (please note that that search includes title), or a tenth of Lang. We do not want average professors; that's the job of the AAUP. For a somewhat less notable comparand, try Michael Spivak's Calculus, cited by 170 hits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually the 71 citations I mentioned were specifically for the book; see: [3]. I'm still open as to whether or not that is sufficient to qualify as a notable educational mathematics text. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just don't see how he meets WP:PROF. Someone said that they thought he "might" qualify under criterion #4. How? Please be specific. And frankly, the inclusion of his Erdos number, while it really is not a criterion for our decision here, does nothing to help his case. Probably more than half of the tenured math professors in the western world have a number as low or lower. And for pete's sake, he's not even a full professor (yet), how much of an "impact" is he likely to have made? (I can see the examples disproving that coming now, but I still feel he unlikely to be notable.) Unschool 06:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure whether or not it is my comment that you are referring to, but criterion 4 states The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. It might potentially be met by a textbook which has been widely cited, suggesting its wide adoption in higher education institutes. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I consider notability by counting GS hits almost as absurd as counting google hits. GScholar covers a wide range of significant and nonsignificant material, and enters many items more than once--just as google does. The only proper way to use it is to go through and evaluate hit by hit how many of them are actually separate citations from sources that matter. I really think EA should reconsider the use of this as a primary criterion--it's just a very preliminary indication.DGG (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find in general that Google Scholar is a pretty good quick & dirty indicator of probable notability versus total lack of notability for currently active academics, for those of us unlucky enough to lack access to specialised bibliographic databases. It certainly beats "I like it", which is pretty much the only other argument available to non-specialists. Perhaps non-specialists should refrain from commenting at all -- in which case we might as well delete AfD altogether and go with a project-specific determination of who is in and who is out, an option that has long appealed to me. As for this particular article, I would like to stress that I have refrained from making any judgement. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
used roughly, for comparison between people in the same field at he same level in the same period, yes. If one finds academic researcher in the same subject in the 1990-2000s with 15 GS records as compared to 300, it's indicative of a difference between them that will probably hold in detailed analysis. if one compares a mathematician with an historian, or, as applies in this particular case, a research mathematician with a person who is primarily a teacher, I consider it worthless. Most colleges nowadays will have either GScholar or Scopus, which at present for 1995+ are roughly equivalent--its worth looking for. In my experience, neither of them covers education in college subjects very well, or are particularly relevant for evaluating teachers--nor does any other database at all. ERIC, which is free, covers research in education well enough, but is quite erratic for measuring contributions to practice. . GS is useful, yes, but as a source for materials to look at more exactly. And I , like EA, also refrain from making a judgment here. The more I learn about metrics in evaluation, the more I realize on the need to interpret them with human judgment. DGG (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not having heard of a given individual, or any topic on wikipedia, is not a valid justification for deleting a page. On a separate note, however, I would suggest checking out Handbook of Analysis and its Foundations. I checked out your user page and it seems like the type of book you might eat right up. Cazort (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem confused here. As the author of the article, it is your obligation to demonstrate notability in a verifiable manner per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The fact that the article lacks any sources for either the subject or his work (as afforded under WP:PROF) after two months, let alone ones that are reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject means that it absolutely should be deleted per Wikipedia:Notability. And looking at the comments above, I'm apparently not the first to suggest that the article should be sourced or summarily deleted. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BIO#Creative_professionals states: "The person has created...a significant or well-known work...which has been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Schecter's Handbook of Analysis and its Foundations has at least 71 references in the scholarly literature, as shown here: [4] and it has been reviewed by S.I.A.M. Review, Math Reviews, and Topological Commentary, among others. He also has a very positive review by Robert G. Bartle, who is well-known for his analysis book, which ought to count for something. I think this single work alone warrants Schechter's inclusion in wikipedia. He has also published a bunch of other things, including some stuff which has a fair number of references. What is lost for wikipedia by including a page on him? I also think, and this is my key point, that while Schechter is someone who is of only modest importance when it comes to advancing cutting-edge research in mathematics, he is someone who has advanced mathematics a great deal in the form of presentation. It would make sense that research-focused professors would not have heard of him; ask students, especially his target audience. Within the sample of people I know, young professors and students, Schechter is well known, solely because of his book I mentioned above. The standards of notability for wikipedia are not the same standards of recognition within academia--Academia values advancing cutting-edge research more, and values less the works that make new material accessible at a more elementary level. Wikipedia values both. Cazort (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the points made by cazort. I have heard of Eric Schechter through his book Handbook of Analysis and its Foundations, and am an undergraduate math student. SNFitz (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — Snfitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment It would seem to me that just as not having heard of someone is not a valid reason for deletion (even though I think DanielPenfield's comment was meant ironically), having heard of someone is a valid reason for inclusion. There are many people that I have heard off that are not notable otherwise. As for the 71 citations, as Nsk91 shtated above, this is likely an overestimate, many will be just mentions in passing, and even if correct 71 is nothing out of the ordinary for a mathematics book or paper. His book is held by 172 libraries, again, this is good but not really outstanding. --Crusio (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we ought to consider reviews, such as the ones mentioned above, more than counting references or library stockings. But I still don't understand what is gained by deleting this page. If a topic isn't terribly important, then a small page is appropriate. Cazort (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you perhaps tell us where these reviews can be found? Just a journal title and the name of a reviewer are not very helpful in localizing them. Thanks. As for counting citations, as you started your keep argument by saying that the book had received 71 citations, I thought it might be helpful to put that number in perspective. --Crusio (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SIAM Review, Volume 40, Number 2, June 1998. Topology Commentary, Vol. 2, No. 3, July 1997, you can find multiple copies of the full texts of both of these online with a google search. The publisher reviews, including the Bartle review, can be found at amazon here: [5]. Cazort (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the references. The Amazon link does not work for me, but in any case, Amazon is not a reliable source of book reviews. Many of the "publisher reviews" are just blurbs. Amazon info can be used to search for reviews, but Amazon itself cannot be considered an independent source (after all, their business is selling books...:-) --Crusio (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reviews cited by Cazort, especially Bartle's, swing this one for me, showing notability as textbook author. (Irrelevant comment: Part of Lang's notability as a textbook author (mentioned above) is because he wrote one on a weekend to win a bet! :-)).John Z (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's examine the Amazon "reviews":
  • The Cain "review" consists of four sentences in which Cain admits only to having read the table of contents and the "sample chapters". Why would the "reviewer" base his "review" on "sample chapters"? Perhaps because the "reviewer" didn't actually read the complete work in its final form?
  • The Bartle "review" also consists of four sentences in which Bartle admits only to having read the preface. Furthermore Bartle couches his "review": I admire him even more for what appears to me to be a very successful completion of this task. It only "appears" to be successfully complete? Was Bartle distancing himself because he hadn't examined (or only examined in passing) the work he purportedly "reviewed"?
  • While the review in SIAM Review is what you'd expect a thorough review to look like, it's buried in 41 pages of reviews for other books as well. How does that establish notability? I'm also uncertain as to how the Topology Commentary review demonstrates "work [that] has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there is some evidence of notability here, I'm just not convinced it's enough to demonstrate that this man is more notable than the average mathematical academic. Terraxos (talk) 02:02, 9 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Schechter&oldid=1137831819"