Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bettina Eick


 * 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)  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 04:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Bettina Eick

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment We've got a book with 626 citations, and a paper with 225 citations and followed by several other papers with respectable citations (but under 100).  Comment that authors are generally alphabetically ordered in math (although this doesn't appear to be the case with the book); this is a low citation field.  The smallgroups library, as a computer database, is likely undercited relative to its importance -- papers are likely to just cite the larger computer algebra system, for instance.  (But papers describing the library, The groups of order at most 2000 and The groups of order at most 1000 except 512 and 768 have over 100 citations taken together.)  I do some work in related areas, and am holding back a little from making a formal !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm also holding back for now. But, when I saw this created today. I added two cleanup banners that I thought it needed. I did not add a notability banner. That was deliberate, and not merely an oversight. I saw the same citation numbers Russ mentions above, and thought that they at least made a plausible case for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Eick's work creating the small groups library--the backbone of GAP that is used by group theorists around the world--is singularly notable. Minndietz (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So I went on the GAP (computer algebra system) website and they are listed 1 of the 24 active members of the development team. Do you have a source the library or code? It would have to be independently notable on its own.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 23:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Eick is coauthor with Hans Ulrich Besche and Eamonn O'Brien of the SmallGroups library, a database of the groups of order up to 2000 or so. As there are 49487365422 of order 1024 alone, it is a considerable accomplishment just to store the necessary information efficiently.  While I think it is a slight exaggeration to call it the backbone of GAP, a useful thing (and perhaps a main useful thing) that you can do with GAP is to check your conjecture against a large number of small groups.  Papers where this is useful would tend to cite the main GAP system , rather than the SmallGroups package.  Now, she is listed separately listed as an author of GAP  (along with a large number of people, so this doesn't contribute much to notability), and is chair of the GAP council  (which I think probably does contribute somewhat to notability). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment On the topic of citations, book citations for "handbooks" will always be high. Whenever you need to cite something fundamental or basic you'll find a handbook cited. This is more common the smaller the academic discipline. Not dismissing it but it's important to give it in context. Unlike many highly cited papers in one area which would easily establish notability. In general I dislike using citations as a single metric for establishing notability. As a personal example I have a few highly cited peer reviewed papers but they're all over the place (software, stats, psych, ecology) and I would AfD myself in a heartbeat. That is not to say that citations don't matter, if there were a few highly cited articles all in the same area I would be much more inclined to agree with you both.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 08:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Question - can this also be added to the list of AfD discussions for women? I don't know how to do that, but I don't see it there. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment You can find the script for doing it at WP:DELSORT. Hope that helps beyond this AfD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Bettina Eick satisfies WP:NACADEMIC for the following reasons:
 * 1) Eick's work has about 747 citations on MathSciNet with publications starting in 1997. By comparison, one of her mentors, Charles Leedham-Green (who has a Wikipedia page) has 1009 citations with publications starting nearly 20 years earlier in 1969. Citations are not the only measure of the importance of ones scholarly contributions, but they are a measure. This satisfies criterion 1 under WP:NACADEMIC.
 * 2) Eick was awarded a grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, a prestigious German foundation. This is not an award such as earning a Fields Medal, but is noteworthy and perhaps satisfies criterion 2 under WP:NACADEMIC.
 * 3) Eick quickly earned her habilitation after her phd, and has the highest possible title in German academics. This is akin to having a named professorship in the US, and thus satisfies criterion 5 under WP:NACADEMIC. Minndietz (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment 1) I'm not familar enough with citation counts in this area to comment. 2) That was a Feodor Lynen Research Fellowship which is basically up to 2 years of funding it looks like; that isn't notable. 3) Unless I'm completely misunderstanding Habilitation, I don't see how that is equivalent to a named professorship, and hence not sufficient to show notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for another week. I see a lot of Weak Keeps right now and only the nominator advocating Deletion. Definitely borderline. Thanks to those editors who are not AFD regulars for participating in the discussion and offering their critique of the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I was holding back, as I'm probably too close to this area to make a neutral judgement.  I would not like this to end as an expired prod, and no one else has !voted, so here I am.  Anyway, in math, which is a low-citation field, I would normally look for three works with over 100 citations.  The subject here has two that easily clear that bar, combined with a long tail of moderately cited items.  Now, the GAP council among other things retains editorial control over accepted GAP packages (which are refereed).  While I do not think this chair position is necessarily a pass of WP:NPROF C8, I do think it is akin to a chief editor position at a smaller journal.  The combination brings me to a weak keep. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone who is chief editor at a smaller journal wouldn't be sufficient to meet WP:NPROF C8. Personally I think this comes down to are the citations, etc. are sufficient to meet C1. I seem to be very much fence-sitting... -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it passes WP:NPROF C8. I'm suggesting only that the council chair might be enough to push a case that is on the edge over.  Agree that the case borders on WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep per my comments above. The Handbook alone would not be enough to convince me, but the other high-citation publication ("A millennium project: constructing small groups", essentially a position paper advocating research on a certain topic), in what is generally a low-citation field, pushes me to the keep side. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Seems like a decent number of citations, agree with discussion above. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Looks like we've figured this out. I still disagree with the notion that their citations make them notable, I'm only moving from delete to keep because they work in a very small area of study and "math is kinda strange like that sometimes".  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 04:52, 15 September 2022 (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.