Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisuke Takahashi (mathematician)


 * 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. Seems like there are valid WP:PROF based keep arguments that also address the WP:BLP1E claim by creating an additional notability argument. The reason why this is only "no consensus" is because even the keep editors have some caveats to their arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Daisuke Takahashi (mathematician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person seems like a clear WP:BLP1E candidate for deletion. They are notable solely for allegedly winning a Guiness World Record but there is no evidence of continued or widespread notability past the initial flurry of coverage (which itself was quite modest). Michepman (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Per WP:BLP1E N0nsensical.system (err0r?) 09:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The subject's Google Scholar profile is here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure. With these GS data I would normally vote keep but the field of computer science does have a colossally high citation rate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC).
 * I'm also on the fence with this one. Holding (at least briefly) the world record for computing the most digits of pi was at one time a big deal, but in more recent times it seems to go to the person who has the most access to computing power, rather than to the person who creates the best algorithm. If we were to believe the disambiguator and treat Takahashi as a mathematician then the citation rates given by Google Scholar would make this an obvious pass, but nearly all of the papers cited seem to be in computer science, where such citation rates are pretty commonplace. It's unfortunate (at least for those trying to judge Wikipedia notability) that two such closely related fields have such different typical citation rates. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I comment that the descriptor of (mathematician) in the title is misleading. He really is a computer scientist. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC).
 * These boundaries are fuzzy and the name of an academic's department is not necessarily the best description of their research. There is also a lot of overlap between what he does and electronic and computer engineering, another topic that is often in separate departments from cs and math. Anyway, I agree that "computer scientist" would be a more accurate disambiguator than "mathematician". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I just made some cleanups to the article. It's not true that he is only known for computing $\pi$; even the nominated version of the article briefly mentioned his work on FFT. And he was part of a team that won the Gordon Bell Prize. Overall, I think his citations are (barely) enough for WP:PROF, even in a high-citation field. But my keep is weak because, although the π calculation and FFT work appear to be primarily his alone, the Bell Prize work and many of his highly cited papers were by large teams. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep In addition to the news coverage on computing digits of pi, he also has several highly cited papers.  Note that, although he's a computer scientist, he's in numerical analysis, which I believe to be on the lower citation side for that field.  Anyway, between the evidence towards WP:GNG and WP:NPROF C1, I'm seeing a reasonable argument for keep.  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2019 (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.