Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Kane (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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Kane (mathematician)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dude might have potential, but he hasn't proved anything important; not a very well-cited scholar according to Google Scholar, and getting over a 700 in math on SAT in fifth grade does not a notable person make Catarago (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here's a link for his Google scholar citation counts; he doesn't seem to have a profile there. Note that half of his work is in mathematics, which is a low-citation subject, so the CS half of his work is overrepresented in the search results. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. We normally don't keep articles on academics based mostly on their undergraduate or earlier accomplishments, but there have been exceptions (Arthur Rubin comes to mind as one) and Kane's record of achievement in top-level contests is very exceptional. It also looks like he's on-track to a good academic career, although it may be a bit too soon to have accumulated enough notability for that aspect of his life. As I hinted above, the CS publications can probably be judged fairly enough on their citation record and best-paper award record (the article doesn't mention it but he also has a 2005 Machtey Award, essentially a best student paper award), but that's problematic for the math publications because of the low citation rate in that field. I think that the quotes from the Morgan award citation are more telling there: "“Daniel’s first paper improves on a famous Annals of Mathematics paper by Paul Erdős" (Annals is arguably the best journal in mathematics, and Erdős one of the top mathematicians of the 20th century), and (in a paper written as a high schooler) "He proved an open conjecture stated by a well-known number theorist several years before". They match my impression of the CS side: a little early, but already strong. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Remarkable prodigy, but this might be a case of too soon? 'Weak keep per Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. His GS profile gives a h-index of 12 (which is too low for WP:PROF), while his younger accomplishments have not attracted the kind of national press coverage that, for example, Michael Viscardi has received. Some of the things listed in the article (e.g. "He won a Best Paper award at the 2010 Symposium on Principals of Database Systems (PODS)") are utterly ordinary. -- 120.23.11.150 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eppstein. While generally true that student awards are not considered under WP:PROF, there are exceptions to this at the highest levels (Arthur Rubin being the obvious one, but possibly also Reid Barton and Gabriel Drew Carroll, though I don't think either of those make particularly good test cases for a precedent).  If we had to codify our de facto best practice in the matter, it would be: four time Putnam fellows are ipso facto notable.  I don't think we should necessarily put that into policy, but it's still useful as a litmus test.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG and a few reliable sources do mention him in detail.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I find the suggestion of Sławomir Biały, that a 4-time Putnam winner is more or less, well, ANYBIO #1, compelling. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:01, 6 February 2015 (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.