Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Katz


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Eric Katz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article appears to fail the notability criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NACADEMIC. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. As usual in pure mathematics the citation counts are low, but that doesn't tell us much, because they're always low. So we have to rely on other indicators instead. He recently moved from associate professor at one university to assistant at another; this sort of drop is very rare and I don't understand it. I don't think we should count it against him unless we understand why it happened, but the fact remains that he is currently at the assistant level, which is usually below our threshold for a keep. He helped solve a conjecture that caught the attention of Gil Kalai, but that's not enough for notability by itself and raises WP:BIO1E issues. His CV doesn't show any major awards or other factors that would bring up the level of notability of the article. And the only independent sourcing we have for the article are a blog post that has a short mention (one paragraph) on the problem Katz helped solve and an even shorter mention of Katz's contribution to it, and a magazine profile of someone else. I don't think that's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No strong preference. I'm flattered that someone made this page. I gave up tenure to get out of Waterloo which was a priority. In any case, I had applied for jobs while I didn't have tenure. There are plenty of good algebraic geometers who don't have wikipedia pages, and I certainly wouldn't mind being in their company. —Eric Katz (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Eric Katz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * No strong preference. David Eppstein raised the question of the notability of the article. I note that the A-H-K  paper  was  subject of one of the four annual talks in the current events in mathematics series  at  this year's annual AMS meeting,  which puts it in remarkable company-- two surveys  of  hot fields  in the  resolution of a famous problem by Tao.  I will add this to the article,  which already cites the AMS notices  survey paper  by the same authors. I think the notability of the work  itself is not at issue.  ( I had heard of it long before  from colleagues in algebraic geometry as a major breakthrough,  solving a very important problem by very unexpected means that connected to a seemingly unrelated area,  and thus likely to result in much future work. so I am personally confident that the strong indications  I cited are accurate.)  The no "strong preference"  vote is because  I don't know  whether it is usual practice  for  all three authors on a breakthrough paper to  merit an article.   I see no harm in it,  given that it  he made a serious contribution to a  major intellectual  development,   which will save  someone the bother of having to re-create the article down the line. 122.167.238.108 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — 122.167.238.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Weak keep. I definitely think this isn't as simple as saying Eric fails WP:NACADEMIC. With regards to the drop from Associate to Assistant Professor position, well, he already was an Associate Professor, and he will become one soon again. If it is the case that say, any associate math professor in a western country can have a Wikipedia page, then I think he should have one. Ethanbas (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NACADEMIC #5 we presume that people who have held the title of "distinguished professor" are notable. Associate vs Assistant professor isn't directly relevant to a discussion about notability, and in any case notability isn't temporary so there is no difference in a notability discussion about whether the position is currently held. VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article that seems to have triggered the creation of this page (1) was picked up by Wired and is now featured on its homepage and (2) may have been primarily about a collaborator, but also has a great deal about Katz as well. That's still just a single RS, but that RS is not as trivial as originally presented. Calbaer (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More source discussion, please
 * No strong preference. There should be a quite simple criterion to decide this; if having contributed to an important paper (A-H-K) merits a wikipedia page (and from what I hear, all authors contributed about equally), then it should stay provided we feel A-H-K is important enough as a contribution to science. I would argue that this is the case. If the paper not being published is a problem, I would advocate for a weak delete of the authors pages until it is. If being mentioned in an article about someone else vs. being the focus is the issue, then the page should be deleted according to this standard. However, I do not think an article mentioning someone should be the point of merit in any case, or we get articles about random socialites or crackpot scientists with more public standing than most serious scientists. 87.77.36.17 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) — 87.77.36.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the relister's request for more source discussion: all people (not just academics) are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The only independent source that has been presented is Quanta. That source is primarily about June Huh, with a brief mention (~1/2 paragraph) about Katz. I do not think this qualifies as "significant coverage" and it certainly isn't multiple sources. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that none of the things he is said to have assisted with even have Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned in nine paragraphs, plus a caption for his photo, far more than "a brief mention (~1/2 paragraph)." Again, I think his coverage within this article is being presented as more trivial than it actually is.  Agreed that it's just one independent reliable source, but that source shouldn't be mischaracterized.  Moreover, the criteria you present are sufficient for - but not necessary for - notability.  (Then again, no one's brought up any sufficient evidence yet, which someone really should in order to justify keep.) Calbaer (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "He is mentioned" is different than "(~1/2 paragraph) about Katz". How many times his name appears in the article is not relevant; whether the article contains significant coverage of Katz is relevant. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the article is about results he co-authored and about both him and his co-authors (albeit focusing primarily on one other than him). Anyone who wants to see the extent of the coverage within the article can read it and judge for themselves.  However, I don't want those who haven't read the article to assume it only has "a brief mention" of him based on statements to that effect. Calbaer (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Some links that provide more evidence for notability:
 * https://uwaterloo.ca/combinatorics-and-optimization/news/adiprasito-huh-and-katz-announce-proof-rotas-log-concavity
 * http://jointmathematicsmeetings.org/meetings/national/jmm2017/2180_invspeakers#bake
 * https://mattbaker.blog/2014/04/11/effective-chabauty/
 * https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/updates-and-plans-iii/
 * https://mattbaker.blog/2015/12/14/hodge-theory-in-combinatorics/
 * http://www.nieuwarchief.nl/serie5/pdf/naw5-2016-17-1-032.pdf
 * All the above are mentions of Eric Katz with relation to the result he helped bring. Also found http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201704/rnoti-p380.pdf Ethanbas (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just routine material-self published/blogs/university PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC).
 * I mean, it's evidence other mathematicians are taking Katz's/etc's work seriously. If you don't want self-published/blogs/university PR, there's always Katz's published papers :) Ethanbas (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that published papers don't establish notability. There are plenty of people who've published many papers in the most prestigious journals but fail to meet notability.  So publication record alone is very, very weak evidence of notability. Calbaer (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Katz's joint work with Karim Adiprasito and June Huh has been prominently featured in Quanta. I'd say keep the article for now. --bender235 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  16:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A very significant development in mathematics, combined with at least some detailed coverage, should be enough. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:56, 23 July 2017 (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.