Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric de Sturler


 * 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 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric de Sturler

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: Does not meet any of the nine criteria listed in Notability (academics): e.g., on the editorial board, but not an editor-in-chief, ... Plastikspork (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article was first created by IP 128.174.245.145, which is at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Checking this first version  and an edit by "DutchMom" who only edits this page, it looks like there could be a WP:COI. Just FYI. Plastikspork (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's non-notable. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment COI is not reason to delete, and all arguments on that basis are irrelevant. someone able to do so needs to analyze the importance of his actual work. DGG (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * response: Good point, thank you. I just read that section in WP:COI. Plastikspork (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Published in field per which establishes, I suggest, sufficient notability. Collect (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since he does not meet criteria 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9 in WP:Notability (academics), which only leaves criteria 1, but I see no reliable indication of impact by reliable sources. He is not known for any important algorithms or theorems.  He has some publications, but so does every academic professor in his field.  The WP:BLP appears to cite no sources beyond de Sturler's own webpage, which is questionable for a BLP. 76.199.2.120 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Since he has well over 300 citations to his pubs, I would say he either meets or is very close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: Good point, but I would be careful with google scholar counts as they don't filter for self-citation, double counted preprint/tech-report versions of papers, etc. Better (in my opinon) would be to use Web of Science, but if an academic is notable, you would think there would be articles and press releases already written attesting to notability. For example, look at his advisor's page, Henk van der Vorst. Plastikspork (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Web of Science's coverage of mathematics journals is not that good. However, here are the raw counts: 17 publications, 187 citations (top is with 85), h-index = 7. De Sturler's own publication list  has 42 publications. It also lists several plenary/keynote lectures and notes that he was on the panel for "Research          Directions and Enabling Technologies for the Future of          CS&E" at the SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, 2007. He definitely comes close, in my opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just that WoS has spotty journal coverage for this area. It's also that in the sort of computational science de Sturler does, a lot of the publications are in conferences rather than journals and WoS doesn't cover them at all; I haven't checked what of de Sturler's pubs are covered but I suspect his two highest-cited according to Google aren't in WoS. So I would be inclined to trust the Google scholar results. However, what I'm seeing in Google scholar isn't quite enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1, and there's little hint of a pass of the other criteria. Overall, I see this as a weak delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2009 (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.