Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Grosshans


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Frank Grosshans

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

Article about a professor which does not appear to meet the guidelines set forth in either WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:N. Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing here of any note. Individual may be a pride to his family but not a Wiki article.Bildstit (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Above user has been banned as a suckpuppet. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable. A Professor over 25 years experience teaching. He was a speaker at Mathematical Association of America conferences. At least one publication (Pure Math.) cite a very high number of references in Google scholar. For Pure math articles (Non applied), citations around 10 to 15 are good. Teaching math at colleges in the US is taking priority over research. That is more than enough to call him notable along with other mathematicians on wikipedia.
 * Comment Perhaps you could add these references and such to the article to demonstrate the article subject's notability. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 03:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough. A professor like this (at a moderately-sized mainly teaching institution) is often just "average" (by WP notability guidelines), even if very accomplished, but this guy's work seems well-recognized above the norm.  His journal articles, while not many, are mostly published in high class journals (like the American Journal of Mathematics and Inventiones Mathematicae), ones that any pure mathematician would recognize (and in the case of Inventiones, might be tempted to chop off a pinky for).  What really pushes him past marginal for me is that he's wrote a couple books, one on semi-simple lie algebras, which is cited something like 150 times on Google Scholar, and another on invariant theory, which has "only" 50 cites, but is not as basic a topic as lie algebras.  For math books, these are good citation numbers, even if not amazing.  If in addition, as suggested above (but not verified), he has been a frequent invited speaker, plenary speaker, etc. at major MAA conferences, then that would establish his creds in the more math edu oriented circles, which while not as acknowledged by certain metrics Wikipedians like to use, is certainly important too.  If it comes down to delete or keep, I would wager on the safer side, which is "keep".  --C S (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck out some previous comments. My investigation indicates that Grosshans is probably not a notable MAA speaker and has spoken only at local (e.g. Eastern Pennsylvania) conferences.  --C S (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has been improved with enough content to suggest notability. Now better than many articles that have been stubs for months or years. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 08:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Either meets or is close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact indicates a certain degree of notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment He is certainly highly established within his field (algebraic groups and invariant theory), has done some important work on Hilbert's fourteenth problem and, of course, wrote a few well regarded books. But I would like to see a broad and systematic discussion of notability vs academic merit and the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia take place. I have recently raised this issue at Articles for deletion/Panos Papasoglu which, unfortunately, was improperly closed before anyone had a chance to respond. In brief, absent secondary sources (prize citations, festschrifts and anniversary articles, interviews), it seems doubtful to me that scientific merit alone justifies the creation of a biographical article. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is not "Who is who in mathematics". Arcfrk (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion you would like to have happen has happened many times before and led to WP:PROF. If you disagree with that, the place to argue it is there not in an AFD.  I'm not sure anyone was really interested in responding to your comments in that last AFD, as they sound out-of-place and misinformed as to the existing body of notability guidelines.  I, for one, agree with the sentiment you expressed, but found out long ago, that many Wikipedians felt otherwise (see in particular #2 of the "in a nutshell" for WP:PROF).  Now I just go with what the consensus opinion is, which basically says bios are ok even if they will only be glorified CVs.  --C S (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My general approach to these AFDs is to make sure the correct information is disseminated and explain how it fits within the guidelines like WP:PROF. That shouldn't be taken, however, as a support for WP:PROF.  --C S (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about using DBLP to evaluate someone is a notable Mathematician/Computer scientist. Check out the site to find how records are added there. Read the FAQ section. . It is one of the tools for some. You may not find the work of the best.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 11:22, 1 April 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.