Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matti Jutila


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Matti Jutila

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails the WP:BASIC criteria of notability for persons, and possibly also fails all the criteria of notability for academics WP:NACADEMIC, even when performing a short google search.

Edit: See discussion below for comments on Dr. Jutila's scholar work. Also adding that Dr. Matti Jutila's page has a low visualizations count. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 03:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 03:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep at present. With close to 1000 cites on Google scholar (with many single author papers) comes close to passing WP:Prof for a pure mathematician. Would the nominator like to comment on the scholar scores? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
 * I believe that goes slightly far from passing criteria 1, as it is not an above-average number of citations. I also could not identify works that significantly impacted any area. Number of citations might be a matter of personal perception; if it helps with objectivity, I'd name prof. Rodrigo Mello and prof Yoshito Hirata as authors with more citations and that do not hold an article for themselves, and arguably also fail notability criteria. I'd like to add that Dr. Matti Jutila's page has a low visualizations count. Will add this to the nomination text. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be above the average number of citations for a low cited-field like pure mathematics. I look for guidance from comments from those with mathematics experience. I don't see why the number of citations should be a matter of personal perception. The data are sourced from reliable databases. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the discussion about citations above may be confused, in two ways: first, there is someone else with the same name at the same university whose citations match the citation counts given but I don't think it's for the same person; the other particulars like discipline and academic rank don't match in any way. And second, you can't use citations to compare people in different disciplines with very different citation practices, like Mello and Hirata; that would be like saying basketball is better than formula 1 racing because they score more points per game. (Also see WP:WAX.) Anyway, my keep is based not so much on citations and #C1 (although for pure mathematics Jutila's citation counts are pretty good, I think good enough to pass: 201 for his monograph Lectures on a Method in the Theory of Exponential Sums, 131 for "On the Mean Value of L (1/2, χ) FW Real Characters", 103 for "On Linnik's constant", 74 for "Riemann's zeta-function and the divisor problem", 69 for "Primes in short intervals", etc), but on his membership in the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters and WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the two authors. Looking at the mathematics papers (mostly single author) I get an h-index of 18. Quite enough to pass WP:Prof for pure mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
 * @ I have to agree that WP:PROF is fulfilled by his membership in that century-old academy. I intend to withdraw the nomination once I confirm that fact in their website, which unfortunately is giving me a 404 error right now. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 07:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the English-language part of their site is broken, but it's on the Finnish side at https://www.acadsci.fi/jasenet/ryhmat-ja-osastot.html (which works in translation for me and is simple enough in structure that I'm confident of the translation). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, that will do. Thanks Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. 3 pubs with 100 cites each is a solid record in a low citation field like mathematics, likely a pass of WP:NPROF C1, and as David Eppstein points out, membership in the Finnish Academy gives C3. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:NPROF due to citations and membership of Finnish Academy, as others have already discussed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Commment I don't think the "visualizations count" matters due to WP:NOBODYREADSIT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've never seen a case where a consensus found a page-view count to be persuasive, one way or the other. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it can be used to contribute to the argument that the article is not notable. WP:NOBODYREADSIT tells you not to use visualization count as the only or the main argument. 's words of experience are important, though, and I'll take them into consideration. Thanks Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF, and the C1 case looks decent as well. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2020 (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.