Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Andrew Roth


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Andrew Roth

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

Fails WP:PROF. No third party references. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete An associate professor of mathematics does not seem very notable. Let him do some more stuff before writing an article on him. Redddogg (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. He works in algebraic geometry, which is perhaps the toughest area of pure math in terms of obtaining new results and where people do not publish a lot. I checked MathSciNet and he has 7 papers listed there (which does seem to be a bit low even for algebraic geometry). Two of them are in top-notch journals: one in Inventiones Mathematicae and one in Crelle's Journal That's very good but, in the absence of additional evidence, not good enough for passing WP:PROF. Citation hits, both in googlescholar and in mathscinet, are pretty low and neither the WP article nor his webpage give any other information (such as honors/awards, journal editorships, etc) that might indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not give any evidence of passing WP:PROF nor can I find such evidence elsewhere. As Nsk92 reports, the publication record looks slim. I'm sure Queens U. had good reason for promoting him to associate but that's not enough to persuade me that he's notable enough to maintain an article on him here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; the article makes no assertions of notability, and the Wikipedians above, who are skilled at data dumping in this field, find none. On a side-note, Gregory G Smith was created by the same editor from the same template, with the only real claim of notability the Aisenstadt Prize, and might stand looking at from someone who is more familiar with the field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (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.