Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Somos


 * 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Somos

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed PROD, removed with comment '(remove prod. Noted by Mathworld. Should be AfDd.)'. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so seems to fail WP:GNG, and WP:BIO, WP:PROF   Chzz  ►  21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into an (as-yet-nonexistent, but easily stubbed out) article on Somos sequences, which are a notable topic in mathematics (see Google scholar search results) even though Somos himself seems hard to find sufficient sourcing about. This seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E and redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have since started an article on Somos sequences. It's pretty bare-bones so far but at least contains some of the basic facts and a few references. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect sounds like a good idea. I removed the prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. I'm not sure that a redirect to Somos sequence would be appropriate, because Somos also appears to be notable for Somos' quadratic recurrence constant. Or (I don't feel inclined at the moment to get my head around this) are these two aspects of the same thing? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added Somos' quadratic recurrence constant to the article. I remember Somos speaking at the MIT combinatorics seminar.  But probably that in itself is not evidence of "notability". Michael Hardy (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. We should tread carefully here, as this seems to be a rather unusual case. Article and supporting info suggest he's not a professional mathematician. Nevertheless, there appear to be at least 2 significant results named after him. This certainly does imply some amount of notability, but I don't feel knowledgeable enough about these areas at the moment to render an opinion on whether it is sufficient for our purposes. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. I was in the same quandary as Agricola44 regarding this. The subject has a grand total of 18 citations on HPoP, with an h-index of 2. Yet, the term “Somos sequence” has 329 citations and an h-index of 11, also on HPoP. And I wouldn’t be surprised if different searches for ideas by the subject would uncover many more hits. In other words, the idea (or ideas) lives on and is cited, but not with reference to its originator or the original article. I guess some great mathematicians who have WP articles (e.g., Niels Henrik Abel, admittedly from another era) have low citations and h-indexes, but when one looks at citations to their ideas, they are much, much higher. Bottom line: I think the subject meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), although in an unorthodox way.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "HPoP" redirects to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and something tells me that's not what you mean, and neither WP:PROF nor Google is shedding any light. Could you disabbreviate this? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Another post on the academic delsort page clears up the mystery of HPoP: See .John Z (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks John Z.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In view of developments I change to Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep, since things named after him seem to get attention from his colleagues. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I'm not sure that getting something named for him should be the criterion; not everything gets named after someone who actually had anything to do with inventing it. But if the person did invent something which is mentioned in a secondary source it seems to me that that would qualify as "significant impact" to satisfy WP:PROF. I would be happier there were more secondary sources other than MathWorld cited though. I do have an issue with the lack of biographical material in the article however. No date and place of birth, nothing about where he got his degree, etc. To me, notable subject or not, you should at least have some basic facts before creating an article, otherwise you might as well just put the name on the requested articles list. But presumably that info can be found and added to the article so it's a fixable issue and shouldn't be deleted for that reason.--RDBury (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has anyone verified that the original creator of this article is in fact, as it appears, Doron Zeilberger? Should we count that as another "keep" vote?  It appears to be Zeilberger's only Wikipedia edit, and somewhat competently done.  He may be a total newbie among Wikipedians, but he is a respected mathematician. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sent Prof. Zeilberger an email asking if he'd like to comment here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep He is notable enough to have something like that named after him. Inventing a major mathematical equation is notable work.  There are 82 results in Google scholar search  and some of that looks notable.   D r e a m Focus  17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DreamFocus. One of the references has been added, and there is plenty of scope for the article to grow. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:29, 13 October 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.