Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. M. Pu


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

P. M. Pu

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

Unnotable mathemitician who fails WP:BIO. Article is purely the original research/creation of its creator, who copy/pasted it from his own webpage. Wikipedia is not a mirror nor is it a personal web host for people to archive their website or publish their own research papers. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article is not original research because it's based on other sources (the book by Katz). That also shows that Pu is discussed by third-party sources, hence he appears to be notable. The fact that the article was published before on another website is not a reason to delete the article; see for instance the many articles we copied from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedia Brittanica is a reliable source whose information can at least be trusted to be well resourced and reliable. Some unknown guy's personal website does none of the above. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources listed do not establish subject's notability.  Content appears to be copied directly.  --Kraftlos (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your definition of notability? Notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The book by Katz is published by the American Mathematical Society which I think is definitely a reliable source for mathematics books. It has a subsection on Pu, hence significant coverage. And I know of no connection between Katz and Pu, except that they work in the same area. So I'd say that the source does establish notability by the very definition of notability. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the notability requirements for academics, he has not been established as notable. Simply being published isn't enough, most professors are published in some capacity.  --Kraftlos (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He's a pioneer of systolic geometry, says the book. He has proved Pu's inequality for the real projective plane. That's enough to satisfy criterion 1 (his research has made a significant impact). Marcel Berger wrote an article Du côté de chez Pu . Tamrazov writes in the introduction of Moduli and extremal metrics in twisted Riemannian manifolds: "we consider problems on the Riemann Möbius string, including the well-known Pu problem" (translation from, my emphasis).
 * That needs to be explicitly stated in the introduction of the article with in-text citations. I can't be expected to know that.  Wikipedia pages are supposed to be written so that someone with no background in that subject could understand what its talking about.  --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't even googled his name, and yet you're urging deletion. This is a problem.  If you think something is non-notable, ask for cleanup first.  You will delete (and probably already have) a great many good articles by carelessly voting to delete without any knowledge of the subject at hand. - McCart42 (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your second sentence; what does "most professors are published" mean? Could you perhaps reformulate this? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a common way of staying that they have works that have been published, like a paper or a book.  It doesn't literally mean that the person was published, but that their works were published.  --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - No notability, dubious claims of fact, speculation, unsourced, take your pick... / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —Nsk92 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral for the moment, leaning towards weak keep. It is possible that the subject passes WP:PROF and perhaps WP:BIO. I'd like to look up Katz' book mentioned in the article but the libraries in the U.S. are closed today and tomorrow so I'll try do do that on Tuesday. The subject did not publish a lot (MathSciNet lists 9 articles by him), but his research appears to be influential. The article "Some inequalities in certain nonorientable Riemannian manifolds" from 1952 is still fairly frequently cited in papers on systolic geometry. MathSciNet shows 27 citations of this article since 1998, which for a paper published in 1952 is pretty good. GoogleScholar gives 89 citations for this paper. The term "Pu's inequality" (see Pu's inequality for the real projective plane) appears to be legit and is still used in the literature, although not widely (see ). There is also a memorial article about him in 1990, Lu, Wen Duan; Tang, Zhi Yuan; Xiong, Hua Xin; Bai, Su Hua. In memory of Bao Ming Pu. Advances in Mathematics (China), vol. 19 (1990), no. 2, 239-240. Not a whole lot to go by here but this memorial article together with Katz' book might make it pass WP:BIO, albeit weakly. There is another old paper of Pu and Liu that appears to be influential, Fuzzy topology, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS, 1980 (published in two parts in two consecuitive issues of the journal). WebOfScience gives 229 citations for part 1 of this paper and 69 citations for part 2, which is quite high for a pure math paper. This paper is explicitly mentioned in 50 reviews in Mathematical Reviews, including some recent ones. Again, this is fairly impressive for a pure math paper from 30 years ago and shows that the paper is still relevant. Still, there is not a whole lot here to go on and I am not sure about this one. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak Keep. I looked up Katz' book (ref no 1 in the article). In chapter 2, on page 19 of the book, there is a brief biographical sketch of Pu that roughly corresponds to the biographical data given in the first two sections (Thesis under Loewner and Mainland) in the article. The book also explicitly characterizes Pu's 1952 paper as "seminal". Pu's inequality is listed in the index as appearing in the book multiple times (at least 20). In view of this, together with evidence of high citability of the fuzzy topology paper and because there was a special biographical article published about Pu in Advances in Mathematics (China), I think this passes WP:PROF, even if the case is not very strong. Nsk92 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per what Nsk92 has found. Highly referenced papers in math are notability in my opinion Hobit (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jitse Nielsen and Nsk92's research. Few but still highly cited and influential works. RS's on him - memorial article and Katz book mean we can write a decent article on an influential researcher - how could this not improve the encyclopedia?John Z (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen,
 * Thank you for your input. I have noticed generally that a nomination for deletion generates interest in an article, so my particular thanks to Collectonian for a helpful nomination.  The mathematician in question published a paper in '52 which is a seminal article for the field of systolic geometry.  The field currently numbers 70 contributors and 160 publications by a conservative count (see my website at www.math.biu.ac.il/~katzmik/sgt.html).  On the other hand, it is true that Pu is not notable in any way beyond this paper of his, other than a case in point of human folly in general and chinese communism in particular.  Katzmik (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of Pu's highly influential paper with Liu. I will include it in the references. Katzmik (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of Pu's highly influential paper with Liu. I will include it in the references. Katzmik (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of Pu's highly influential paper with Liu. I will include it in the references. Katzmik (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability now seems to have been sufficiently established. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like another case where weaknesses in the article got fixed because it was on AfD and then there's no longer any reason to consider it for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep' Weakness can also get fixed by asking at the appropriate wikiproject, or an individual who understand the subject. Nominating for deletion is abnout the clumsiest way to do it. Given the citations findable in GS, there was no real reason for nominating this article.  DGG (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the person who nominated it didn't intend to nominate it just to get more references. We were pretty sure this was a non-notable professor; I'll change to weak keep, but I'd like to see in-text citations soon.  --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a result of a rush to judgment. It appears that some of the people urging deletion have a real aversion to asking for cleanup first, and I wonder how many potentially good articles and editors have been deleted or discouraged from writing here because of the unwillingness to consider that just because you haven't heard of something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is non-notable. - McCart42 (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - If referencing and introduction are improved to reflect P.M. Pu's notability, I support keeping the article. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - upon further inspection, the references are insufficient to establish notability. I support deletion. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that in-text citations have been added already. Katzmik (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, they have not been added yet, there's just a random list of references and no idea where and how they were used. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Inline citations are not a requirement for the existence of an article. Paul August &#9742; 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. An explicit statement of notability is required to justify inclusion and inline-citations are required to back that up.  --Kraftlos (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To put my 2c in, Paul's statement seems more exact. By its plain current wording, CSDA7 explicitly  is a lower standard than notability, and distinguishes itself from verifiability.  Only "a reasonable indication of why it might be notable" is required, not an inline cited statement. For example, I recently de-speedied an article about an artist and added a book biography of him published that same day under Further reading. Deletion under any rule would then be absurd.John Z (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am still puzzled at the claim that the article does not contain in-line citation. The items in the references are numbered, and the text of the page contains references to those numbers.  If Kraftlos prefers electronic internal links, I would be much obliged if he could introduce them (there are not too many of them).  What exactly is "a random list of references"?  Katzmik (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying that notability can only be supported by inline citations is egregious mission-creep. What the guideline says is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Those aren't references at all. After careful checking and reading the article, none of those were actually references. Most were to point to PU's papers, as noted in the text. The only actual possible ref "Katz" is claimed in the first paragraph (before it was edited) to be the "basis" for the remarks, which are still in a horribly written essay style. I've cleaned up some of it, but I still don't see any actual value in the article. Bibliography item 6 wasn't used or mentioned anywhere at all. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Simply having some information about works that might establish notability is not the same thing as stating why the subject is notable then using the inline citations to back it up.  Those books might say that, but the person reading the article needs to know why without having to search those books.  Please re-read Burden of Evidence.  Also the Google scholar search is not a valid method for establishing notability, see: WP - Invalid criteria.  As it stands now it fails all criteria for notability under the specific academics guidelines; which is what we're working with here, not the general Notability.
 * Some other things: simply being mentioned in some books does not constitute "significant coverage". And yes, verifiability is a requirement here because one cannot establish notability without it.  An inline citation is not the same as placing numbers next to the references on a list.  This is an electronic encyclopedia, so it's expected that you use electronic 's to explain where the information come from.  This is simply common sense.  --Kraftlos (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But as explained above, there is no policy that requires inline citations (see also WP:V) or even explicit statements of notability in order to prevent deletion. Google scholar search and the like, to find if an academic's works are highly cited, are perhaps the main criterion for academic notability under WP:PROF, see its Notes and examples section.John Z (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why I keep saying to read that section! The first section of WP:Verifiability clearly states that completely referenced inline citations are required.  I quote: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." --WP:BURDEN  Because there is no verifiable independent coverage in the article, notability has not been established.  And no, the guidelines clearly state that search engine statistics (aka google scholar) are not sufficient to establish notability..  --Kraftlos (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable mathematician, though not a celebrated one. The other reasons cited don't amount to a case for deletion. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? Wikipedia is not here to be the personal mirror of someone's badly written personal essay. Even the way its written makes it obvious it is just a personal essay and is filled with guesses and maybes with no firm backing. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These are just reasons to improve the article not deleted as pointed out below. If you're not going to stick with your "not notable" argument, you have nothing left to substantiate a deletion decision.  Charles (and plenty others) see notability, and frankly, it's obvious to me too.  Pu is already far more notable for the one paper on systolic inequality than many people with bios on Wikipedia and by now I've seen a fair number of weak ones kept.  --C S (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Deletion policy "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."   Richard Pinch (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I already explained this. She didn't nominate the page so it could be improved; the intent was deletion as evidenced by everything in this discussion.  --Kraftlos (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not why the page was nominated, but rather whether it should be deleted. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. The deletion nomination was not initiated to improve the page, as you just claimed.  --Kraftlos (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled as to why you should think I claimed that: I did not intend to make any such assertion, I don't think I did and I don't really care anyway. Would it affect the case for deletion or retention either way?  Richard Pinch (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you quote this: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." if you did not mean to say that?  What do you mean here? --Kraftlos (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is, there not only is there not enough on the article justify its notability, I don't believe the subject itself is notable. --Kraftlos (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And the nominator seems to have abandoned the "not notable" argument, instead focusing on aspects of the article that make it weak. --C S (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't abandoned anything. I still don't think he's notable except to maybe extreme math geeks. Certainly not notable by Wikipedia standards. I just am not going to bother wasting the energy arguing folks who obviously believe he is somehow notable even without any actual demonstrated significant coverage. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't even begin to comprehend this argument. The "significant coverage" has been "demonstrated" in the text of this AfD, whether or not you care to read it. First, your argument seems downright insulting to students of mathematics.  Second, Wikipedia has numerous articles which are only relevant to students of a field; this does not make them any less notable.  And finally, you don't get to say what is or is not notable purely based on your interests.  Just because you don't study math doesn't mean no one does. Please think about these things before you push another AfD on a topic that seems uninteresting to you.  Try cleanup first. - McCart42 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Notable. 'Nuff said. --C S (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add something though. Kraftlos seems to be highly confused about verifiability and notability.  The notability guidelines do not require that the information actually be in the article.  It only requires that the cites exist, and there is plenty just in this discussion (see above for Nsk92 and Jitse's comments) which suffice.  If it bothers Kraftlos that this information is not in the article, he or she should feel free to add them to the article rather than use extraneous arguments for deletion.  --C S (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is pathetic.  This sort of deletionism is exactly what has gone wrong with Wikipedia.  The article has been in existence for less than a week, and already people are pushing for deletion without giving anyone else a chance to contribute to clean it up.  Katzmik has done a lot of good writing here and rather than support their efforts we are punishing the lack of references before the article has even had a chance to undergo peer review.  Pu has been published and his work has been cited by dozens of other authors.  You're telling me one of Pu's mathematical proofs is notable but he is not???  I'd love to see one example of any other academic who is non-notable yet has a law or conjecture that is notable. It gives one pause to think how much good writing has been deleted because of the overzealous efforts of a few people who think only their own contributions are notable.  Have either of you ONCE requested cleanup rather than immediately jumping to the call for deletion? - McCart42 (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see that it was a new article. Had I known that, I would have been a little more forgiving.  I jumped on after the discussion got going. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:13, 5 September 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.