Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Johnsonbaugh


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Johnsonbaugh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not pass WP:GNG pr WP:NACADEMIC. A Web of Science (standard metric) search returned 13 papers with few citations (13, 13, 4, 4, 1, 1, 0, 0, ..., 0). A Scopus search returned 9 papers and textbooks with few citations (27, 22, 7, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 0). These are typically too few to pass #1 of WP:NACADEMIC and there is no evidence of passing any of the other criteria. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Google Scholar shows lots of citations for his books. At least one has been translated into Spanish. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It shows four undergraduate-level (self-described) textbooks with (173, 79, 69, 31) citations and papers with (47, 38, 32, 31, 27, 20, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 8, 7, 6, ...) citations. The textbooks would fall under criterion 4 of WP:NACADEMIC but cannot be said to have made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. His research, especially considering that Google Scholar includes non-peer-reviewed sources in the citation count and that discrete mathematics & algorithms tend to have higher citation counts, does not seem to be influential enough for criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Looking through the MathSciNet reviews, there isn't much evidence of having developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. — MarkH21 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. I agree that his research doesn't seem to have had much impact, but that's a different criterion, and failing it does not prevent achieving notability some other way. It's hard to count exactly how many books he has because some of them (such the ones with "programming" in the title) seem to have overlapping content, but he has at least four distinct clusters of textbooks. I found and added to the article five published reviews of three of these, enough I think for WP:AUTHOR. And the Discrete Mathematics book in particular has gone through eight editions from its original 1984 publication to its most recent in 2018, and has been translated into Spanish, weak but persuasive evidence that it is widely used (WP:PROF). I also ran a Google search for "Johnsonbaugh" "syllabus" site:.edu -site:depaul.edu (to find other universities using his textbooks) and found over 500 hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we have different interpretations of WP:AUTHOR, but I do not see the existence of five reviews of three undergraduate textbooks as evidence of Criterion 1: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. or Criterion 4: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. It definitely does not match criterion 2 or 3. Regarding Criterion 4 of WP:NACADEMIC, the specific note that you are applying says: several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. Indeed, I see that Discrete Mathematics and Foundations of Mathematical Analysis are used in multiple syllabi, with a two or three uses of Algorithms, Applications Programming in C++, and Applications Programming in ANSI C each. That's two books that could be (arguably) "widely used", but even with those I don't see "several books" being so. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For WP:AUTHOR, you're looking at the wrong criterion. The one I had in mind is #3: his books are the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, but this criterion pertains to individual works or collective bodies of work (not all of his books as a collective unit since they are intellectually distinct). Of his works, only Foundations of Mathematical Analysis has multiple reviews and the condition that this work is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews is a supplementary requirement in addition to it being recognized as a significant or well-known work. I don't think it has that status though (and I do know it – I used it when I was an undergraduate!). It's an undergraduate textbook with 66 citations on Google Scholar that isn't commonly referred to in literature (unlike e.g. Algebra by Lang, Algebraic Geometry by Hartshorne, the Princeton Lectures in Analysis series by Stein and Shakarchi, etc.). — MarkH21 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * His books (plural, three of them) are the subject of multiple reviews (plural, five of them). And the evidence that it is well-known is that it's widely reviewed; what other kind of evidence could you be asking for? That's how I've always seen this criterion used. I think any finer-grained parsing is just WP:WIKILAWYERING. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just a difference of opinion then. I don't think the three undergraduate textbooks are significant enough for Criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR alone or as a collective body (but three unrelated textbooks with minor significance do not make one significant body of work anyways). Reviews provide evidence towards significance but do not determine them. I am pointing out that the criterion agrees with that view because it says: In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. It is not an attempt to intentionally and inappropriately misinterpret the criteria or game the system. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, "two or three uses of Algorithms" is false. I see it listed (either as the coursebook or as recommended reading) at Cal State Los Angeles, U. Cyprus, Rose-Hulman, U. Virginia, Siena, Birmingham, U. Central Florida, U. Texas Dallas, Natl. U. Singapore, Bemidji State, Pondicherry Engineering College, U. Hyderabad, National Taipei U. Tech., etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh whoops! I must have eliminated too many hits when I modded out the Discrete Mathematics textbook from my previous search. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm convinced by Eppstein's rationale that he is sufficiently notable. --Tataral (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep He appears to meet some basic thresholds as hashed out above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 15 April 2019 (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.