Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Wenocur


 * 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 Nacon kantari  02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Roberta Wenocur
nn mathematician and statistician, despite claims of notability in the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep solid academic career with some awards and also artistic output   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Wikipedia has specific guidelines for academicians to warrant entry, and this does not meet those criteria. Heck, I'd have my own Wikipedia article if this counted. Wryspy 07:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and meanwhile beware of afd tag removal. --CharlotteWebb 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Notability. -- Szvest 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- Why should this article be deleted? There are very few women in mathematics, statistics, and the science. Roberta Wenocur's work is cited worldwide in VC-theory and empirical processes. All her publications listed are verifiable. She is still currently doing research. Why the sudden problem with this article??? Unsigned comments by IP 71.242.164.228]
 * 71.242.164.228 is User:MathStatWoman, not logged in. - David Oberst 00:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, does enough to merit inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Such as? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, does enough to merit inclusion. MathStatWoman 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Such as? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Roberta Wenocur, along with Elaine Zanutto and a handful of others, is one of the very few women in mathematics/science/statistics.  She has verifiable achievements -- just check the references.  We female mathematicians are underpaid, unsung, and mistreated; our research is stolen by men..  Now a bio of one of us is to be deleted?  Not fair!  MathStatWoman 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a vanity article. Gazpacho 17:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- If this is a "vanity article", so are some about men in mathematics, too.  How abour R.M. Dudley, Mark Pinsky, Don Knuth -- all great mathematicians, and the articles deserve to be there.  If this is a "vanity article", why not wipe out all articles about the men, too?   And the few women, too?  I wanted to add bios on other female (and male) mathematicians, but are they all "vanity" articles.  I already voted "keep", so this is just a comment.  I will quit Wikipedia forever and there will be no more bios on any mathematician, scientist, or statistician from me again...you are not well-informed about mathematics, science, and statistics, or else you are a bunch of bullies who want to control Wikipedia.  So, I was planning to write a bio on Paul Halpern (physicist and author), James Pierce (bioinformaticist), Linda Zhao (statistician), and others, but you would call them "vanity articles". MathStatWoman 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Articles written by you about Halpern et. al. would be fine as long as they aren't original research and meet the other relevant guidelines and standards such as WP:BIO Brian 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Please see Autobiography and Vanity guidelines. Gazpacho 18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's pretty clear that this article is autobiography from reading both the article and the user's page. Delete as violation of WP:Autobiography Brian 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Isn't that something we can fix by editing, though? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone could take a shot at it while the AfD is still open and that could influence the outcome of the AfD - that's certainly happened with other articles that initially looked like deletes. I don't think this article passes the notability requirements either though, so unless there's information to add that establishes notability I think it would still be deleted. Brian 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Keep —  per Badlydrawnjeff. Dionyseus 18:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic. Whether or not women are under-represented in math does not matter for our purposes.  Just having a job (even if that job is "mathematician") is nowhere near enough to warrant an article.  However, clearly some academics are of encyclopedic significance.  I don't see enough here to decide either way, yet- the article needs serious improvement.  I wish we'd given it time to improve without the pressure of Afd, but that ship has sailed.  My opinion is keep for now to give the article time to develop- if later we're still not satisfied of the verifiable significance of this person, we could delete it then.  Friday (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Upon further thought, we need demonstrable notability now in order to keep the article now.  I don't see much here that couldn't be said of any academic, so delete.  Friday (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy (e.g., Notability (people)) as it is nothing other than a personal page. Does anybody search for this person? Does anybody search Google for this person? Who would want to know what her dissertation is? Has she significantly contributed to the field? There's nothing wrong with having articles on women, but that fact is irrelevant. The question is whether this article provides good information about an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not a personal page. Chris53516 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Is a person who is noteworthy, an expert in her chosen field of expertise and can be verified by Google, etc. She has had many of her complex papers published and has a long history of publishing these specialised papers. She is in-charge of an organisation which is notable and listed and has been working with colleagues and peers who are also well known and listed on Wikipedia. Summary: She has verifiability; is a significant expert in her area of specialization; has had many significant and well-known academic work published; has received a number of notable award or honor; What else do you want - Blood?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harisingh (talk • contribs).
 * No offence, but this seems to be a combination of mis-reading and unsupported assertion. She is not currently in-charge of a notable organization.  The article seems to indicate that at one time (by implication over a decade ago) she was "second in command" to the Executive Director of SIAM.  This role is not defined; certainly "assistant to the Executive Director" would be notable (see my notes on the Talk page.  There is no evidence that any of the "Awards" are particularly notable, or that any of her publications are "significant and well-known", etc., etc.  Speaking as someone who hit the wall with college calculus, I applaud her as a successful mathematician, academic, and contributor to human knowledge, but that does not require an encyclopedic article. - David Oberst 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Her papers seem to be of a high caliber. More importantly, her work on order statistics arguably fulfills 4 and/or 5 of the academic notability test. JoshuaZ 04:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which criteria of WP:PROF do you see being met, and on what basis? If it can be shown, I'd certainly reconsider my Delete opinion.  I can't see any assertion for #5 or #6.  #7 doesn't seem to be met (see my Talk page notes.  None of the published work would seem to "significant and well-known" for #3, or collectively for #4.  Do you have some indication for #1 or #2? - David Oberst 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Aside from my WP:AUTO/ WP:VANITY concerns with the originating editor, the fact that an academic has published is not notable in itself; it depends on the nature of the work. There is no indication that this has been frequently cited or meets the other criteria of WP:PROF.  And aside from the work, the rest of the information is non-notable biography or CV data.  I've made some additional notes on the Talk:Roberta Wenocur page, and to other contributor's notes here. - David Oberst 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I searched on ISI Web of Knowledge (author finder, RS Wenocur); this showed just 3 papers, only one of which was cited more than once - her paper in DISCRETE MATHEMATICS 33 (3): 313-318 1981 is given as having 45 citations which is a very strong showing for this field. However, I don't see a strong case for notability as a mathematician. No doubt she's a good mathematician, but I really think we have to be very parsimonious with biographies of living people. Yes there are relatively few female mathematicians, and in a few years there might be rather few male biologists; an article on gender and mathematics might be interesting, and maybe that's the way to address this as an issue Gleng 14:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This person has made significant contributions to her field, and is more noteworthy than many other academics who have Wikipedia entries.  Bioinformatician 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Newly created account whose only edit is the above comment. In unrelated news, the original creator of this article appears to have previous sockpuppetry issues (here). - David Oberst 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This is, for all its pomposity (her dissertation was later republished as four research articles???), an extended CV of a run-of-the-mill academic. Professors are like bishops, majors or surgeons, elevated above the average citizen but not notable by title alone. Other than the 45 cites on one article I don't see any other claim of notability that elevates her above her peers, and the scraping for accomplishments (University fellowship) puts this under WP:NOT the place for self-promotion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, for various reasons noted above. Atlant 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Fulfils the following at WP:PROF.
 * 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.
 * 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
 * 3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.
 * 4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.
 * 5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea. AND
 * 7. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Ksingh20 19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is this user related to User:Harisingh? Chris53516 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: What independent sources? You cite none, and neither does the article! How do you define significant? Personal opinion? How do you define important or notable? These notes are too much the content of opinion, especially without any sources. Chris53516 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Please see comment by user Hari singh previously. What proof have the 'delete camp' given - none. The Google search for "Roberta Wenocur", "Wenocur Roberta", with and without comma, "R. Wenocur", with and without full-stop,etc has produced over 500 hits so far and will grow. But I can't spend all day. So the person is notable, if you care to spend the time and carry out a full search. For an academic that is good. Try your own name? MxM Peace 12:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * MxM Peace has been established as a sock puppet of Ksingh20 . User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)