Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serge B. Provost


 * 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 soft delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit  13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Serge B. Provost

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to be a non-notable academic with routine listings in various school-specific sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just added four more published reviews, two each of two of his books, to the article. Normally I would count five reviews for two books as being good enough for WP:AUTHOR. I am hesitant to do so here, because the reviews are in MathSciNet and zbMATH, which might be considered routine because they are reputed to review essentially everything in research-level pure mathematics. In fact, they only reviewed two of Provost's four books, with a third book merely indexed with a copy of the publisher blurb by each, and a fourth book not listed at all. I'm not sure whether that should be interpreted as evidence that these reviews should count as being more selective than we have traditionally counted them (because obviously they are selecting some books and not others) or as evidence that Provost's books are not making significant impact (because only half of them even got reviewed by the review-everything sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't think that the MathSciNet or zbMath reviews are the kind discussed under WP:NAUTHOR.  I did add one more review contributing to NAUTHOR to the article but that's still 1 + 3 reviews on two books.  This is marginal.  I am brought over to weak delete, as the books are multiply-authored, and as it looks to me like the subject here is overshadowed by his more notable coauthor A. M. Mathai. Citations look weak for WP:NPROF C1 in a moderate citation field.  Comment that while he appears to be a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, this is what they call their base level of membership (so no WP:NPROF C3 apparent); associate of the Society of Actuaries also would fail to meet WP:NPROF C1 so far as I can see (if it could even be verified).  I will watch this discussion in case more reviews or other evidence of notability are uncovered. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.