Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Chin-Pi Lu


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sylvia Chin-Pi Lu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

From Google Scholar: her most cited paper is a erraturm to a paper of hers that received only 9 cites. The only other significantly cited paper is cited 49 times, in a  minor university journal. Perhaps her career is early enough for some special consideration. I'll let the consensus decide.  DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 07:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Let me address the specific criticism first. Lu typically published as Chin-Pi Lu or C.-P. Lu, so the Google Scholar search incorporating "Sylvia" misses a number of her most important papers. A search for Chin-Pi Lu math yields more accurate results. (Those with university access can also use the math-specific database linked in her article.) The culture of citation in mathematics is different from that in other scientific fields (the AMS has a statement on this), so directly comparing citation counts in math to citation counts in other disciplines will dramatically underestimate the effect of researchers on mathematics. One can read more about bibliometric issues in mathematics in an article by Ed Dunne.
 * It is (or should be) the practice to compare citations within fields, never between fields. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC).

More broadly, being an invited speaker at the ICM is a highly prestigious international academic honor, and therefore the subject is notable by Criterion #2 for Notability_(academics).  UrsulaGeorges ( talk ) 29 June 2019.
 * Weak keep. There's not a lot to say about her from our sources, but she is well cited for pure mathematics (top cites for "Chin-Pi Lu" 234, 151, 94, etc). ICM invited speaker is a signal honor, and we have an obituary published by the American Mathematical Society. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. She passes WP:PROF in ways typical for a mathematician. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with the above. On a personal note (not a reason to keep the article), Sylvia was a quiet and shy individual who didn't talk much about herself, but when she did I found her personal story to be moving and inspirational. I will try to find some local printed material to verify this.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Best GS h-index I can find is 10, which is a bit slender, even for pure mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC).
 * keep, the subject pass GNG and WP:PROF and could consider as notable subject.Forest90 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which categories of WP:Prof? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC).


 * 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.