Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bertram (mathematician)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

William Bertram (mathematician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evidence that William Bertram meets the WP:ACADEMIC notability standard. Article appears to violate the premise that "notability is not inherited." NJ Wine (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no need to bring this to AFD. The article was quite happily sitting on Proposed Deletion.  Proposed Deletion is there in part to take the load off AFD.  Don't put that load back on for no reason. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sjeez! I hadn't even seen that. And the prod was almost expired, too. What a waste of time! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   NJ Wine (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't really see what NOTINHERITED has to do with this (there is no claim that his parents are notable), but the article is clear enough about the rest: a thesis and a few publications and an unsourced claim that his thesis is "one of great interest and requested by local and international researchers studying the field". Even if the latter is true, as long as those international researchers don't produce publications showing the notability of this thesis and its author, WP:PROF is not met. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. WoS shows that his 2004 and 2005 Physica papers have 18 and 3 citations, respectively. He seems to have 1 other paper in Phsyica, "Analytic solutions for optimal statistical arbitrage trading", having 1 citation and 2 others, "An example of a misclassification problem applied to Australian equity data" and "Measuring time dependent volatility and cross-sectional correlation in Australian equity returns" having no citations. This is obviously well below our conventional threshold for WP:PROF 1. Article was created by a SPA account Lyoulah, which was active for precisely 1 day in 2009, there are no substantive links to this article, etc. – uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Agricola.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above. The fact that the article had an almost-expired PROD tag is relevant as well - this just makes it official. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of refs make it fail GNG and many things are unsourced.  →TSU tp* 04:45, 30 May 2012 (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.