Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Shaw (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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

William Shaw (mathematician)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable academic, possible autobiography (article creator is ). There's no assertion of notability, let alone evidence of it. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PROF except in publications, where he fails WP:BIO anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (A7) No indication that either WP:BIO or Notability (academics) are met and contains no reliable references. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #4 (significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions). Has at least one textbook, Applied Mathematica, currently in more than 320 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Mathscinet author summary reveals 30 publications, but only 12 citations. Subject has only achieved professorial rank 3 years ago, and his textbook is in the nature of a howto/reference guide for a software package rather than a major text. I conclude that he isn't notable yet. If somebody more familiar with financial math wishes to correct me, I'll be happy to accept the correction. Ray (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, achieving professorial rank is actually above getting a full professor rank in the US. University Lecturer at Oxford would be roughly equivalent to associate professor at a very prestigious US university or full professor at a much less prestigious US university.  In his case he is professor at King's College London, which is not as prestigious as Oxford, but always considered in the top 5 UK universities.  The King's math dept has 49 faculty most of whom are permanent faculty and only 17 of whom have the rank of "professor".
 * I'll defer. I'm not familiar with the relative rankings and positions of the UK university hierarchy. Ray (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. See my comment right above.  I don't know about his publication history or his work, but often an academic's rank at a prestigious research-oriented university is a better indicator than counting citations.  --C S (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep First, on the basis of his three books on Mathematica, all by Cambridge Univ Press. Each in between 100 and 200 libraries. One in particular is itself notable: Complex Analysis with Mathematica since it's a  CHOICE  Outstanding Academic Book. Second,  co-Editor in Chief of the journal Applied Mathematical Finance, another key factor. Third, I do accept the Full Professorship at Kings as equiv. to a Full Professor in the US. (It's not automatic notability, since its not the sort of Head of Department that might be in other UK universities). Still, it certainly indicates that they thought him notable in his field, and that;s basically what we look for. I know there are some people at Wikipedia who prefer to trust their own judgment of academic quality in their subject, but I do not think that's appropriate, regardless of their degree of expertise.   Put together, its notability, though I'm not sure whether to call it notability as a mathematician or mathematical educator. It's hard to judge applied scientists by the usual criteria for academics, but  .  DGG (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not claim to have any ability to judge quality in the professor's field, only that the citation rate for his articles seems low compared to other mathematicians with biographies on Wikipedia. That is a quantitative statement based on statistics in a database, and was intended to offer no opinion whatsoever on the quality of his research. Ray (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * that comment was not directed at you, but in anticipation of other objections that are often raised. Apologies if it seemed otherwise. DGG (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the citation rate comment was fine, but it probably just means his work is only cited in publications not covered by mathscinet. Mathscinet is so good at handling pure mathematicians (and not bad at applied mathematicians), that is a good test. However, it can be poor at handling math education, and I think much of this man's notability is from his pedagogy and his financial math (neither of which is as thoroughly covered by mathscinet as say algebra).  I also agree with DGG that it can be very tempting to apply the more rigorous standards of academia directly to the person, but that we on wikipedia should only apply them through the guidelines and only through the sources.  The "just a howto guide" comment certainly seems to me a good reason for Cambridge University Press to reject this man's work, but that they did accept it, that libraries then widely acquired the book, is what we at wikipedia need to look at.  Presumably our personal viewpoint is just too narrow to appreciate his impact; luckily we have King's College's administration's, Cambridge University Press's, and Taylor and Francis's (who publishes Applied Mathematical Finance) viewpoint to guide us. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think Eric Yurken's point is sufficient for a keep, but the editorship, the (full) professorship, and two other widely held books seals the deal for me. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the opinions shown toward notability inre WP:PROF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Rewrote to assert.  Nerdy field.  Surprisingly little web presence, but sufficient information for a keep.  Article needs referenced.  Can't do it, have to spend all my time defending plant articles from the ongoing two plus month naming convention attack, so no contributions right now.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure about most of the arguments here but co-EIC of Applied Mathematical Finance (which should be mentioned in the article) seems enough for WP:PROF #8. That criterion requires the journal to be major and well-established; it's been published since 1994 which I think is sufficiently well established, and as for major, it has papers such as 10.1080/13504869500000005 with over 200 Google scholar cites. It's not Nature, but I don't think it has to be to pass this criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do wish Wikipedia had as many articles on technical journals as on minor characters in single versions of now technologically outdated video games. --KP Botany (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All we need is more mathematicians editing than video game fans. But then... there are more games fans ticking away at keyboards than mathematicians. Strange place wiki... where World of Warcraft is more popular than Quantum Theory.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is becoming something of a digression. My personal opinion is that I don't particularly care if most of the material is on video game characters (and the outdated ones I find more interesting anyway), nor if most of the stuff on Wikipedia is "frivolous".  My favorite articles are "frivolous" and I think the frivolity is what makes Wikipedia so fun and fascinating.  What I find personally irksome is when somebody that spends the majority of their time fiddling around on anime characters starts AFD'ing more academically oriented or technical articles because they think it's crap and "unimportant".  For these people, I think it's a kind of thrill to say, so-and-so, scholar of fossils of some ancient tribal culture, not important, DELETE.  And then go back to re-arranging their list of rare appearances of timiki-kun in "Dangerous!  Purple Lizard Mecha Yamato 3010".


 * I think that feeling is shared by many other people and is the only real reason so many people work to keep these CV-like bios on Wikipedia. Frankly, I could do without the CVs.  For many academics, their bios aren't that interesting, not enough sources or whatever.  If that means we apply a more stringent criterion for real people versus anime characters, I don't see what's wrong with that.  The lack of stringent inclusion criteria for BLPs is what created the whole BLP policy/mess anyway.  --C S (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Read the article, and I believe its a keeper. Dream Focus (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I do not know why a professor is automatic notable, there is thousands and thousands of professors and when they do not have second sources about them they are not wp:bio, my opinion. And most professors have more citations then this one. But important textbook is good and the Mayhew prize is big all tho it is for undergrad, it is at a fab school and some very famous people got it. RetroS1mone   talk  16:04, 9 February 2009 (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.