Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory G. Smith (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Gregory G. Smith}} ([{{fullurl:Gregory G. Smith|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory G. Smith (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable associate prof of math with very few first or sole authored papers on google scholar —G716 <^T·_C> 04:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

:Comment - this appears to be a different Gregory G. Smith than the subject of the first AfD—G716 <^T·_C> 04:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 04:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 04:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 04:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't have a firm opinion about notability yet, but I want to make a few quick comments. First, in mathematics, unlike in applied and experimental sciences, the notion of the first author does not exist and authors are always listed in alphabetical order. MathSciNet shows 12 papers for this guy. That is not a huge number but he works in algebraic geometry, which is among the toughest fields in pure math and typical publication rate there is rather slow. He does have papers in some top-notch math journals, like Journal of the American Mathematical Society and Crelle's journal. The article also mentions the Aisenstadt Prize. Nsk92 (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. After looking around some more on MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH and doing some more googling, I'd have to go with delete. A young researcher, PhD 2001, has just gotten tenure. Two of his 12 articles are in top journals and there is the Aisenstadt Prize which is awarded to junior mathematicians and signifies promise more than established notability. May well be unambiguously notable in a few years, but too early now and does not pass WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep You say "has just gotten tenure". According to WP:PROF a tenured position is notable regardless of the subject's age. Also, the prize mentioned seems to be noteworthy, so that would also qualify him under criterion number 2 of WP:PROF. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• As Prosfilaes points out below, you are quite mistaken regarding tenure being sufficient for passing WP:PROF. WP:PROF does not say or imply this. Also, regarding the award, the award is certainly noteworthy but, being a junior level award, is not sufficient, IMO, to satisfy criterion 2 of WP:PROF. It is a valid contributing factor towards satisfying criterion 1 of WP:PROF but not sufficient for that either. For passing criterion 1 of WP:PROF, I would want to see some additional tangible evidence, such as some reviews saying that he solved a significant problem or proved a major theorem, or significant citability of his work, or some journal editorship(s), or some prestigious conference talks, such as AMS or ICM invited addresses or delivering named lectures or something like that. At the moment there is really not much in the record apart from the Aisenstadt Prize and having two of his papers published in very good journals. That's good but not sufficient for establishing notability. Nsk92 (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; Uh, where does WP:PROF say that tenure is notable? It says that "a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" is notable, which is a much stricter requirement. Again, it says a prize must be "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", not merely notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Nsk92, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Nsk92's assessment, and disagree with MacGyverMagic's interpretation of WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets academic/professor notability criterion #2 (prestigious academic award).--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:Regarding criterion 2 of WP:PROF: of course, ultimately, it is an individual judgement whether the prize in question is sufficient to satisfy this criterion. However, IMO, it is not sufficient. In several places WP:PROF specifically excludes graduate and postdoctoral level awards from consideration, even for partially satisfying Criterion 1 (see item 4 in the Notes and Examples section in WP:PROF). Moreover, the list of examples of awards sufficient for satisfying criterion 2 of WP:PROF, that is given in item 8 in the Notes and Examples section there, makes it clear that criterion 2 is meant for awards of more senior and more prestigious level. This is how, in my observations, this provision had been applied in the past. So I personally think that the junior level award, for academics in the very beginning of their careers, such as the Aisenstadt Prize, is a valid contributing factor towards partially satisfying criterion 1 of WP:PROF but is not sufficient for satisfying criterion 2 of WP:PROF. In fact, if you read the award citation[http://www.crm.umontreal.ca/prix/prixAndreAisenstadt/prix_AA07_smith_an.shtml] for Smith, the language used there pretty clearly indicate someone who is a very promising mathematician rather than one who is already very distinguished. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

::It is not an easy call. The award is at the junior level, no doubt. The award page states that: "The CRM created and administers, either alone or jointly, four of the eight major national prizes in the mathematical sciences, namely: ... the CRM Aisenstadt Prize awarded to rising young Canadian stars ..." Yet the award carries national prestige, and is usually given to one person per year only. An NSF Career award (which is also prestigious, and at the junior level) perhaps should not be considered enough for crit. 2. The Aisenstadt Prize, however, seems to be in a different category, e.g., the comparatively much smaller number of recipients. Often Fields Medal recipients are at the early stages of their careers.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree that the situation is not clear cut. However, certainly, the Fields medal is far more prestigious and well-known than the Aisenstadt Prize, even though the Fields medal has a 40-year-old age limit. That is why, in cases of doubt, like this one, I would like to see some additional tangible evidence of notability, e.g. high cotability, or reviews stating that he proved some major result, or having given some prestigious talks, or journal editorship(s), etc. I just do not see such evidence here yet. Nsk92 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• keep yeah, it's short... let it grow.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:Being short is not a problem. The issue is notability. Nsk92 (talk)

::Yeah, I get that... but it's still good enough for me. Color me "inclusionist" I guess...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am a bit confused about the PhD date. The article says 2001, but the Aisenstadt Prize citation[http://www.crm.umontreal.ca/prix/prixAndreAisenstadt/prix_AA07_smith_an.shtml] says 2004. He does not have a CV posted at his website. So which is the correct date? Nsk92 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:The article's date is probably from the Genealogy website. I consider it unlikely that the prize citation is wrong. On the other hand, I checked Berkeley's library catalogue and his thesis is indeed from 2001. So I don't know. (I've no opinion on whether to delete the article; it's a tough call.) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No more notable than the average professor, at this stage. RayAYang (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2008 (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.