Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#International Math Olympiad and Criterion 2

Do adjunct professors qualify for meeting WP:NACADEMIC #5? LibStar (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:No. That is a title for allowing industry people to teach or for giving courtesy appointments to people in other departments. (It could also be adjunct associate professor or adjunct assistant professor, by the way.) It is not the sort of step beyond full professor such as distinguished professor that #5 is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:“Adjunct” is a synonym for “part time faculty.” As David says, it’s not an honor. It’s a job title. If an adjunct qualifies it’s because they’ve met one or more of the criteria - perhaps they became notable as full time faculty or in a national lab and became an adjunct on the side or in retirement- but being a part timer satisfies none of the criteria in and of itself. Qflib (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Just needed to link to "APT" (Average Professor Test -- the oldest WP:PROF criteria) and realized that the link had been removed at some point, so made headlines for each of the general criteria. Happy to discuss if there are objections, but I tried to be as neutral as possible. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:I think this does change the perceived meaning -- in particular a reasonable reading is that an academic who meets the guidelines for holding a named chair now needs a source independent of the institution to confirm this fact, which has not generally been required and might be hard to find; same goes for editor-in-chief of a major journal. Also I think it might generate demands to default to explicitly linking citation profiles, which is fine when there's a handy GS profile, but tricky for (?older) academics who have not created such a profile. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, this hits the nail. This has the potential to really make things difficult at AfC. Qflib (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Mscuthbert, the "General notes" section should be changed back to remove all the subheadings, especially the heading that emphasizes minor. That statement is just not correct. We also source major facts such as education, career development, and contributions to their field from institutional sources or the person's curriculum vitae. The policy at WP:PRIMARY covers this and doesn't need any change here. We have enough trouble with editors who come across articles about academics and believe that any source from anything that a person has been associated cannot be independent. We see this often at Articles for Deletion. Named chairs are awarded by the universities that are employing to person. Honorary Fellowships in societies involve being a member of the society. Adding to the problem is an increasing number of editors who seem to believe that non-independent sources are BAD and all sources used in an article must be independent even though they are fine for uncontroversial facts. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with StarryGrandma; although the notes do explicitly explain the details of what type of source can be used to support what, few editors get that far through the guideline, and I've seen many articles prodded/AfD'd/declined at AfC for lack of indept sources where the pass of PROF seems fairly obvious. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::Also agree with Starry Grandma. Qflib (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:This change would have meant that declining the Donna Strickland draft was the right thing to do. Let's not do that. {{pb}} Also, I am unclear about why the text of the page had to be modified at all. Isn't this a case for an {{tl|Anchor}}? XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

#C3 clearly cites that membership of institutions such as a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society, establishes notability. I recently created an article based on an assumption that being a member of TWAS (The World Academy of Science) passes notability, but other editors have pointed out to me that it does not. Also as the criterion directly mentions membership of a National Science Academy as an example, I wonder whether this description establishes notability for all members of every national academy of science, in every country across the world. Xpander (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:No it does not until proven to. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC).

::But the policy doesn't say anything about that, it just says "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions" are notable. It doesn't say how the condition is proven or measured. Xpander (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Determined by consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC).

:::: Is this the line? "The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus." So what a criteria practically tells us, any article with one of the notability assertions, should never be speedy deleted (WP:SK) and should always go through WP:AfD? Or are there other means of reaching notability consensus? Best. Xpander (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The question of whether a society and its fellowship program meets the bar for C3 is a little bit like asking whether a media outlet is reliable. But to expand specifically on TWAS and on Vahid Karimpour, I see a minor academic society, and with no clear criteria for their fellows program. (Indeed, I had to look a little bit to even find a mention of the fellows program on their website.) On the other hand, we are interested in C3 as a proxy for NPROF C1 notability, and I see absolutely no sign of the kind of impact that we're looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

A current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roshdi Khalil, raises broader questions about the applicability of citation counting and WP:PROF#C1 to mathematicians. I'll repeat something I said there: "Major mathematics societies have issued statements telling mathematicians not to rely solely on citation counts in evaluation: [https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf IMU] ([https://www.ams.org/notices/200808/tx080800968p.pdf IMU summary]), [https://www.ams.org/about-us/governance/cultureofresearch.pdf AMS]." Criterion C1 itself only asks for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", but perhaps at least for mathematics we need something other than citation-counting to make this demonstration. I'm not really sure what that would be, though. Mathematicians often have very specific ideas about publication in certain journals being a sign of significance but those are rarely articulated clearly enough for us to use (and again, for the same reasons we should avoid replacing their ideas of significance by citation-based criteria). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that this implies we cannot rely on citation counts any more as a positive signal for mathematicians any more in AfD, which means a lot more work for each AfD discussion. However the statements you use are from 15+ years ago, I wonder if the situation has since changed (probably for the worse?). I would like to hear from people in the field what they would consider such indicators of C1 "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." In the end it may mean that we have to wait for media coverage / awards in the field (it seems there are quite a few: https://www.ams.org/prizes-awards/palist.cgi ) etc to appear in the profile of a researcher. Unfortunately, the latest Steel Price in 2025 was given for a 1976 paper, so that may mean quite some delay ... but I dont think we will run out of award-winning mathematicians soon. --hroest 16:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::[https://www.science.org/content/article/citation-cartels-help-some-mathematicians-and-their-universities-climb-rankings This 2024 Science article] is evidence that if things have changed it is only for the worse.

::I don't have a good feeling for replacement indicators myself though, as, although I sometimes publish pure mathematics papers in mathematics journals, I am largely evaluated professionally by computer scientists (and participate in evaluations of others) using computer science standards, which are very different. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I had a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)/Archive_15#Citation_counts_becoming_less_reliable_as_a_marker_of_academic_success this] discussion from last year about something similar but not really a conclusion at the end -- and honestly after thinking about this some more I wonder if we are probably overthinking this. It seems like we are trying to solve an almost impossible problem here that the field has recognized and doesnt have a solution either. I see either the option to basically have an opt-out for citation counts for pure mathematics (eg "In pure mathematics, satisfaction of C1 cannot be demonstrated by citation counts only") which will probably lead to more deletions and we rely more on other verifiable factors like awards. Ie we will need at least another indication of C1 or any other criteria for a keep. Alternatively we keep things as they are and have to deal with a bunch of articles of somewhat less notable mathematicians per WP:NOTPAPER if there is a reasonable quality article to be written. From personal experience, I find that in AfD discussion we almost never had a false positive where a true luminary in the field (or just a high quality article in general) was almost deleted and many articles of barely notable people that are kept, so I would be okay with the first approach to make the criteria a bit tighter for pure mathematics. --hroest 15:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)