Talk:Elizabeth Wilmer

Contested deletion

This article is obviously not an A7 candidate. A7 is for subjects without any credible claim of notability whatsover. Wilmer is a full professor at a prestigious college, with a published book that has over 2000 citations (far more than most mathematics publications, even books and even by notable mathematicians, get), with four published reviews (enough to easily make a credible claim for WP:AUTHOR notability). She also has significant newspaper coverage in two major national newspapers of her achievements even while she was a high-schooler. The article as created clearly states most of those things (it doesn't explicitly state citation counts, because we don't do that, but it does have a line in the first sentence about what she is known for). This is not the kind of new article A7 was intended for. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wilmer is one of the three authors on a textbook. The textbook may or may be notable by itself, but it does not have a WP page and this page is to discuss one of the authors. Wilmer is a College Professor, that's correct. That does not make her notable. According to WP:PROF, there are 8 criteria, such as "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" or "significant impact in the area of higher education." Please calmly explain which of the items 1-8 you consider appropriate in this case. As far as I can tell, being a prize winning high schooler and the third author on a popular textbook is not one of them. The "inane" wording used on talk page was unhelpful to civil conduct, please refrain from such wording. Comparison to Nobel prize winner is also misplaced as there is lack of evidence of *any* significant research (the textbook mentioned in the article is not an original piece of research). If you can't, I will go for AfD as I think is appropriate in this case. Mhym (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. It seems in fact there is a good case to create a WP page for the book Markov Chains and Mixing Times which seems comparable to other Category:Mathematics textbooks. However, clearly not all authors of notable textbooks are notable themselves. For example, The Fifty-Nine Icosahedra has both notable and non-notable coauthors. Even the ATLAS of Finite Groups has a non-notable coauthor and that book has over 5,000 citations on Google Scholar.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhym (talk • contribs)

Why do you expect me to justify her notability through research and through WP:PROF? We have other relevant notability criteria, and even within WP:PROF textbook authorship is a separate criterion. And why are you picking out Wilmer when we have other recent article creations on mathematicians whose notability is less clear (examples: C S Yogananda, TS Broderick, Brian H. Murdoch, Alexander Buchan (mathematician), Stephen B. Kelleher, Paul M. Feehan). What characteristic of the subject triggers your outrage but leaves you indifferent to these others? If you want to also make an article on the book, go ahead — I think with four academic reviews, you could justify it — but despite its heavy citation count it's not at the level of attention that makes me think it should clearly have an article, unlike say the many more reviews and mix of academic and popular-press attention for Diaconis's two recent books Magical Mathematics and Ten Great Ideas about Chance. As for "even the ATLAS": The only non-bluelinked author is Robert T. Curtis, and he's redlinked, indicating that someone thought he was likely notable (otherwise he should be unlinked). And again, I think you could make a case for notability there separately from his other research publications: he appears to have held a personal chair "Professor of Combinatorial Algebra" at Birmingham, headed his department (as Wilmer also has, omitted only because I haven't tracked down the exact dates but roughly 2015–2017 for her), held leadership roles in the LMS, and chaired the 2003 British Mathematical Colloquium. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A lot to unpack. First, WP:PROF is my first point of reference for academics known solely for academic work (unlike, say, Daniel Biss). If your answer "because WP:AUTHOR", then why even have WP:PROF at all? All academics are "authors" in literate sense. You seem biased as page creator, my views are stated above, so I would invite other editors to discuss this point. Other mathematicians - this is literally WP:OTHER, I haven't read any of these article and they never appeared on the lists I watch. I also think a million footballers who have WP articles are not notable, but so what? I maybe over reading, but I feel here you are getting close again to a personal attack, which are best avoided. Red link of Robert T. Curtis is an indication one editor thought he is notable (just like you think Wilmer is notable). And maybe he is - when his page is created it can also be discussed based on the evidence. For now, it's not an argument for anything either way with a clear presumption of not notability. Chair of the department - that is good to know. This could satisfy either 5 or 6 at her University. Do you know if this is a "named chair"? That would convince me personally. I think for 6 it has to be "President", but I am open for clarification. Finally, a separate page for the book - I wouldn't know what fits. I proposed it as a backdoor way to justify notability of Wilmer once notability of the book has been accepted. To me, the most clear argument is the Schafer Prize, which may fit criterion 2. Being an undergraduate award is a concern, but it seems comparable to the Putnam award, and it seems to me that some Putnam winners like Reid W. Barton are only notable for them. If that's the argument, the article needs to be edited to put the Schafer Prize in the first line and I would withdraw my objection agains notablity based on a potentially notable textbook. Again, please assume my (and everyone's) good faith effort to improve WP rather than than else. Mhym (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

If you don't understand the difference between named chairs, department chairs, and heads of whole universities, why are you attempting to judge academic notability? And undergraduate (or high school) accomplishments clearly do not satisfy WP:PROF, but you appear to be erroneously interpreting that as meaning that they cannot convey notability. They can, but through WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. I am out. This is a clear vio of WP:NPA. I hope somebody reports you because unapologetic bullies should be punished. Mhym (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)