Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Katz: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:18, 22 May 2011

Mikhail Katz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable William M. Connolley (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would the nominator care to expand on his reasons for this nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Not really. He just isn't notable. Is there any more to be said? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the long discussion below it looks as if there is plenty to be said. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think it's fair to expect the nominator to prove a negative, namely the absence of evidence of notability. The discussion begins when some people start offering possible evidence of notability, and others try to refute it. That's what is happening below. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Average academic mathematician. Based on Google Scholar search, his h-index appears to be about 17 which is nothing special for a mathematics professor with tenure at a reputable research university. No evidence of notability beyond normal academic activities. Perchloric (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be valuable if you would source your data on the h index of mathematicians. Although there is general agreement that some subjects (like neurobiology) get higher cites than others (like systematic theology), there seems to be a lack of quantitative data on such issues, and judgements about notability tend to be made on the basis of past precedent. Although h index is certainly not the only factor to be considered in assessing notability (the above average professor [1]) it does have the advantage of being objective (after making allowance for subject differences, self-cites etc.) Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Perchloric is correct that the subject's citation rates, viewed as statistics alone, do not appear to rise above the level of a typical math professor with tenure at a reputable research university (say, top 50-70 worldwide). However, I feel that departs somewhat from the "average academic" rule and sets the bar too high. Researchers significant enough to be awarded tenure at research universities are those judged by their peers to be of such benefit to the profession, that they are given lifetime appointments at decent salaries for little teaching, purely on the belief that they will continue to do good research. Those who fulfill that promise in a long and fruitful career are not insignificant in their contribution to human knowledge, and they are far and away above average. Ray^Talk 05:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF applies I presume. You assertion that merely being tenured is enough looks to be wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My assertion is that "merely" being tenured at a top ranked research university and hundreds of citations in a low-citation field (in other words, being known and greatly respected among peers) is enough. This is quite different from your typical tenured prof at a middle level university who teaches 4 sections of 120 calculus students each per semester. Ray^Talk 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He wrote a book in a prestigious series that is cited by leading mathematicians. (Katz, Mikhail G. Systolic geometry and topology. With an appendix by Jake P. Solomon. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 137. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007. xiv+222 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8218-4177-8 MR2292367) If Mikhael Gromov finds Katz's work to be notable, then it's notable, regardless of h-indexing (where h seems to stand for hoi polloi!). This is a short article, and doesn't seem to be a vanity piece. It's less clear that the educational work is notable or need be mentioned. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Marcel Berger in his popular article "What is... a Systole?" lists the book as one of two seminal books in systolic geometry. The author contributed a section to the widely influential book "metric structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces" (over 800 cites in google scholar). Tkuvho (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited by Tkuvho was from the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, and was in the series discussing recent clever ideas (What is ... ?). The book cited by Tkuvho was written by the aforementioned Gromov. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify the "What is...?" series does not describe recent clever ideas. It describes mathematical objects that are not typically encountered in standard set of graduate courses. To quote the AMS on the subject they say The “WHAT IS...?” column carries short (one- or two-page), nontechnical articles aimed at graduate students. Each article focuses on a single mathematical object, rather than a whole theory. The Notices welcomes feedback and suggestions for topics for future columns. Messages may be sent to notices-whatis@ams.org.

Comment Thanks for the precise quotation and citation. Nonetheless, the topics are not of historical interest, but of contemporary interest, and "clever" is a fair description of a topic that is of importance and can be described briefly. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-point: Contrary to Tkuvho, Berger's article never uses the word "seminal", which would have implied originality and influence. It just says that Katz's book "covers almost all the results and references for recent developments". Katz's book is a review; it's a textbook based on a course he taught. It has 24 citations in Google Scholar. That does not make it, or him, notable. It just means he has written a decent review that one of the experts in the field said is useful. Perchloric (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy here. In Wikipedia terms, "notable" means having been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources. The purpose of this AfD is not to determine whether the subject is a good mathematician or not. Wikipedia is not an academic promotions board. The purpose of the AfD is to determine whether the person has been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources, a rather less subjective task. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A straightforward reading of WP:PROF makes it clear that being "noted" in the sense of just being mentioned is not enough. For academics one requires significant coverage of the person themselves in reliable sources (absent in this case) or evidence of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". So actually we need evidence that he is more than just a "good mathematician". Such evidence is also absent in this case, since the subject's citation rates are pretty typical of professors of mathematics at research universities. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be dismissing Mikhael Gromov as a non-reliable source!?!!! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Mikhael Gromov say that Katz is notable (by the WP:PROF definition, as having made a significant impact on a broadly construed area of study)? Perchloric (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Academic, the best case to be made for him is 1, but as a professional mathematician it is my personal opinion he has done solid work but not significant. I would go on to point out that writing a book is neither uncommon for mathematicians, the fact that having a book is not considered significant is even listed in the notes to criteria 1, and they use a mathematics book that gets reviewed on something like mathscinet as an example. He is a good mathematician, but just not especially notable. Thenub314 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy here. In Wikipedia terms, "notable" means having been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources. The purpose of this AfD is not to determine whether the subject is a "significant" mathematician or not. Wikipedia is not an academic promotions board. The purpose of the AfD is to determine whether the person has been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources, a rather less subjective task. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I may have misunderstood the guidelines. I have spent some time today re-examining BLP's of mathematicians trying to educate myself about as to the norm. In most cases that I looked at they seem to be able to reference some publication for facts concerning the person's career, life history, etc. See Paul Sally for an example. Most sources for the pages I glanced at were taken from some biography or a newsletter, beginning of a book, etc. Someone, somewhere had found a reason to write about the people themselves. In the case of this page I cannot find references to verify that he is a leader of his subfield, or that his university is ranked internationally as one of the top mathematics departments. These things may be true, and much more besides but what published references exist on which to build the article? Wikipedia are not supposed to be a crystal ball. To me that suggests it would make more sense to write about him when/if he has been written about elsewhere first. Otherwise we will be left discussing our views of the importance of his works, and I suspect very few are qualified to make that assessment. Thenub314 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give Paul Sally has a GS h index of 9, comparing like with like, less than Katz, and the personal information given seems of a minor nature (although probably not to its subject). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I am not entirely sure I am following your point. Are you sure your comparing like with like? Are citation rates really the same in Representation theory as they are in geometry? I find it notable that by this GS h-index metric Katz comes ahead of people like Jesse Douglas, Laurent Schwartz, and on par with Ngô Bảo Châu (I had to alter some characters in his name to get any hits). To me this means either as well recognized as some Fields medalists, or there is something a bit fishy with using Google scholar as a metric. Since I am fairly certain he is not on par with fields medalists the I have to say that the use of google scholar is misleading. Which is why I advocate looking for secondary sources that have written about him. If he is really notable within his community it will show up in an article somewhere and we will be free from trying to estimate his impact ourselves. My point is singling out Paul Sally is that he has appeared in many newspaper/magazine/etc articles about him, which doesn't seem to be true of Katz. Thenub314 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thenub314, you did not misunderstand the guidelines. See my response to Xxanthippe, above.Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:Academic, being a leader in a subfield is sufficient to establish notablity (C1). Tkuvho (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hard to even debate this article in its current shape. Did some cleanup per talk. No opinion yet. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. FWIW "M Katz" is a very common name, according to citation databases, so care must be taken to avoid false positives. WoS query "Author=(Katz MG) Refined by: Subject Areas=(MATHEMATICS OR MATHEMATICS, APPLIED) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows 17 publications, h-index=7, with ~100 total citations. I think GS is probably biased upward in this case, for example, the top hit is to an unpublished manuscript posted at arXiv, to which most of the citations seem to be from Katz himself. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Agricola44's purportedly "factual" account is not merely misleading but outright erroneous. Mathscinet gives a publication total of 45, not 17. Thus GS is off by about 200% percent. Obviously their h-factor figures are not biased upward, but rather downward. The article you claim to be an unpublished arxiv post was indeed published, see Croke, C.; Katz, M.: Universal volume bounds in Riemannian manifolds. Surveys in Differential Geometry VIII, Lectures on Geometry and Topology held in honor of Calabi, Lawson, Siu, and Uhlenbeck at Harvard University, May 3- 5, 02, edited by S.T. Yau (Somerville, MA: International Press, '03.) pp. 109 - 137. See arXiv:math.DG/0302248. Tkuvho (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The information above is valuable and shows the need to consult several databases. A search on GS with author:"Mikhail G Katz" gives 46 hits in the appropriate subject area with some 670 cites and an h index of 13. Of the hits, 14 are ArXiv papers, probably giving some double counting, and several from scientific databases like the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System which are non-journal sources independent of the subject and add notability. Not everything in GS is to be discounted. Xxanthippe (talk).

True. But even the highest numbers uncovered so far are well below any reasonable threshold of notability. Most science/math/engineering professors at research universities are well-regarded in a sufficiently narrow area of study, with some well-cited articles (50-100 citations, ballpark) to their name. That doesn't make them all notable. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article makes any claim of notability, even after people have worked on it since it was nominated. His advisor Mikhail Gromov has an article with 1358 citations, but Katz' highest is 46. The article on Systolic geometry says that it was "conceived by Charles Loewner and developed by Mikhail Gromov, Michael Freedman, Mikhail Katz, and others." Loewner's highest cited paper has 258. Freedman won a Fields Medal. Katz? Should be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 13:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You seem to be relying on Agricola44's erroneous "facts", see above. There is nothing in WP:Academic that envisions comparisons with the advisor's influence, or with a Field's medalist's influence. By that standard, we will have to delete 99% of our biographies. On the contrary, WP:Academic specifically mentions that leadership in a subfield is a sufficient verification of notability. Tkuvho (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. On the last point C1 of WP:PROF says "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" (my emphasis) i.e. particularly not a narrow subfield. It also says "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", but the inline references don't do that, they simply point to his works.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. You haven't finished reading the relevant paragraph at WP:Academic. The policy paragraph points out that publication in a subfield is not sufficient proof of notability with the exception of a leader in the subfield. Tkuvho (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of pass of WP:Prof#C1. Looking back on the past history of these academic AfD debates I find that many hundreds of publications are expected to pass [WP:Prof#C1]]. Subjects with h indices of less than 10 are usually found to be not notable, those with greater than 15 are usually found to be notable. The intermediate range often leads to much discussion, as in this case. However, it had several times been suggested that the citation rates in mathematics are generally lower than in other subject (I wish we had reliable data on this) and so I think that this BLP qualifies for a pass of the above average professor test. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Counter-point WP:Prof#C1 makes it clear that this article should be deleted. It reads "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." So far all that has been provided is evidence that the subject's work has been cited, but not that he has made a significant impact on the broad field he works in. If he had, there would be independent reliable sources talking about what a significant person he was, or how significant his work was. Just being cited a few hundred times is typical for any capable research mathematician, and is no indication of notability. Perchloric (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Attempt to calibrate notability: I randomly selected 3 decent but not world-beating research universities (Tufts, U Wisconsin Madison, and Univ of S. California), and for each I went to their math dept website and took the first tenured professor in alphabetical order, and did a Google Scholar search. Here is what I found:
Tufts: Bruce Boghosian. At least 3 articles with over 100 citations,at least 10 more with over 50 citations
UWisc, Madison: Sifurd Angenent. At least 8 articles with over 100 citations, at least 5 more with over 50.
USC: Kenneth Alexander. At least 1 article with over 100 citations, a few more with over 50.

I know this is a small sample, but I think it is fair to conclude that having a few papers with 50 to 100 citations is pretty normal for a math professor, and not a sign of notability. Perchloric (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 *'''Keep''' on basis of pass of [[WP:Prof#C1]]. Looking back on the past history of these academic AfD debates I find that many hundreds of publications are expected to pass [WP:Prof#C1]]. Subjects with [[h index|h indices]] of less than 10 are usually found to be not notable, those with greater than 15 are usually found to be notable. The intermediate range often leads to much discussion, as in this case. However, it had several times been suggested that the citation rates in mathematics are generally lower than in other subject (I wish we had reliable data on this) and so I think that this BLP qualifies for a pass of the above average professor test. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
 :'''Counter-point''' [[WP:Prof#C1]] makes it clear that this article should be deleted. It reads "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." So far all that has been provided is evidence that the subject's work has been cited, but not that he has made a ''significant impact'' on the ''broad'' field he works in. If he had, there would be independent reliable sources talking about what a significant person he was, or how significant his work was. Just being cited a few hundred times is typical for any capable research mathematician, and is no indication of notability. [[User:Perchloric|Perchloric]] ([[User talk:Perchloric|talk]]) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
+* '''Comment: Attempt to calibrate notability''':  I randomly selected 3 decent but not world-beating research universities (Tufts, U Wisconsin Madison, and Univ of S. California), and for each I went to their math dept website and took the first tenured professor in alphabetical order, and did a Google Scholar search. Here is what I found:
+* Tufts: Bruce Boghosian. At least 3 articles with over 100 citations,at least 10 more with over 50 citations
+* UWisc, Madison: Sifurd Angenent. At least 8 articles with over 100 citations, at least 5 more with over 50.
+* USC: Kenneth Alexander. At least 1 article with over 100 citations, a few more with over 50.
+I know this is a small sample, but I think it is fair to conclude that having a few papers with 50 to 100 citations is pretty normal for a math professor, and not a sign of notability. [[User:Perchloric|Perchloric]] ([[User talk:Perchloric|talk]]) 23:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)