Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Osler

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Osler

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I declined the A7 speedy since there an obviously plausible claim to academic notability with multiple published math papers in peer reviewed journals. However, on closer inspection I don't see the subject as satisfying any of the relevant notability guidelines. Citability of his math papers is pretty low, both in GScholar and in MathSciNet, with h-index somewhere in single digits. He was a runner participating and winning some local marathons (according to the article, there are no references but I am taking the claims at face value for now), but even assuming all of that is true, that seems to fall quite short of passing WP:ATHLETE. He has written a couple of books on running that are available on Amazon, so theoretically there could be a case for WP:AUTHOR but I did not find published reviews of those either. In Google News I found a couple of articles with one-word mentions of him, such as [1]. Overall none of this seems to add up to notability. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I am withdrawing the nomination in view of the discussion above. The subject's notability has been established, and the article's creator has been made aware of the relevant COI guidelines and indicated their willingness to respect them. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~, to be run through AfC. While I think the subject is probably notable per WP:NPROF, the article is almost entirely primarily-sourced, has serious style problems, shows possible signs of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY etc. The creator should disclose any COI. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you think the subject might be notable under WP:PROF? To me of all the plausible notability grounds here, the case under WP:PROF seemed the weekest. Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry! The article should probably be (eventually?) under Thomas J. Osler, as the notable papers are published under that name or as T. J. Osler. I added a link to the right GS profile under External Links. Anyway, there are several papers on that profile with 100s of citations, which I think is enough, especially in a low-citation field like math. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes, I see you are right, somehow when I was doing a GScholar search, I missed this GScholar Profile page and most of the citation hits it is showing. I agree that there might be a plausible case for WP:PROF notability here, and that draftification is a good option, particularly in view of COI concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep, per WP:HEY by David Eppstein. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Osler is a three-time national champion runner (who also won many local races---not simply participating in local events as the user above mentioned). I have added a reference which cites his three national championship runs. I strongly suspect they are also referenced in issues of the Long Distance Log of 1965 and 1967, that being the only record of such things at the time, but those logs do not seem to be searchable and I am combing through them manually.

Also, I have a COI in that I know Osler personally and gathered material through recorded interviews with him; however, I then realized that probably does not meet citeability guidelines. Skymath1 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I see that you have also added a reference[2] that Osler has been inducted into Road Runners Club of America Hall of fame. Thus he satisfies part 10 of WP:NTRACK and is notable on those grounds. I can withdraw this nomination, but given what you say about your COI personal association with Osler, it would be preferable if we move the article to draftspace, you work on developing it there further and adding some independent sources, and then re-submit the article through the WP:AfC process. Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU for all the helpful feedback. Although I think the style of the article can be improved, I think that it is sufficiently cited now with third-party citations to justify staying in article space. I shall review the bio stylesheet and work to improve the overall style but I don't see a reason to put it back to draftspace. However, I am very new to the process and gratefully welcome feedback and guidance. Thank you again! Skymath1 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your COI, YOU SHOULD NOT EDIT THE ARTICLE WHILE IT IS IN ARTICLE SPACE. Nsk92 and myself are proposing moving it to draft space so that you may work on it some more, and because we have concerns about whether it is currently mainspace-ready. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I will refrain from further edits. However, all the original objections with regards to meritability and third-party citations have been addressed, so it seems to me that the article is appropriate for mainspace, presumably leaving intact notices about improvements.Skymath1 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, sorry to "shout". You'll want to read the COI guidelines. The tl;dr is that for any edits that are not completely trivial, you should make a request on the talk page, and an editor without close connection will then evaluate and implement. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I read the COI guidelines after one of the above users (it may have been you?) mentioned COI. I understood it to mean to be very careful and only edit things that are well-documented. I can clearly see the lack of documentation that prompted the original flag for deletion, but I think it's correct now, and the edits I made after finding the COI policy have all been cited. To clarify, though, if I find more references, should I refrain from adding them directly, but rather put them in the Talk page with a request to be added? I'm referring to simply adding references here, not to modifying substantive content. Thank you again for your guidance.Skymath1 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Please make future requests for edits through the talk page rather than implementing them directly. That includes the addition of references, also because the referencing in the article as you left it was not good. When suggesting references, please aim for publications about Osler by other people rather than anything written by Osler or published by his employer. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This solution is reasonable but it does have some drawbacks. I'm not sure if the article, if left in mainspace, will have any other active editors, apart from Skymath1. As a practical matter that means that Skymath1 might have to wait for quite a while for the edits they suggest/request at the article talk page to be implemented. Having said that, if Skymath1 is OK with this option, I'll withdraw the nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. The article is in significantly better shape than it was 24 hours ago, and I greatly thank the several contributors. The referencing is excellent, and I am impressed that someone discovered the math conference held in Osler's honor (OslerFest, April 17, 2010) before I could get around to requesting it in the Talk page. There is an important reference regarding Osler's unification of the Vieta and Wallis products: there is a section in a textbook on Pi (the number), written only 2 or 3 years after Osler's discovery, which is entirely about the discovery. Having original work get into a textbook in such a short amount of time is quite impressive. I will add the request to have this added back once I remember which textbook it's in.

Thank you again for all the help and guidance to a newb. Skymath1 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, citation record on Google Scholar is enough for WP:PROF#C1 especially given the typical low citation numbers for this field. I found multiple sources concerning fractional calculus by other people with his name in their titles, also suggestive of #C1 notability. No opinion on whether his running career is also adequate for notability but we only need one notability criterion. I have cleaned up the mathematics part of the article; the running part also needs cleanup but I think it is not in such bad shape that draftification is necessary, and WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.