Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Shader

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 delete. (X! · talk) · @747 · 16:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Shader

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

This article fails to address the requirements of WP:PROF. Examining Shader's biography on the University site and checking Google Scholar, I see one reasonably well-cited co-authored book and staff awards from the University but no evidence of the impact needed to address the requirements of PROF. There is little reason to expect that reliable sources will be found in the near future to address these criteria. Ash (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on basis of WP:Prof #1 with GS cites of 145, 39, 38, 32..... h index = 13. Input from mathematicians would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral. I am really on the fence here. He is certainly very prolific (MathSciNet lists 76 publications), and has several journal editorships indicating a degree of professional recognition. However, I would have expected a higher h-index, especially for someone who publishes a lot and works, at least in large part, in the area of combinatorics, where the publication rate is higher than in most of pure math. MathSciNet gives top citations as 69[for the book], 20, 14, 12, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8. While their citation record is not complete (especially for papers published before around 1995), this is still less than I would have expected. The grant record, available from his full vita[1] is also slightly strange: he does not seem to have ever had a traditional individual NSF research grant, although he has been a co-PI or senior personnel on some infrastructure grants and a PI on some conference grants. The CV also lists him as co-organizing a bunch of conferences. The awards listed seem to be university level. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Weak delete. On second thoughts, the record does not seem to me much above an average professor, not quite enough to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't see anything here that would cause him to stand out in any way. There's no particularly compelling evidence of passing WP:PROF #1 nor any other of the WP:PROF criteria. The article is an orphan and seems doomed to remain an orphan unless we can point to a more specific contribution that he's made to academia than being a mathematician and co-authoring a book. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pretty much an average professor, but did co-author a book. However, it was only co-author. Royal broil 01:14, 14 January 2010 (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.