287:, with nearly 500 cites on Google scholar, an enormous number for pure mathematics) is under a different name than the one she uses now and under that same name she does have publications in PNAS, TAMS, etc., contradicting the nomination statement. In any case the nomination is bizarrely justified: it names specific honors that she doesn't have and journals she doesn't publish in rather than looking at what she has done. Anyone, even the most blatantly notable, could be criticized in the same way, because there's always going to be some specific honor that they haven't achieved. Additionally, I find the sudden appearance (on the article talk page) of three different IP-address editors with very few other contributions other than to try to delete one other female mathematician's article (
390:
but then a very small number for all the rest of her papers. Eppstein's implication that I somehow have a bias against female mathematicians is insulting and wrong (especially since I am married to one!). I simply think these kinds of very weak, self-promotional
Knowledge (XXG) entries are harmful. It seems like I am in the minority here. I accept that. But I would love to hear an explanation of how people think Bellow's detailed CV got entered into this page.
415:. WoS h-index of 10 plus the material discussed above is pretty persuasive. @Anon: you're arguing on the journals themselves, which might be relevant if they were junk publications, but these are all mainstream. I agree that there are tons of "boosterism" articles on WP (in fact this is one of the biggest problems WP has, moving forward), but this article is not one of them.
389:
should have at least one. Bellow has none. As for journals, PNAS hasn't been a top journal in math for at least 50 years, and TAMS is a lower-tier journal - as is well-known and easy to check via impact factors (although I personally don't love these). Bellow has a lot of citations for a textbook,
206:
Nominated at request of anonymous editor after declining a prod with the rationale: "As discussed in the Talk section, this article was clearly created by the subject of the article (cf. the posted CV}, or someone very close to her. As also discussed in the Talk section, this person is not notable,
468:: Undue weight. These topics are hardly the mainstream of the probability theory, and these results are of interest for a rather narrow circle of experts. Section "Mathematical work" is too detailed for a general encyclopedia. Such details could fit a professional encyclopedia, such as
207:
at least not for mathematics. (such notability is indicated by an achievement such as a major prize, a talk at the ICM, etc.; this person does not even have an article published in a top journal." See also talk page for further discussion.
175:
226:
385:""Remove"" - I am the person who proposed deletion. Eppstein mis-characterizes my criticism. I did not indicate the someone must have *every* indication of notableness that I mentioned, but they
128:
248:
169:
135:
308:
per David
Eppstein. I agree that the article needs some work, but most full professors at a place like Northwestern are going to pass WP:PROF.
101:
96:
397:
353:
based on the citability data and the journal editorships. Note that all three journals where she was an editor are high level journals.
105:
17:
88:
190:
157:
558:
40:
451:, now that the page looks less like a CV. (The CV copy-pasting does not necessarily done by someone close to her.) −
151:
235:
213:
296:
256:
65:
539:
518:
497:
481:
460:
443:
424:
405:
379:
362:
333:
312:
300:
260:
240:
218:
70:
401:
147:
393:
554:
197:
92:
36:
420:
375:
230:
208:
506:
434:
292:
252:
183:
53:
535:
456:
329:
163:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
553:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
350:
346:
342:
321:
280:
52:
considering the noticeable suggestions of Keep, and therefore no comments of
Deletion (NAC).
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
490:
477:
84:
76:
527:
416:
371:
358:
276:
469:
514:
438:
272:
531:
309:
288:
452:
325:
122:
473:
437:
and others. Academic and major award winner. Article does need work, though.
354:
324:
as David explained. At best, the anon. IP is confusing deletion for clean up.
510:
505:. The article has rough parts, but the subject is clearly notable, per
547:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
227:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
118:
114:
110:
182:
489:Obviously notable, but needs a rewrite in places.♦
349:as explained by DE above, also certainly satisfies
196:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
561:). No further edits should be made to this page.
249:list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions
526:- Article could use clean up, not deletion per
283:. Note that her most noteworthy publication (
8:
247:Note: This debate has been included in the
225:Note: This debate has been included in the
345:on several grounds. In addition to passing
391:
246:
224:
279:should be enough to show notability per
530:. Notability requirements clearly met.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
285:Topics in the theory of lifting
540:16:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
519:12:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
498:11:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
482:09:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
461:07:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
444:07:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
425:15:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
406:04:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
380:22:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
363:21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
334:20:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
313:17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
301:17:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
261:17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
241:15:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
219:15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
71:04:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
578:
370:for clear reasons above.
550:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
509:'s excellent summary.
291:) quite suspicious. —
466:Keep but tone down
320:. A clear pass of
408:
396:comment added by
263:
243:
239:
217:
569:
552:
495:
441:
233:
211:
201:
200:
186:
138:
126:
108:
85:Alexandra Bellow
77:Alexandra Bellow
68:
63:
48:The result was
34:
577:
576:
572:
571:
570:
568:
567:
566:
565:
559:deletion review
548:
491:
474:Boris Tsirelson
439:
277:Noether Lecture
231:Espresso Addict
209:Espresso Addict
143:
134:
99:
83:
80:
66:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
575:
573:
564:
563:
543:
542:
521:
507:David Eppstein
500:
484:
463:
446:
435:David Eppstein
428:
387:
386:
383:
365:
336:
315:
303:
293:David Eppstein
273:Humboldt Prize
265:
264:
253:David Eppstein
244:
204:
203:
140:
79:
74:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
574:
562:
560:
556:
551:
545:
544:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
488:
485:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
464:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
445:
442:
436:
432:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
410:
409:
407:
403:
399:
398:67.184.176.43
395:
384:
381:
377:
373:
369:
366:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
314:
311:
307:
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:Eugenia Cheng
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
245:
242:
237:
232:
228:
223:
222:
221:
220:
215:
210:
199:
195:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
149:
146:
145:Find sources:
141:
137:
133:
130:
124:
120:
116:
112:
107:
103:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:
78:
75:
73:
72:
69:
64:
61:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
549:
546:
523:
502:
492:
486:
465:
448:
430:
412:
392:— Preceding
388:
367:
338:
317:
305:
284:
268:
205:
193:
187:
179:
172:
166:
160:
154:
144:
131:
59:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
493:Dr. Blofeld
431:Strong keep
170:free images
417:Agricola44
372:Xxanthippe
351:WP:PROF#C1
347:WP:PROF#C2
281:WP:PROF#C2
555:talk page
440:Montanabw
341:, passes
50:SNOW Keep
37:talk page
557:or in a
532:Hmlarson
394:unsigned
310:Smmurphy
129:View log
39:or in a
453:Pintoch
433:: per
343:WP:PROF
326:Joe Roe
322:WP:PROF
176:WP refs
164:scholar
102:protect
97:history
528:WP:ATD
148:Google
106:delete
62:wister
58:wister
355:Nsk92
191:JSTOR
152:books
136:Stats
123:views
115:watch
111:links
16:<
536:talk
524:Keep
515:talk
511:Ozob
503:Keep
487:Keep
478:talk
457:talk
449:Keep
421:talk
413:Keep
402:talk
376:talk
368:Keep
359:talk
339:Keep
330:talk
318:Keep
306:Keep
297:talk
275:and
269:Keep
257:talk
236:talk
214:talk
184:FENS
158:news
119:logs
93:talk
89:edit
67:talk
470:EoM
251:. —
198:TWL
127:– (
538:)
517:)
480:)
472:.
459:)
423:)
404:)
378:)
361:)
332:)
299:)
271:.
259:)
229:.
178:)
121:|
117:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
534:(
513:(
476:(
455:(
427:.
419:(
400:(
382:.
374:(
357:(
328:(
295:(
255:(
238:)
234:(
216:)
212:(
202:)
194:·
188:·
180:·
173:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
150:(
142:(
139:)
132:·
125:)
87:(
60:T
56:S
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.