356:"Routine academic" and "Highly cited" are two different things. And routine academics don't get the AMS Centeniall Fellowship nor hold visiting positions at the IAS – although neither of those things is sufficient for notability by themselves, I think they add weight to the case. As for your other argument, that he may have had a significant impact as measured e.g. by citations while still failing to have enough secondary sources on which to base an article: that can happen sometimes, but I think it is not a problem here. Plenty of in-depth secondary sources cover his contributions (both the modularity theorem and the book), and I believe that sort of coverage to be a lot more important for academics than coverage of biographical trivia. For factual information like degree and appointment data we can use primary sources such as his cv, but the
255:. While the modularity theorem is a major theorem, I don't think Diamond has been notable because of his involvement in it. From several angles the same conclusions - the theorem was largely a completion/extension of Wiles' historic work in 1995 which was based on Wiles' approaches and completed within some months (so he wasn't the "resolver of a major issue in number theory" at that point), and to underline this, a number of other researchers also seem to have published or collaborated in the same work's completion
445:. I don't think h-index is even all that relevant here because his papers don't fit the typical curve, i.e. citations are "frontloaded" into a fairly small number of papers. WoS citation list is 233, 69, 60, 53,... so he's written a limited number of rather high impact papers – perfectly acceptable under
346:
But do we have any secondary sources covering him, or signs that he (as an individual) is seen as more than a routine academic, albeit one with highly cited papers? I'm looking for evidence of significant notice being taken by secondary sources in the context of a biographical article, not just our
427:
Per David
Epstein. Mathematics is a field where 10 citations for a paper is a lot. Having several papers with over 100 citations and an H-index of 17 would be close to notable in a high-citation field like Neuroscience, in mathematics it is way beyond any reasonable threshold.
193:
317:
236:
doesn't seem to hint at more. He researches in his field and has a research fellowship by the
American Mathematical Society, but there just doesn't seem to be enough here to suggest he is
272:"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."
295:. Google scholar shows six publications by Diamond with over 100 citations each, a high number for a low-citation field. I think this is enough to give him a clear pass of
299:, beyond his fame as one of the people who proved the full modularity theorem (which is by the way a very significant result, independent of its connection to Fermat). —
187:
468:
146:
92:
267:
of him in the sense a bio-article subject is usually discussed. Beyond that there's almost nothing else to draw on. As the guideline observes:
153:
119:
114:
123:
17:
208:
106:
175:
53:
334:
70:
498:
40:
365:
304:
232:, I can't find any evidence that this is not just "a routine professor of a subject at a university". Even his
169:
229:
165:
494:
480:
458:
437:
419:
400:
369:
351:
340:
308:
286:
76:
36:
233:
454:
433:
396:
215:
361:
300:
201:
417:
275:
258:
252:
225:
476:
110:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
493:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
450:
429:
392:
181:
387:
of 17 is good for mathematicians, plus some very high cites. The nominator should study
446:
388:
329:
296:
65:
411:
264:
263:. A check of third party reliable sources shows similarly that they haven't provided
245:
472:
102:
82:
140:
241:
409:
This one pretty clearly passes under WP:PROF C1, as David
Eppstein has noted.
360:
announcement of his fellowship is secondary, nontrivial, and biographical. —
322:
58:
348:
283:
384:
487:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
224:
Although slightly noted in relation to the full proof of the
318:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
136:
132:
128:
228:
where he was one of several who extended Andrew Wiles
200:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
501:). No further edits should be made to this page.
391:before making further nominations in this area.
347:subjective assumptions about citation count.
214:
8:
469:list of Science-related deletion discussions
467:Note: This debate has been included in the
316:Note: This debate has been included in the
466:
315:
90:
7:
89:
93:Articles for deletion/Fred Diamond
24:
240:in his own right in the sense of
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
251:I've considered the spirit of
1:
518:
259:Modularity theorem#History
490:Please do not modify it.
77:23:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
481:15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
459:15:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
438:12:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
420:02:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
401:22:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
370:23:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
352:23:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
341:21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
309:20:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
287:19:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
282:Eyeballs appreciated.
88:AfDs for this article:
383:as per Eppstein. GS
265:significant coverage
416:
238:a notable academic
226:modularity theorem
48:The result was
483:
410:
343:
54:non-admin closure
509:
492:
414:
339:
337:
332:
327:
219:
218:
204:
156:
144:
126:
75:
73:
68:
63:
34:
517:
516:
512:
511:
510:
508:
507:
506:
505:
499:deletion review
488:
412:
335:
330:
323:
321:
161:
152:
117:
101:
98:
86:
71:
66:
59:
57:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
515:
513:
504:
503:
484:
463:
462:
440:
422:
404:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
362:David Eppstein
312:
311:
301:David Eppstein
280:
279:
222:
221:
158:
97:
96:
95:
87:
85:
80:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
514:
502:
500:
496:
491:
485:
482:
478:
474:
470:
465:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
439:
435:
431:
426:
423:
421:
418:
415:
408:
405:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
379:
378:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
350:
345:
344:
342:
338:
333:
328:
326:
319:
314:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
291:
290:
289:
288:
285:
277:
273:
270:
269:
268:
266:
262:
260:
254:
249:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
217:
213:
210:
207:
203:
199:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
167:
164:
163:Find sources:
159:
155:
151:
148:
142:
138:
134:
130:
125:
121:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
94:
91:
84:
81:
79:
78:
74:
69:
64:
62:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
489:
486:
442:
424:
406:
380:
357:
324:
292:
281:
271:
256:
250:
237:
234:profile page
230:famous proof
223:
211:
205:
197:
190:
184:
178:
172:
162:
149:
103:Fred Diamond
83:Fred Diamond
60:
49:
47:
31:
28:
276:WP:ACADEMIC
253:WP:ACADEMIC
188:free images
451:Agricola44
430:Randykitty
393:Xxanthippe
381:Clear keep
297:WP:PROF#C1
495:talk page
473:• Gene93k
37:talk page
497:or in a
147:View log
39:or in a
447:WP:PROF
389:WP:Prof
385:h-index
358:Notices
194:WP refs
182:scholar
120:protect
115:history
246:WP:BIO
166:Google
124:delete
257:(see
209:JSTOR
170:books
154:Stats
141:views
133:watch
129:links
16:<
477:talk
455:talk
449:c1.
443:Keep
434:talk
425:Keep
407:Keep
397:talk
366:talk
325:czar
305:talk
293:Keep
244:and
242:WP:N
202:FENS
176:news
137:logs
111:talk
107:edit
61:czar
50:keep
413:Ray
349:FT2
284:FT2
248:.
216:TWL
145:– (
52:. (
479:)
471:.
457:)
436:)
428:--
399:)
368:)
320:.
307:)
196:)
139:|
135:|
131:|
127:|
122:|
118:|
113:|
109:|
56:)
475:(
461:.
453:(
432:(
403:.
395:(
364:(
336:·
331:·
303:(
278:)
274:(
261:)
220:)
212:·
206:·
198:·
191:·
185:·
179:·
173:·
168:(
160:(
157:)
150:·
143:)
105:(
72:·
67:·
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.