- 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. ✗ plicit 06:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Serge B. Provost
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Serge B. Provost ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page creator restored page via copy-paste move (I think adding a review or two) after recent AfD ended in soft delete. There is a weak case for NAUTHOR notability with (excluding routine zbMath and MathSciNet items, which are more catalog entries than reviews of the sort discussed in NAUTHOR) 3 reviews of one book and 1 of the other. Subject is surely overshadowed by his more notable coauthor in these cases. Redirection to a stub on Quadratic forms in random variables : theory and applications might be an alternative to deletion; or it is possible that more reviews may be found (but I didn't succeed in this during the AfD of a few weeks ago). Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Canada. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The only new addition here is one primary source that isn't support for notability — awards only bolster notability if they're sourced to third-party reliable source coverage properly establishing the notability of the award, and not if they have to be sourced to content self-published by the award's own presenters. Otherwise, this is functionally identical to the first version, and has done nothing to build a stronger case for notability. Bearcat ( talk) 14:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep on basis of GS citations. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)- Delete based on the previous discussion, doesn't seem to be notable enough in his field of study. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The citations might be enough for WP:PROF#C1 in a low-citation field. And the book reviews look like enough for a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, even not counting the MR and Zbl ones as too routine to confer notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. If this AfD ends as a no consensus or keep, then the closing admin should likely merge the history from the previous version of the article, since the current article appears to have been created as a copy and paste move. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, since consensus is still up in the air. More opinions would certainly be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I wanted to note that the mention of an "award" from the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology is unfortunate and likely UNDUE. I'm not sure if that affects notability in a negative way so I am not !voting yet. — siro χ o 07:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I was on the fence, but contra David Eppstein, I have looked at the citation record for his works and — excluding Bilinear forms and zonal polynomials, which he was not a principal author of — the article subject's publications don't seem to be sufficient to constitute "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" ( WP:NPROF). I also don't personally buy the AUTHOR argument. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 11 September 2023 (
- Delete A professor but does not meet NPROF. His works have a small number of citations, and the "award" is from a predatory publisher: World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Lamona ( talk) 02:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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.