Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. S. Wenocur

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 --JForget 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

R. S. Wenocur

R. S. Wenocur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete per WP:BIO. Deletion log [1] shows this article has been deleted four times previously, and there appears to be no further assertion of notability. Only 61 Google hits [2], 127 on Google Scholar [3]. Judging by recent hostile edit summaries by creator and removal of (IMV) justified notability tags, this looks to be a tendentious re-creation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep per WP:PROF. Wenocur satisfies all six criteria most obviously the fact that she has published works that are widely cited by other academics in the field. Previous deletion is not grounds for deleting this article, and neither are hostile edit summaries. The creator is knowledgeable in the relevant field, but is not an experienced Wikipedian. He has been frustrated in trying to create an article about an academic who is certainly notable in her field and had a moment of bad judgement in an edit summary. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The creator is ... not an experienced Wikipedian. He has ... had a moment of bad judgement in an edit summary.

The creator has been here since September 2006 [4] and should be well aware of the requirement not to make severe breaches of WP:CIVIL by attacking an editor on grounds of age [5] [6] . The personal attacks including this and this are well deserving of a block in themselves. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mister Legrand has been here as long as you say he has, but he has accumulated fewer than 400 edits in that time. That's what I meant by not experienced. I agree that his remarks toward Immortal Goddezz are inappropriate and have told him so. However that doesn't bear on the notability of Wenocur, who has had at least one of her articles cited in 69 related articles, thereby clearly satisfying criterion 3 at WP:PROF. Steven J. Anderson (talk 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment So what if the creator should be blocked? That has no relevance to this discussion. This discussion is about whether this article should be deleted. Whether to block a user should be discussed elsewhere, not here. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment (std disclaim) ISI WoS h-index=1 (three cited papers, only paper cited more than once: 46 citations), it looks to me like google scholar puts her h-index at 2. I don't see any ground for notability based on that, compare an h-indexof 1 or 2 to the curve here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • H-index is not a criterion for notability where academics are concerned. What is a criterion is number 3 at WP:PROF:

    The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature

    by this criterion, Wenocur clearly passes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I agree that a low h-index in itself is not absolute proof of lacking notability (although generally it is a good indication), one very high impact paper indeed suffices. However, I don't see that beig the case here. One paper with 46 citations is not really exceptional. What is this "significant and well-known academic work"? --Crusio (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Some special Vapnik-Chervonenkis classes RS Wenocur, RM Dudley - Discrete Mathematics, 1981 Cited by 69 - Related Articles - Web Search) Among the sixty-nine works citing the Wenocur-Dudley paper is the following: Estimation of the Stapes-Bone Thickness in Stapedotomy Surgical Procedure Using a Machine-Learning Technique (1999) VG Kaburlasos, V Petridis, PN Brett, DA Baker - Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on, 1999 - ieeexplore.ieee.org, as noted in the article. I believe most academics in this field would call this a very strong showing. Also please remember that WP:PROF is explicit in stating that "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable." --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• A single paper doesn't impress me as notable unless it's a citation classic (over a hundred citations) at the very least Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete & salt nothing in this, the umpteenth re-creation of this article, demonstrates passing any of the six criteria in WP:PROF, or that she is more notable than the average professor. Nor can I find any evidence of extensive coverage of "R. S. Wenocur" as a subject in reliable secondary sources per WP:N. Enough already. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete notability hasn't been established using reliable sources. Previous deletion and subsequent incarnations have not managed to adequately source this, and despite my efforts with this article I have been unable to find reliable and verifiable sources. Basically everything that Pete.Hurd has said. Additionally Salt this and previous reincarnations (Roberta S. Wenocur, Roberta Wenocur). --ImmortalGoddezz 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• note It seems that at least one previous AfDs for this subject has included Checkuser-confirmed abusive sockpuppetry by the article's creator. see also User:Oberst/MathStatWoman Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MathStatWoman. Further, an admin with access to previously deleted versions might want to check to see if this falls under CSD:G4 Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look substantially identical to the deleted version to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks (no mention of her apparent prowess with a microwave in the old version either?). The version at User:DGG/sandboxuserified#Roberta_S._Wenocur mentions co-authored papers with Erdős, can that be verified? Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Odd, I just noticed that User:Alfred Legrand‎ created this version of this article, and Sweet Muenster Cheese, and the (now deleted) Harvest Moon Cocktail. The article Sweet Muenster cheese was created by User:Samuel Kotz and the very first version of the article includes "The Classic Sweet Muenster Cheese Melt, invented by R. S. Wenocur to accompany Harvest Moon Cocktails [...]". Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppetry by a user who has not edited here since May has nothing to do with Wenocur's notability --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Assuming they aren't just editing under a different username... Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • see more at the AN/I thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alfred_Legrand:_Disruption_and_sockpuppetry, and suspected sockpuppetry case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MathStatWoman. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A biographical article should contain the world's impression of the person, not the person's impression of themself. It is best when they can be written entirely out of reliable sources. I took a look through the four items in the reference section to see how much biographical info I could find there. (Have to discount the third item, a Drexel link, because she is actually not included in the list). Consider now the other three items, and See what article we could write *using no other information.* Here's a sketch of what we could write:

  Roberta S. Wenocur was the co-author with Richard Dudley, in 1981, of a widely cited paper about VC classes. [Here insert a small explanation of what those are]. She received her doctorate from Temple University under Janos Galambos in 1979, for work on return periods related to order statistics. [Here insert a very short description of what those are]. She has worked as a faculty member at Drexel University and University of Pennsylvania.

  That's all. Wide citation of one paper is good; that tells us about the world's appreciation of her work. Getting a PhD in mathematics from a major university is good. Being on a math faculty is good. Now the short paragraph I provided (above) is giving credit for all three of those achievements. I don't believe this is enough info for a meaningful article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - she's listed in the drexel link 'Wenocur, Roberta S. - Asst. Professor, Mathematics' Additionally the abstract is to show her participation in the University of Pennsylvania; not provide information on the abstract itself or else in the article it would mention the abstract. Just thought I'd clarify.. not even sure why since I'm voting delete. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my mistake. I updated the paragraph to include what you found, and deleted some of my previous words to make the result easier to read. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Question What would make you think that this article contains Wenocur's impression of herself? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

When an article resembles a resume, we tend to assume it is sourced from the author herself. What is most helpful is to get some form of outside commentary on the author's work, prizes, citation counts, journal editorships etc. Reaching the level of full professor, since the standards are rigorous, is a form of outside commentary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations for Wenocur's work, prizes, and citation counts are already mentioned in the article, particularly "Some special Vapnik-Chervonenkis classes" which is cited in 69 other related articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

when an article resembles an academic resume, I assume it reflects the basic objective facts of someone's career. When it resembles a press release, then it's another matter. the question, is on the notability of the career. What usually makes academic notable is the academic work they do, not their personal life. citations are one very relevant measure, though there is no fixed cutoff. I saved the previous version of the article because it seemed to be that the AfDs showed some sort of subtext that I did not quite understand. DGG (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This article establishes no notability. A similar article could be written for any former assistant professor in mathematics 29 years after their Ph.D. The article does not make it clear what her current position is [7]: is she still in academia for example? This is a serious omission. The discussion of mathematical contributions - a list of topics - is inadequate and uninformative. The career is equally poorly described. Was the Ph.D. from Temple University? What was the position at the University of Pennsylvania? It does not seem appropriate to encourage academic BLP's for such undistinguished careers. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com gives more information for "RS Wenocur" than WP. She writes in one of her reviews, "As a probabilist and statistician, with a Ph.D., having worked at universities, as a consultant, and in industry for approximately forty years, I had previously employed Fourier Analysis only as a tool, not having studied the subject as a discipline unto itself." Mathsci (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Further Comment. The WP page seems to have been copied and pasted from the self-written biography here [8]. This CV provides considerably more detail, but is not neutrally written and reads like an advertisement for services on offer, which include "homework help" and "mentoring and tutoring of child prodigies" [9]. I do not understand at all Steven J. Anderson's completely disproportionate and unhelpful promotion of this article: is he at all familiar with the academic world? Wenocur's extremely slender and unimpressive mathematical output according to Mathscinet comes to a total of 6 articles with a total page length of 40 pages. It is disruptive of User:Alfred Legrand, whoever he/she is, and Steven J. Anderson to misrepresent this academically humdrum career. Mathsci (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of Steven J. Anderson. Perhaps a better understanding of the relationship between User:MathStatWoman and User:Ksingh20/User:MxM Peace would shed some light (topics best discussed elsewhere). Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO1E. If her contribution to Vapnik-Chervonenkis theory is sufficiently notable, it should be mentioned in the articles about that theory, but we don't have enough here for a biographical article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Remark. User:Alfred Legrand has suggested that the BLP for David Eppstein should be listed for deletion here [10]. Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He or she is welcome to take it to AfD; I won't interfere. But he or she should pay attention to WP:POINT. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment : This is RS Wenocur. Enough of this, please. I did not post my own article, ever. It was an employee of mine, it seems. Do not punish him. We share seven computers, a server, a LAN, and are not sockpuppets. If you want my bio off of Wikipedia, fine, so be it. But do not label Dr. Legrand as a sockpuppet, if he was the one to create the article. His reputation is at stake. Thank you. RDSW (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Curious that you have an employee-employer relation, share equipment, but he claims not to even know you. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, he claims not to know User:MathStatWoman, the user he's been accused of being a sockpuppet of. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So despite the connections between User:MathStatWoman and RDSW mentioned in the sockpuppetry case, and despite Alfred Legrand being an employee of RDSW, RDSW and MathStatWoman are different people and Alfred does not know MSW? And I guess despite having an article created by Alfred Legrand and despite the similarity of names, Alfred Small is yet a different person? I need a flow chart or a Venn diagram to make sense of this, I guess. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • PS for anyone else trying to untangle this: I found this web genealogy that indicates that someone with the maiden name of Roberta Small and with children named Wenocur has a brother named Alfred Small. Why one of RDSW's employees would be interested in creating an article about her brother, I'm not sure. But using sockpuppets within an AfD is a serious accusation that bears further investigation, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
        • FWIW Another web geneology, showing the same: Roberta Small, sister to Alfred Small and mother of children bearing the last name Wenocur. Reasons for believing that these genealogies are the same Roberta Wenocur include the fact that they list her husband as "Brian Wenocur", which when googled generates very few hits, one of the only ones in english is this one listing Brian Wenocur with a business address in Wayne,_Pennsylvania, right next door to Philadelphia. They also list her daughter's name, which if googled, which generates a mere two hits, the genealogy and a classmates.com page for a highschool in Ardmore, Pennsylvania. MathStatWoman has made a number of (odd) edits to the Ardmore, Pennsylvania article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete - insufficient notability. A singe well-cited paper with two authors and it is unknown who is the major contributor. Independent verification required. `'Míkka>t 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Excellent researcher in many fields. Notable. H Wilf (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • — H Wilf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 20:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP Brilliant work. Extremely notable Woman in Mathematics. 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRKPinsky (talk • contribs)
  • — MRKPinsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 20:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP Highly notable. Just look at Google Scholar. As Fields Medal Winner, I know her personally, and she is notable, for sure More than just one paper, and many accomplishments. CharlieFeff. (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • — CharlieFeff. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP Clever work in order stats. See books. Wrote chapters in many books JanosGalomb (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • — JanosGalomb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: we serious researchers think Wikipedia is not very good math resource, but we got together to support colleague who is clever and worth noting. We do not usually do Wikipedia, since it is poor source and full of advertising and incorrect information, but this is enough, you make very good researcher look bad, so we must speak out now JanosGalomb (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• comment I've sent e-mails to Charles Fefferman, Herbert Wilf, Janos Galambos, and Mark Pinsky asking if they had written the comments above (which one may reasonably assume they did, from their usernames etc.). I have thusfar received one reply, in which the respondent said nice things about Wenocur, but go on to say they know nothing about the WP edits. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP At mathematics dinners, we scoff at WIkipedia, we laugh at its content. I know this researcher -- notable for sure. No, I do not edit Wikipedia often because it is unreliable and arbitrary. Sites about my own work are not well kept. Give her a break before she dies. Simon,Jms (talk)
  • — Simon,Jms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• STRONG KEEP Great woman in mathematics. And I was never a sockpuppet whatever you think. MathStatWoman (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing irrelevant comments: Many serious researchers ignore Wikipedia, until you try a smear campaign like this. MathStatWoman (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, the tags have been restored by another user. I have no opinion either way in this AfD, but please don't remove the tags again. Thank you. Acalamari 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP Very notable mathematician. Books, many articles, hundreds of citations, just look on google and google scholar. 40 year old family business, and more. I am not a sockpuppet either, just as not is ImmoralGoddezz whose boyfriend uses her computer. Alfred Legrand (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry as evident above. Subject isn't notable enough as academic.NawlinWiki (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment We each have our own opinions, we are not ASKED TO DO ANYTHING. Just pick and choose what opinions the admins want? Alfred Legrand (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason that tag was put in, as were the {{spa}} tags, was because of the likely meatpuppety/sockpuppetry in this AfD, as there are "keeps" from new accounts with no edits to any other page except this one. Acalamari 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, and obvious puppetry above. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (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.