Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Lutz

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 keep. ✗plicit 12:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lutz (edit | 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)

There doesn't appear to be coverage of his work in independent sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Computing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — His work seems to be notable and significant in his field, which is enough for WP:NACADEMIC. PopoDameron ⁠talk 07:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa and Kansas. TJMSmith (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His works have been cited a respectable amount. Through elicit.org, I found that quite a few of these papers either build upon or critique (but don't discredit) his hypotheses, so they'd be quite usable here. I won't link them all, but for example, a Springer textbook (Algorithmic Randomness and Complexity, 2010, Downey & Hirschfeldt) provides significant coverage of his ideas across multiple chapters. — DFlhb (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's not a lot that we can source and put in his article beyond his basic career details and the concepts he's credited with, but I think those are enough. If it were only based on citation counts my keep would be weak, but putting a name to the concepts credited to him, and the (justified) existence of separate Wikipedia articles for those concepts, makes the case stronger. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein, a mix of PROF-C1 and being credited with significant concepts in the field. --Mvqr (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein, passes NPROF-1. --hroest 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The first two references cited do not pertain directly to the individual subject. The other sources are not independent of the subject. The Google Scholar page does indicate some significance with the total citation count, but it is weak. There are no honors, awards, or past chair designations in organizations either. There should be more for this article to be useful to the academic readers of the encyclopedia. Multi7001 (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to be evaluating this article based on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG. This is a case for WP:PROF, not GNG. For PROF notability, we still need claims to be verifiable, but as long as the claims meet at least one PROF criterion and the sources that verify them are reliable, there is nothing requiring the sources to cover the personal life of the subject in-depth nor to be independent. And in this case we do have independent sources covering the subject's research contributions in-depth, which is exactly what one would expect and hope for in the case of someone supposedly notable for their research contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe you misunderstood the commentary; it did not pertain to WP:GNG. For the notability criterion of WP:PROF, the subject nearly does not meet any of it. The significance of the individual's research work should be demonstrable through multiple reliable, independent sources, which it lacks. Furthermore, there are no honors, awards, or chair designations. The role of director in a low-scale university laboratory is questionable. The citation count on Google Scholar is not high. And the remainder of the references originated from the subject, the subject's colleagues, or the subject's employer and do not indicate a strong impact on his profession. Multi7001 (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  11 publications with over citations each is quite high, for this theoretical area. Beyond that, we have works directly attesting to the significance of the topics Lutz has developed and explaining them in depth. The remainder of the references are not intended to establish notability, only to verify the details in the article. And multiple PROF criteria are not required when one is passed. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The significance of his research work is debatable, which is why I am not either in favor of or against this AfD process. What should be noted is that the Wiki page for Lutz's resource-bounded measure has no functional references. And any search for them does not yield any indication of a significant impact on the profession, aside from a few mentions in peer-reviewed journals. Regardless, most AfD participants will likely agree that the research work has at least some importance that merits consideration. Multi7001 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein, passes NPROF-1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2023 (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.