Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence L. Larmore

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence L. Larmore

Lawrence L. Larmore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page is apparently an autobiography. Additionally, two key linked articles, K-server problem and T-theory, were also created recently by the same user. These articles are only linked by Lawrence L. Larmore (except for a couple automatically-generated links), and should be considered included under this nomination. It seems that this is an instance of an individual writing about his specialized area of work, and making it seem more important than it actually is. I will invite comments from the Computer Science WikiProject. Eliyak T·C 04:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I feel too close to the subject of this AfD to have an unbiased opinion on it, and I don't know what T-theory is (perhaps I should), but the K-server problem is a central topic to online algorithms, is relevant to important practical problems such as cache replacement strategies, and was for several years quite a hot topic in theoretical computer science more generally. It deserves a much less stubby article than what's there now, and I think it is to Larry's credit if he was the one to notice and correct its absence here. I'll take a look at expanding that article into something more informative. —David Eppstein 06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Last time I checked, T-Theory is a branch of mathematics. Shall we each individually propose deletion of every topic that we are unfamiliar with or do not understand? Ridiculous. Secondly, how "important" something "seems" is subjective. If you don't find these topics important, then avoid them. Deletion seems extreme. Lastly, a quick check in two of my CS textbooks (Data Structures ISBN: 032144146X, and Online Computation ISBN: 0521619467) reveals Larmore in the index. Enough said. --Tparameter

• Delete "known for" - known by whom? The assertion is there, but not the evidence. Fails WP:BIO in my opinion QuiteUnusual

Comment The wording has been changed, as shown later on this page. We've also shown additional "evidence" of notability below. Oravec 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per David Eppstein. May be notable within their field of work. Kavadi carrier 09:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I do not know much about his area of research, but I draw attention to the fact that we have articles about obscure fictional characters and rock bands, and here we debate the deletion of an article about a person who appears to have done some scientific research. I would prefer Wikipedia to cover non-notable scientists rather than obscure garage musicians. NerdyNSK 13:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, though the external links could use trimming. Seems referenced well enough; the related articles seem fleshed out enough to assuage worries about a single-user build-up attempt. Also a comment on the comment: that's a straw man; articles should be ideally be judged individually from each other. Not that I disagree with the thinking. humblefool® 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. One reason to do an AfD is to give proponents of the article a chance to make improvements, in a case where the article may have potential but falls short in its current state. A mere laundry list of algorithms he helped create won't be enlightening. A nice short, punchy exposition of one of the algorithms showing its value could make the difference. The article says nothing about practical importance of his work. If his work is only theoretical, and is not practically significant, could its mathematical value be illustrated? EdJohnston 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article has been improved and adjusted by recommendations. In addition, T-theory, tight span, package-merge algorithm, k-server problem, and other related topics have been expanded by several different contributors. Calbaer has also made references of practical importance of Larmore's work. Oravec 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Previously the reason for deletion was no references. I updated the site and included requested references.
  

        The current reason for deletion has two arguments.
        1. The article is an autobiography
        2. The material presented is not important.
        Eliyak, you referenced this page as an autobiography. By definition, an autobiography is writen by the person who the article is about. Since I wrote this page, it is not an autobiography, it is a biography, which wikipedia allows as long as the person is of importance. Larmore's importance is clearly shown in the references I provided earlier this week.
        Next, we address the importance of the K-server problem and T-theory. If you google: "t-theory" "mathematics" you'll get 10,000+ pages of relivent information. If you google: "k-server problem" you'll get 14,000+ pages of relivent information. Clearly these topics have value. In addition, after I created stubs for each of the topics, others have been adding/modifying the information. Clearly there are others who care about these subjects.
        EdJohnston, thank you for your comments. You mentioned that AfD gives a chance for improving the article. Adding algorithm details should be a wikipedia topic on its own, not covered in the biography of person. Deleting the topic is a bit much. If improvments are needed, you could help improve it (since that is the beauty of wikipedia). Additionally, I'll add some additional information about some of Larmore's algorithms later this week. Hopefully, this will satisfy your request.
        Oravec 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Your list of "references" is actually (with the possible exception of the Borodin and El-Yaniv reference, which I don't have access to and can't check) a list of Larmore's publications. These references do not directly support the assertion that Larmore is "known for" his work. Nor do they provide any indication that his work in these (I am willing to stipulate) important areas is itself important or notable. I suppose you could infer importance or notability from the prestige of the journals in which the publications in question appear, but that smacks of original research. More helpful references might be things like a survey article on the field in question (one n ot authored by Larmore) that points to Larmore's work as influential, and a biographical article or webpage that provides verifiability for the different degrees that are claimed. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Allan McInnes - I suppose you could infer importance or notability from the prestige of the journals in which the publications in question appear, but that smacks of original research.

If you could please clarify this statement I would appreciate it. The journals listed are notable sources. By the link you provided, this satisfies being non-original research because the papers published come from notable sources. Perhaps the following link will also help with the notability issue. From the Most cited authors in Computer Science - June 2003 (CiteSeer), Larmore is 6641 out of 659481 authors, clearly he is a little better than the average professor (from this measurement he is roughly in the top 1%). Oravec 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we're not concerned with whether or not Larmore's work is original research. What we're concerned with is whether or not the claims about Larmore's work are original research. Making the assertion that Larmore's work is important because it has been published in notable journals can be construed as original research, since you are coming to a conclusion based on the analysis of data, rather than citing someone else's analysis or conclusions. The same goes for analyzing Citeseer data (which isn't all that unbiased to begin with, but that's a separate issue). That's why I encouraged you to dig up a survey article that states that Larmore's work is influential or important - that conclusion would be citable, and not OR. The alternative is to avoid claiming that Larmore's work is important, and to simply state that his work has been published in journals X, Y, and Z (supportable via citations of the articles themselves), and that he is the 6641st most cited author on Citeseer (supportable via reference to the Citeseer page). In neither case would you be inserting your own opinions or analysis. You would simply be presenting verifiable facts, and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

An example paper for the field I'm most familiar with, Huffman coding, is [1], a survey of code and parse trees. (A free version can be found at [2].) It includes, "Currently the best algorithmic approach to Huffman coding under the maximum codeword length constraint is due to Moffat et al. based on the algorithm of Larmore and Hirschberg." So the best practical approach is a modification of one co-introduced by Larmore. Huffman coding under the maximum codeword length constraint is useful for the fastest method of near-optimal lossless coding for known sources. It's hard to say how much that is used in practice, but it doesn't seem too pedestrian to me.... Calbaer 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Allan McInnes - Thank you for clarifying your statement for me. I must agree, althrough I think it is common knowledge that he is well-known (in his research areas and then some), there is no real way to measure something unbiasedly (even though citeseer is a 3rd party and you asked for a reference). So I reworded the page to: One of his main research areas is competitive analysis of online algorithms, particularly for the k-server problem. This addresses his research efforts and allows for everyone to maintain their own opinion. Please let me know if all is satisfactory. Thanks, Oravec 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article looks much better to me now. Thank you for your efforts in getting it cleaned up. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment From the Wikipedia WP:Bio, criteria for biography: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." This is satisfied by the aforementioned fundamental algorithms and references in widely used textbooks in CS. Secondly, under "alternative tests" on the same page, "The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor..., they can and should be included." Since Larmore has two PhDs, and an abundance of publications in mathematics as well as CS, and he is referenced in Textbooks - I think it is safe to say that he is more well-known than an "average college prof". He is after all above average in these three areas, which are definitive for professors. Tparameter 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider adding the "aforementioned fundamental algorithms and references in widely used textbooks in CS" as references in the article. I was commenting on the content of the article, not the deletion dispute. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Allan McInnes - I've updated the references on the page as per your request. You also requested references of his degrees. I added the reference of World Directory of Mathematicians for you (which took me a little bit of time). In addition, here is a link to CS faculty and list of their degrees at UNLV. I am pretty sure UNLV does a background check when hiring professors. If you still have doubts, then I invite you to contact the registrars at UCI and Northwestern. Oravec 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies the professor test, as noted by Tparameter. Calbaer 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per other "keep" responses. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I see that Allan McInnes is also now voting to keep, I want to add my partial disagreement with his interpretation of WP:NOR. An article itself should not include original research. In making Wikipedia administrative decisions, however, we sometimes do original research, as when AfD participants run Google searches and report the results. JamesMLane t c 10:49, 10 November 2006 (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.