Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Colin (mathematician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Colin (mathematician)

Andrew Colin (mathematician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod; spam for a portfolio analyst with a doctorate in mathematics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • KEEP I see nothing wrong with this. Mattbroon (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: User:Mattbroon has been blocked today for two weeks for deliberate manipulation of the deletion process, see User talk:Mattbroon. Nsk92 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – I have added a notability statement and inline cite reference. Individual was one of the first to apply “Chaos Theory” to financial market. ShoesssS Talk 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The added reference does not appear to support the statement added to the article, although registration is required to access the whole article. silly rabbit (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough evidence presented to satisfy the notability requirements under either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. For WP:PROF one would have to see some substantial evidence of citability of his research in scholarly articles. I dod a bit of google and WoS searching but did not find much; with a common name like that it is hard to do filtering so perhaps something was inadvertently missed. Still, the keep proponents would have to present some positive and verifiable evidence of high citability here. The case for WP:BIO is even more problematic. I did not see any evidence of substantial coverage of him by independent third-party reliable sources (per WP:RS) as required to satisfy WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that this person is notable per WP:PROF. silly rabbit (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis that first to apply “Chaos Theory” to financial market if that is a disputed fact please make that clear, if not then notable ... Note yet again AfD is not a clean up process. --Matilda talk 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • While the cite provided does not support the assertion he was the first, it does state Mathematicians and securities analysts are applying chaos theory to financial market behavior to determine nonlinear trends which can be expressed as algorithms. Citibank's Andrew Colin has used neural networks to create a program that can earn 25% returns per year investing in the currency markets. ie it supports that he is using chaos theory and applying ti to the financial markets. I note that this is an article in The Economist - a notable journal to be discussing your work in for this field- definitely meets WP:RS. Some other cites include A 1994 book published by Wiley and Sons called Trading on the Edge search for Colin's name within the book and you will find him mentioned several times as being an authority in the field. That book is apparently cited 112 times according to Google Books result[1]. Also different source but similar assertions Wired's Kevin Kelly reports on hacking financial markets as republished by Brown University for " Learning Dynamical Systems". At investment-performance.com the site introduces him as a moderator with "Andrew Colin is one of the world's leading authorities in performance analytics". His bio for that site is at [2] He is a published author by Wiley Books: Fixed Income Attribution As above AfD is not for clean up it is to discuss whether an article should be kept. I can see no reason that he fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). As per the cites I have quoted, Colin "is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." He is apparently "is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources." - eg The Economist . --Matilda talk 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Economist reference is OK as far as it goes as is the Trading on the Edge reference (although the 112 citations of the latter goes towards notability of the book but not of someone that the book cites), but there are hardly sufficient. One would need to see either a high number of citations by numerous different scholarly articles/books or substantial coverage by multiple sources in conventional media (Economist belongs to that category). This is how WP:PROF has been consistently applied up to know. Moreover, it is not really clear if the Economist reference goes towards notability per WP:PROF at all since it is not talking about original research but rather about applications of some mathemtical tools in financial markets. That seems to go more towards general notability per WP:BIO (but again, by itself, far from sufficient) rather than notability as an academic known for original scholarly research. Nsk92 (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't see how often his own book on Fixed Income is cited as it isn't on Google books but it get 1920 Google hits of which 206 seem to be unique I don't think that is worth much except perhaps to say it isn't totally obscure either. The Trading on the Edge book doesn't merely cite Colin but he is is one of the main contributing authora according to page xix - sorry my bad for not making this clear. I think the Wired ref republished by Brown university also helps the claim for notability - it mightn't be the strongest claim but I don't see the rationale for deletion either. --Matilda talk 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The standard fast tool to track citations in scholarly articles is GoogleScholar which shows just 1 citation[3]. GoogleBooks also shows just 1 hit, the book in question itself[4]. I'll check Web of Science and Scopus, but I doubt the results will be much different. Nsk92 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep given the information here, which does of course need to be added to the article. Perhaps the title should be changed to (financial analyst)--as the field in which he works and is notable, rather than just the field of his degree. DGG (talk) 21:48, 20 May 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.