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The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schechter[edit]

Eric Schechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Only sources provided are self-published or trivial. Google News turned up only a few passing mentions of this person. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination in light of the sources provided by Cazort. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep On the grounds I argued to keep in the first discussion, and the grounds have grown stronger since the first discussion:

Per WP:AUTH point 3. I think his work Handbook of Analysis and its Foundations alone makes him notable. This book has generated glowing reviews, but more importantly, has generated sustained attention. It showed 71 cites during the first discussion and now google scholar shows 147, mostly novel research in peer-reviewed math journals: [1]. This is significant because the book is primarily a pedagogical book, intended for intro-level grad students, yet the work has been heavily cited in peer-reviewed journal articles publishing novel research. This sort of phenomenon is highly unusual for this sort of mathematical work, demonstrating that this work is highly influential. On a personal note, when I've seen it on professors shelves, it has been beaten up from heavy use. His book is far more well-used than the google scholar citations suggest, because those don't reflect the primary audience / use of the book.

He has generated a small amount of coverage in reliable sources through his political activism too, which describes him as an "organizer": [2] He ran unsuccessfully against Jim Cooper; this is unsourced in the article but here's a reliable source for the race, pre-election: [3]. I do not think these things alone would make him notable, but I think that if the case is at all marginal on the basis of his academic work, this would push him over the edge. There's enough material in WP:RS for a small, well-sourced article and this man and his work, and that's the essence of WP:N.

Cazort (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep if someone puts a claim of notability in the article, as well as the reliable sources for the reviews of the textbook. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SIAM review is multiple pages long and is very detailed and makes very strong claims about this book: "Every once in a while a book comes along that so effectively redefines an educational enterprise -- in this case, graduate mathematical training -- and so effectively reexamines the hegemony of ideas prevailing in a discipline -- in this case, mathematical analysis -- that it deserves our careful attention". It's not public access but there's a copy of it with a citation to the original on Schechter's webpage: [4]. I just added this to the article and cleaned up a bit. The article does need cleanup and I would agree that the notability isn't clearly evident from the article alone. But I don't think that the state of the article warrants deletion, it's whether the article's subject is notable or not. The influence of this book and the accuracy of this claim in the review is further evidenced by the numerous citations that keep rolling in to this book, in peer-reviewed journals publishing novel research. Cazort (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also here's a very detailed review in Topology Atlas: [5]. I also want to point out how highly unusual / significant it is for SIAM to have reviewed this book at all because it is essentially a pure math text. Also, on Amazon.com: [6] there are two brief reviews; one, being from Robert G. Bartle, although brief, seems significant due to Bartle's stature in the topic of Mathematical analysis, the topic that Schechter's book primarily focuses on. I also noticed that Bartle continued to recommend the book in print publications after writing this review. "Schechter [Sch] and Lee and Výborný [L-V] have been published; we strongly recommend these books" in the preface of A modern theory of integration (2003). Cazort (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2011 (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.