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. Enigma^msg 19:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen L. Moshier[edit]

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

Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Moshier is sole author of seven patents: what more would be needed to make him a notable inventor?

More importantly, Mr Moshier is sole author of a major component of a major public domain numerical computing library. This creates significant, long lasting interest in who he is. That he has not had a shiny academic career may come as a surprise to those who look him up - which rather increases the interest of having an article about him. -- Nsda (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half a million patents are filed annually. Are all of these authors notable? Natureium (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many patents by sole authors? How many of them have authored 7 or more? But I am not insisting on this. Moshier is notable for his contributions to numeric computing. -- Nsda (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is insufficient independent reliable sources about the subject to establish that the subject of this biography meets the WP:BIO criteria "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The fact that this individual holds seven patents doesn't do much on its own to establish notability. As an example, my brother in law who works as a researcher in a technology firm holds 26 patents, but there is nothing that distinguishes him from his colleagues or others in his line of work. ANDREVV (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is author of a book that received over 80 citations in the scientific literature: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=moshier+Methods+and+programs+for+mathematical+functions -- 2001:A61:470A:8301:D897:EC18:3DA7:92F9 (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC) — 2001:A61:470A:8301:D897:EC18:3DA7:92F9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. One book with approximately 80 citations (and a few other patents and publications with fewer) is not enough by itself for WP:PROF, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an academic, therefore WP:PROF is not pertinent. See rather WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Moshier has co-created Netlib. We should not rate such important piece of engineering lower than some artistic creation. -- 2001:A61:470A:8301:D897:EC18:3DA7:92F9 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to believe he is notable for "co-creating" something whose article, and whose sources about its creation, don't even mention him. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Netlib is indeed a lamentable stub, and not all reflecting the importance of the subject. Writing biographies of its authors is one possible approach to its improvement. -- 2001:A61:470A:8301:D897:EC18:3DA7:92F9 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netlib contains 162 packages. What published evidence is there that this particular package has any significance within netlib? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to find significant coverage about subject; delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 16:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I give up on this, please proceed with deletion. -- Nsda (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2018 (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.