Talk:Daniel Kane (mathematician)

Untitled

I presume he started this page himself, but as a mathematician, what big theorem has he proved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.81.8 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP: Notability

These articles all follow the same generic template: blah blah is a winner of (insert contest here), (insert contest here), and (insert contest here). Attended/is attending (insert university here) from (year) to (year) etc.

No doubt IMO, Putnam, etc. are significant competitions. But do we really need a separate article for every such winner? Might as well wait until they become professors and have actually published some papers, or made some other contribution to academia/society instead of simply winning a contest. Not to mention that these contests are directed towards the undergraduate/high school level.

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiankai_Liu and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yi_Sun for other similar articles that passed AfD and were deleted for non-notability.

- Wikipedian06 07:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While I am not entirely unbiased, being a former Putnam Fellow myself, it seems to me that requiring a college math contest winner to become a professor before getting a Wikipedia page would be roughly equivalent to Wikipedia deciding not to cover March Madness winners until they go on to become successful college basketball coaches later in their careers. The criterion for being sufficiently notable to merit one's own Wikipedia page is supposed to be appearance (usually repeated) in secondary sources--a relatively objective criterion. Some of these math contest winners do meet that criterion. Evaluating the quality of someone's "contributions to society" is a much more subjective criterion and not (IMHO) suitable for deciding who gets a Wikipedia page. That said, it must also be noted that, as others have noted, Daniel Kane has already made significant contributions to mathematics beyond simply winning math contests. My vote would definitely be to keep this article.--Dash77 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

While removing the articles about the winners of these various contest exams may in general be reasonable, one should also pay attention to the details: this Daniel Kane in particular has published an unusual number of papers in respectable journals as an undergraduate, and the award for undergraduate research is perhaps more notable than IMO, Putnam, etc.

That being said, the level of detail of the article, especially in the "Childhood" section is likely unwarranted.

-140.247.10.1 (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does winning a contest or publishing papers as an undergraduate warrant a wikipedia page? Not to mention the fact that typically Mathematician refers to a professional mathematician not a graduate student. This seems more like something that would go on a CV not on Wikipedia. Unless we want to start having an entry for every winner to every debate tournament, gymnastics tournament, spelling bee, etc. It would be different if perhaps there were a significant amount of press surrounding Mr Kane (outside of course the press releases made by the universities or prize committees), but that doesn't seem to be the case. Frankly it reads like a vanity entry and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.241.208 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability, or Lack Thereof

It doesn't seem that this mathematician has accomplished anything significant enough that he can justly be called notable enough for Wikipedia. Yes, he appears to be in the highest echelons of intelligence, but publishing 50 papers isn't much in the field of math, when Erdős published around 1,500 (and Erdős isn't much next to Leonhard Euler!). I have the feeling, giving the gushing and seemingly very personal language of the article, that he or someone close to him wrote the article. If you Wikipedians want to start an article on every Harvard graduate, that's fine by me; but, given that he's currently a "assistant professor with a joint position in the Mathematics Department and the Computer Science and Engineering Department" at UCSD, I think that this article should be deleted on the grounds of lack-of-notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.177.96 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

We've already discussed this; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Kane (mathematician). Do you think there is new information since that discussion that might change the decision? Also, number of publications isn't really one of the metrics we use to evaluate the notability of academics; see WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Eppstein seems to have a conflict of interest in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:DCC:D22C:63C2:7986 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

How? He works at a different place than I do and we do not have any research collaborations. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Kane (mathematician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829062539/http://www.math.wisc.edu/~ono/kane3.html to http://www.math.wisc.edu/~ono/kane3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)