Deletion of Mikhail Katz

Comment: All three persons above would be likely to pass the above average professor test. rof finds that notability may be established by citations in the scholarly literature to the subject's work and goes into some detail about this in Note 1. If editors wish to change Wikipedia policy they should do so on the policy pages, not here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: You haven't finished reading the relevant paragraph at cademic.  The policy paragraph points out that publication in a subfield is not sufficient proof of notability '''with the exception of a leader''' in the subfield
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: It is a close run thing in terms of . In such cases I like to apply the rule of common sense. Wikipedia allows articles on bands that were one hit wonders. It has pages dedicated to a single episode of a single program. If those two kinds of articles are permissible then the lifetime's work of a better than average (although not outstanding) academic ought to be included too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per nom. On the last point C1 of  says "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, ''broadly construed''" (my emphasis) i.e. particularly not a narrow subfield. It also says "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", but the inline references don't do that, they simply point to his works
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Please re-read (carefully) what I said. I did not claim that the manuscript was never published. I said the top hit was to the unpublished version and that is indeed a fact. The published paper does not appear in the top 100 hits. I do not know why GS behaves so often in such weird ways, but it is part of the reason that  names WoS and Scopus as reliable citation indexes, but has a large paragraph of disclaimers for GS, finally calling it "a rough guide only". I checked MathSciNet and the query "Katz, Mikhail" returns http://ams.rice.edu/mathscinet/search/publications.html?pg4=AUCN&s4=katz%2C+mikhail&co4=AND&pg5=TI&s5=&co5=AND&pg6=PC&s6=&co6=AND&pg7=ALLF&s7=&co7=AND&Submit=Search&dr=all&yrop=eq&arg3=&yearRangeFirst=&yearRangeSecond=&pg8=ET&s8=All&review_format=html 18 papers, not 45. This figure basically agrees with the results from WoS I reported above. I'm willing to be shown that perhaps there's better query that returns these other publications, that maybe he publishes under different names, or something of the like. Please report the MathSciNet query you used, so that it can quickly be checked. That would really help move the debate. At this point, it still appears that the figures of 17-18 papers, h-index around 7, and total cites of around 100, are essentially correct. I'll wait to cast a !vote until the citation statistics are recognized as being firm. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Per cademic, the best case to be made for him is 1, but as a professional mathematician it is my personal opinion he has done solid work but not ''significant''.  I would go on to point out that writing a book is neither uncommon for mathematicians, the fact that having a book is not considered significant is even listed in the notes to criteria 1, and they use a mathematics book that gets reviewed on something like mathscinet as an example.  He is a good mathematician, but just not especially notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)