Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoav Raz Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yoav_Raz

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. Wifione ^Message 09:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoav Raz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Possible autobiography -- once you trim out all the citations to his own papers, there's not much left. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete. A person has his notability by his own work and achievements. Commitment ordering (CO) is a revolutionary method which has become a standard solution in many areas of computerized technology, and its utilization increases from day to day. Because its scalability and a mathematical proof that it cannot be bypassed for scalability, it has a lasing value, much beyond its inventor (who is notable for the invention). See some utilization and many external references (patents, and academic articles) in the History of commitment ordering (just saw; another for deletion...) and an important book reference there and in Yoav Raz with an explicit recognition in the importance of CO - [Bernstein and Newcomer 2009]. CO has solved the years old open problem of Global serializability. Only now, after 20 yrs it starts to get recognition (to a great extent thanks to the Wikipedia CO and related articles, I believe). However it has been utilized for years (History). For years it has been hidden due to both academics' misunderstanding (not practitioners) and some Academia politics (Google "yoav raz" for his web site and CO page; I have used it as an informal source a lot). At any case, not a discovery by Dr. Raz to be underestimated. Also his ERROL and Reshaped relational algebra start to get considerable late attention, and I'll not be surprised if shortly utilized beyond his old prototype. Add to this being chief-scientist of the multi-billion EMC Corporation for nine years, and some more practically utilized results of theoretical work he did, and you get a person who meets the notability criteria. I wonder how by just reading the subject article this is not clear. When you write "once you trim out all the references to his own work, there's not much left" it is incorrect. External references exist there about utilization of his work (and many more in History of CO). Please read it more carefully. We should not have being here.

Re autobiography, without revealing here my true identity or commenting if true or false, is this a problem, if it is absolutely accurate? I'm very careful with any fact I write in Wikipedia, carefully reference it by credible sources, and make sure it is accurate. Both scientifically and historically.

Re article's quality: I think it is reasonable, based on my very long readership of many Wikipedia articles (daily). The research sections may be too technical for a bio, as their respective main articles are, but this can be repaired, if needed. Also isolated in sections that can easily be bypassed (beyond headers) when being read. I think the essence is the determinant. Shape and form can be changed as recommended by people who know the Wikipedia guidelines better than me.

--Comps (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy on autobiographies. In short, they are strongly discouraged, especially when advocative or promotional in tone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if this is relevant, no promotional tone is desired in any case. I see only facts, no promotional tone. Pls let me know if you see anything goes beyond the cold facts into promotional tone. Will be toned down. --Comps (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem is that this article is not really about Raz. It's about CO and related topics. I'm going to attempt to clean the article so you can see what this looks like. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a first pass at removing unnecessarily detailed content from the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the article for better judgement. Appreciated. I made a second pass. May need more. I added discussion on the Primary source tag. --Comps (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - (changed to Redirect, see below) this is a major computer scientist, as the WP articles on Commitment ordering and Global serializability should be more than enough to make clear. It does sound like an autobio but while unwise it's not illegal. The basic problem for WP is finding good secondary sources - Raz's many papers are his own best sources, because the topics are technical and he's been extremely good at technical stuff, to the point where, I suspect, nobody else dared say much directly on the topic - though there are many variations on the theme. The topic is infrastructure behind-the-scenes stuff (WP would call it gnoming) so it isn't a headline-maker, it just works really well, solving a knotty problem that caused no end of trouble before Raz came along. If he'd done a worse job he'd have been discussed a lot more... but yes, he's Notable.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, the same editor wrote Yoav Raz, Commitment ordering, and Global serializability, so using the last two as an argument for the first one doesn't really work. I'm not sure I understand your assertion that he's notable because he's not being talked about.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See comment on a secondary source, as well as a secondary source there below (Bernstein 2009). --Comps (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As far as I can determine, the creator of this article is attempting to add this person and their ideas to Wikipedia in a promotional manner. Virtually all of the sources on this article, and a few other articles in which he's mentioned (i.e. Global serializability and such above) are primary sources written by the subject. On this article, the only other sources I saw were presentation notes, which my understanding is do not establish notability. My understanding of the notability guidelines is that he would need to be talked about to be notable, and this just simply shows he's been published. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect facts. Wikipedia articles cannot be sources. The mentioned Wikipedia articles though include many other source (if the article's are not sufficient. See list of 5 external refs from the article's direct refs (that were relevant to the article; many other exist; see links below) on his discussion page. See also links below and note citations data:

Yoav Raz - Research Microsoft

Yoav Raz - Google scholar

Just a single CO patent (out of three; the latest and broadest), Distributed multi-version CO, has a 139 reference count; total citation count including patents, over 1000.

Yoav Raz - Google patents

Yoav Raz - Arnetminer

May be added to article.

--Comps (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the sources in the articles is that they are written by the subject and thus do not establish notability. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like an article about him in some prestigious publication? I thought sufficient citation of his Commitment ordering work is sufficient. His MVCO patent > 130 (real world; not in academic count), and some academic paper > 80.

--Comps (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See comment on a secondary source, as well as a secondary source there below (Bernstein 2009). --Comps (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Despite working in a well-cited area, and one covered well by Google scholar, the citation counts I'm seeing from a GS search are relatively low: an h-index of 7, well below what we usually consider to be enough for WP:PROF#C1. And I don't see evidence that he passes the other WP:PROF criteria. Searching for "commitment ordering" instead of Raz (restricted to papers that cite his to avoid coincidental reuse of the same phrase to mean something else) [1] found enough papers by other people that I think we can justify having an article, but maybe not one as long as we have, and certainly not enough to justify keeping Raz by some kind of WP:INHERITED argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say he does not pass the academic criteria because lack of sufficient total article count? He was not the typical academician, a paper writer. He did not have an academic career though spent some time there, and should not be judge by academic criteria. It is the value of a single small group of articles and patents (which do not count in your criteria above). It does not seem at all he wrote articles for count. It is a clear fact that Commitment ordering is important and notable, and thus its inventor also has notability...

See Caveats WP:PROF#Caveats even in your cited WP:PROF#C1.

Caveats

1. Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.
2. An academic who is not notable by these guidelines could still be notable for non-academic reasons.
3. It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

--Comps (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see comment on a secondary source, as well as a secondary source below (Bernstein 2009). --Comps (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT I've spent/wasted quite a bit of time looking for reliable, independent secondary sources, such as articles in IEEE journals praising Raz, and I can't find any - just a lot of stuff by Raz himself. Since I have no doubt about the importance of Commitment Ordering, I sadly suggest the best thing would be a redirect to that article - Notability is not inherited between articles, so Raz will have to make do with a mention in Commitment ordering, and a redirect of course. I've struck out my earlier !vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you efforts. As said, he is not an academic with many publications ("publish or perish"), and Commitment ordering has been utilized substantially in academic publications without referencing it. Out of misunderstanding (see quotations in Global serializability or other reasons. See History of commitment ordering. It is substantially referenced in patents. He should be judged as inventor rather than academic. --Comps (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have said that Raz's exact invention(s) has been used without exactly referencing them. Regardless of whether this is true or not, this begins to sound more like original research comparing the work of Raz with the applications by others, and is really not appropriate in the article. Wikipedia is not a platform for trying to clear up these kinds of misunderstandings. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 13:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article does not make any comparison and mentions nothing like this. I say it here in the discussion. Also outlining cited facts and comparing them in relevant context I cannot call research. --Comps (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see comment on a secondary source, as well as a secondary source there below. --Comps (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The viewing statistics of this page (~250-300 per month) are higher than that of the Wikipedia pages of many scientists (see View page statistics in page's Revision history. --Comps (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a valid argument for keeping the article per WP:POPULARPAGE. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 13:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your word for this. But this is not an isolated fact. It is in the context of his work, primarily Commitment ordering. --Comps (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the subject links to this article from his own website, it is not difficult to understand why its viewing numbers are inflated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, only pages of (movie and similar) stars get multiple hits. Not to underestimate his site or insult, but knowing the realities of web sites, I wonder if the "star" CO page there gets any hits. Maybe some(?) because it is referenced in Wikipedia... --Comps (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: If Commitment ordering is important (any doubts here? it has a lasting important value whenever transactions are used - more and more), then its inventor has sufficient notability for an entry in Wikipedia. --Comps (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 14:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! I'm not talking on inheritance here, nor your ref WP:NOTINHERITED talks about disassociation from creation. On the contrary, people ARE notable because of their creation (Science, Art, Tech, etc.). Many people are notable because of a single important invention. Very few are serial inventors of more than one important invention. Raz also has other significant works, not as notable as Commitment ordering. --Comps (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's absolutely covered by WP:NOTINHERITED. A subject is not notable simply through association with another. The authors of works are not automatically notable because the works are. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, I'm afraid. No association with other (who? he did CO himself) in our case. It is association with what that count. Have you seen a notable invention where it inventor is not notable? Never. Only if somebody else stole it and got the notability.

In your ref:

Notability is inherited

Examples:

• Keep She once worked with someone famous – Keeper 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep All examples of foo are inherently notable. – Classifier 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All examples of faah are useless cruft. – Class Warfare 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

--Comps (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it really is covered, honestly:

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable

You are bludgeoning the issue of notability here by challenging every editor who writes here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A manufacturer of a product, and a parent of a child are not an inventor or artist, the creators of new, original ideas. An essential difference exists between the two categories. The first does not bring direct notability because of the outcome, the second does bring notability, if the creation is notable. This is our world, and Wikipedia.

Regarding bludgeoning, I'm not trying to force any idea on anybody. If you give me reasons that that are incorrect what should I do? Just let you delete the article? If deleted, I want it deleted for the correct reasons. I'm surprised that you bring bludgeoning at all. This is a serious discussion here, and if I bring logical claims about what other claim, please deal with my claims, and do not call it bludgeoning. Basically you say, "if you do not stop, we use the bludgeoning Wikipedia guideline to stop the discussion," which I think improper here, and really upsetting, and counter to the Wikipedia spirit.

--Comps (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the use of "parent" in the original text. It is being used to refer to a parent topic and subordinate topics. It really doesn't matter what the relationship between the topics. Inventor->Invention, Artist->Artwork, Parent->Child, etc. There are exceptions for music, books, and films, but inventions and research is not one of them. Parent topic notability should be established independently. There is some consensus that the many topics discussed in this article are notable. But, the creator of that idea does not appear to have notability independent of these topic. I mean, the article is essentially a rehashing of the other articles (e.g. Commitment ordering, Global serializability ERROL, Two-phase commit protocol and others). The article's content still primarily is focused on explaining the concepts in excruciating detail rather than explaining who Raz is and why he is notable, and that is one fundamental problem with the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You interpret this with a generalization that is contrary to real-world situation, and I ask you, if administrator, and also other administrators that are familiar with the Wikipedia guideline, to check this. The key difference, as I noted, is an original creation (not a baby, though unique) that gets notability: Art composition, Music composition, Mathematical proof of an open problem (we are close now), and invention that solve a major open problem (here; see Global serializability), or provides a unique new useful concept (also here). Is it possible that the creation is noted all over, but no one is credited for it? What about the creator? Does he need to get some prestigious award for it before getting notability? Even if it is well known who invented? Does not make any sense: You are noted for the award, but not for the creation that gave you the award! If you are correct whit your interpretation (which I find hard to believe), I want to escalate it to proper level in Wikipedia and ask for this to be explicitly corrected.

Regarding this article rehashing the Commitment ordering articles: This is incorrect. Especially now after you nicely made it a good short summary (Thanks again!). This is about Yoav Raz. Short info about his bio and a mention of some of his published work, all well referenced. It happened to be that some works are sufficiently interesting to be described in Wikipedia. So, you could rely on them with links. If did not exist in Wikipedia, would it be OK? Does not make sense. He is notable primarily because of the Commitment ordering invention.

--Comps (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re secondary source mentioned:

the following quotation on CO appears in a 2009 book: Philip A. Bernstein, Eric Newcomer (2009): Principles of Transaction Processing, 2nd Edition, Morgan Kaufmann (Elsevier), June 2009, ISBN 978-1-55860-623-4

Quotations:

• "Not all concurrency control algorithms use locks... Three other techniques are timestamp ordering, serialization graph testing, and commit ordering. Timestamp ordering assigns each transaction a timestamp and ensures that conflicting operations execute in timestamp order. Serialization graph testing tracks conflicts and ensures that the serialization graph is acyclic. Commit ordering ensures that conflicting operations are consistent with the relative order in which their transactions commit, which can enable interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms." (quotation from page 145)
• "Commit ordering is presented in Raz (1992)." (page 360)

Bold fonts in source

--Comps (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Commitment ordering. I'll keep this brief, since I've argued this above already. Much of this entry is borrowed / paraphrased from other WP entries, but there is a clear connection between the subject and the topic of commitment ordering. As such, some information about the individual's unique contributions to the field should be described there. However, this bio page for the individual that basically contains all the same material as the relevant topic articles does not seem helpful. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a person. Not about Commitment ordering or ERROL or 2PC or B-tree summarized in the research section. It has a lead section with a short bio, it has work chronicle, and it has awards section. To all this you choose to relate to in you comment as not important, as if it is nothing. This is a contempt to the person, to my opinion. The article puts together, summarize the persons highlights from different aspects, including published work with practical use. However, the essence for you is the very short summary (now shorter) of CO (also other summaries with his major published research (with practical use) exist with links to main articles). Of course a connection exists between a person and his research work and notable achievements. It happened that his CO work I have summarized in Wikipedia articles, since I have found it important to expose it to a larger audience, beyond academics familiar with the mathematical language in source articles. So what? Does it make the person redundant and justifies erasing an article about him "because Wikipedia CO papers already exist (and the rest is nothing)"? I think it is a mistaken point of view.

" However, this bio page for the individual that basically contains all the same material as the relevant topic articles does not seem helpful." - helpful for what? What about "work", other research, awards? Is it nothing. It is correct that CO is the main aspect that justifies an article, but all the rest is important to give a broader picture of its inventor.

--Comps (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: About Dr. Raz's publications. I got the impression here from some that his published CO articles "are from him," i.e., he is the (single) source, and thus "do not count as a source." I want to make it clear: he is not the source. He is just the author. The source is the prestigious committees of experts that selected his publications into a group of about 10% (from all articles submitted at that time) of accepted for publication articles: The VLDB92, ACM-PODS93, and the IEEE-RIDE93 conferences, and the IPL (94) journal (see refs in Commitment ordering; similarly with his other publications cited in this article and listed on professional sites, like the sites listed somewhere above).

Question: Comps, do you have any conflict of interest (WP:COI) to declare here, such as involvement in selecting, advising on or editing the publications mentioned? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question: "involvement in selecting, advising on or editing the publications mentioned?" - The CO articles were published in the early 1990s. Since then they are tabled in all regular article repositories/sites, and nobody can change this. Nobody can touch and change the articles themselves. So what influence on what can I have? I'm trying to save this article. I see some issues I consider misunderstanding (e.g., Primary source), and try to clarify. If you ask if I was involved in the past in any way in these articles' selection for publication the answer is clearly no. Does this answer? --Comps (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a suspiciously specific denial to me. The question is more: are you a close affiliate of Yoav Raz, such as Raz himself, a co-author, a student, or a relative of him? Because your filibustering here is sure making you appear to be one. Of course, there's no requirement that you answer, and I'm not going to go prying if you don't. But you might consider stepping back and letting the AfD take its course. You've made your points and I don't think further argumentation is going to make your preferred outcome more likely. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering the same as David. Other conflicts of interest applicable here would also include a working/collaborative or personal relationship with Raz. We are not asking you to identify yourself or anything like that. Having a COI doesn't automatically render the article's content null and void, but it is better to declare your affiliations like this so your contributions to such articles can be scrutinized for unintended bias. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I have given all my clarifications about this article by now, and can only start to repeat myself. I wanted to make this comment before I saw these last comments/questions. I got here some new knowledge and insight about processes and criteria, and thank you all for trying to make Wikipedia better. Regarding identity, I have already been asked about it, and discussed it in User talk:Thumperward#Commitment ordering. --Comps (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC) I disagree with the term "filibustering" here. I commented to the point, and as concise as possible to clarify facts I thought were mistaken, or I disagreed on. Also, my passion here as the initiator and major editor should be obvious. --Comps (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Scrutinizing for possible inaccuracy and bias is always good and encouraged. --Comps (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've read the arguments and prolix lawyering above and it's clear that the notability problems discussed there are deal-breakers. Promotional problems are peripheral, but don't help matters. I'll add here only that I checked WoS and found similarly low pubs/cites: h-index = 1. This is an uncontroversial delete. This is my only comment and I'll not respond further to any filibustering that may follow. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As I explained above, no philibustering here, just answers to the point, and I reject this term here. Re Lawyering: Deletion is a formal Wikipedia process and should be taken seriously. It is done subject to the guidelines of Wikipedia, and needs to be done properly and with logic. The reson for deletion must be well explained and understood. If a reason given by anybody does not make sense to me, I have to explain it explicitly. Regarding notability that you checked: The main reason for notability, Commitment ordering, has been misunderstood for years, and to a great extent utilized without connecting it to [[Yoav Raz]. Thus not as much is publicly found, as should be (this situation is changing quickly, and thus a mistake to delete) --Comps (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comps, may I very gently ask you, please, to stop now. You have made your point clearly, many times. Even assuming that Commitment ordering is a notable topic (which I believe), it does not make this article notable also, as there is NO INHERITANCE OF NOTABILITY, however unfortunate you may think that rule. With my best regards Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, I have already (above) expressed my wish to stop repeating myself, and I kindly ask you to stop repeating what already has been said about inheritance. This is not a fact, and my interpretation of the guidance was that an inventor enjoys the reputation of his invention. This is the common sense also: Show me please a single important invention that its sole inventor has not enjoyed its reputation. If info that I have not agreed on is not repeated, I promise you I do not repeat my claims. Otherwise I see it as my obligation to have my comment seen. Just a matter of simple fairness. --Comps (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the Wikipedia page for Stapler, you'll notice that none of the people who filed stapler patents have Wikipedia pages. You might argue that's because no one has made them yet, but another interpretation is that none of these individuals have any substantial coverage in secondary sources. I can see why you disagree with WP:NOTINHERITED for inventors, but coverage of the invention and the inventor are different matters, and the latter does not appear to be met here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:13, 17 November 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.