Talk:Eugenia Cheng

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eugenia Cheng article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Women scientists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Proposed deletion

@67.184.176.43:: I think this page should be kept, because Eugenia Cheng is quite famous in her field. I am not in the position to judge her academic achievements, but I can definitely tell that her video series "The Catsers" is a renowned introduction to category theory. I think it is fair to say that she is a public figure, at least for her outreach activities. − Pintoch (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is your justification that Cheng "is quite famous in her field" or that her youtube video is "renowned"? I am a math professor at a top 20 school, and I can tell you that neither of these things is anywhere close to being true. Typical standards of notability in mathematics are prizes, solution of a long-standing problem, an invited talk at the International Congress of Mathematicians, etc. Cheng has none of these accomplishments. She does not have any papers published a top journal (Annals, Inventiones, JAMS, etc.); indeed, she does not even have any papers published in a first-tier (or even second-tier) journal. I believe the burden is on you to justify the notability of this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.176.43 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC) I don't understand : is there no discussion of deletion? Is having a book reviewed in the NY Times sufficient for notability in and of itself? If not, what is the justification for notability of this person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.176.43 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not by itself, but having multiple high-profile reviews of the same book, and a separate article entirely about you in the NYT that is unrelated to the book, not to mention major-network television appearances [1] seems like easily enough for WP:GNG to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article about Cheng in the NYT? Her two books are ranked lower than #267,000 and #67,000 on Amazon. Do you think Cheng's musical "career" is notable enough to warrant a (somewhat lengthy) discussion? By the standards you are applying (e.g. an appearance on a cable show, and a NYT book review), it seems like Wikipedia would have tens of thousands of entries for such people. This does not

bear on deletion, but donesn't the whole piece read like a promotional piece, likely written by Cheng herself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.176.43 (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article (I have added it to the page earlier):

Angier, Natalie (2010-05-02). "Eugenia Cheng Makes Math a Piece of Cake". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-09-26. − Pintoch (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cheng (always good to lend gravitas when arguing for 'keep') just did a 10-15 minute feature segment on Science Friday. That's a big WP:RS toward WP:N. Tapered (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of WP:Reliable Sources to show WP:Notability. We have the the NY Times (this NY Times blog post indicates she is "winning fame"), the Guardian, Forbes, the Royal Society Insight Investment Book Prize, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun Times, WSJ Book Review and other references like her WSJ column, the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Math Horizons, BBC, WGBH, and WBEZ. -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed David Eppstein closed the delete discussion with keep 26 September 2016. No further discussion necessary. -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]