Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Grime

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 October 12.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Unlike a lot of deletions at AfD which are stable, there is a feeling from the 'delete' comments in this debate that there's every chance that, in the future, the level of reliable sources to assert notability may increase, at which point I encourage a review of whether the article can be recreated and fulfil the notability guidelines relevant to his field(s). Daniel (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Grime

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

Academic who I don't think meets the guidelines for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Nominating this for deletion because of his lack of notability as an academic or lack of notable academic achievement is extremely dishonest. James Grime is an educator, far more than he is an academic - he has been the Enigma Project Officer at the University of Cambridge for the past 6 years (Anyone who nominates this for deletion might want to let us know the name of the institution where they studied mathematics). James Grime is extremely well known for his work in Mathematics education, not just through Numberphile (which currently has 57,174,196 total views) but also public talks which almost all young students of mathematics in the UK have been to (my own college made it compulsory for all A level further maths students to attend a maths inspiration event which James Grime spoke at). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverBel (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like you are friends of him? LibStar (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm familiar with the Numberphile claim to fame here. Problem is, most of this content is in the form of videos on YouTube. His publications in mathematics have only garnered a handful of citations, and he does not hold any honors or elected positions to prestigious organizations. The best argument I can see under WP:ACADEMIC is #7 (The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity), but I don't think there's enough evidence to show "substantial" impact. WP:GNG fares a bit better. Grime appears to be a writer for The Guardian per [1], and has a few pieces he's written there. Grime has also been interviewed here by the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics, and here on Alan Turing by StatisticsViews.com, a resource for use by professionals in statistics. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not convinced that the subject passes WP:ACADEMIC#C7. As the criterion notes, a few quotes in the media are generally quite common for academics. The interviews he has given don't for me rise to the level of "substantial impact" that is implied by the wording of the guideline. I also don't think a blog at The Guardian is much of an indicator of notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete or merge selectiovely to the Maths Project mentioned: for the moment he looks like a junior lecturer. TOOSOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see him meeting WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. contributing to youtube videos is hardly a sign of notability. and a source saying he doesn't speak Danish doesn't add anything. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that it is possible to be notable for popularizing mathematics on youtube: see e.g. the first three sources of Vi Hart and skip lightly over the fact that her fans have blown up the article far beyond what those sources can support. But in the case of Grime, all I can find in sources I consider sufficiently reliable are a Straits Times article that trivially mentions Numberphile but doesn't name-check Grime [2] and an article in the Guardian written by Grime himself about his plans for numberphile [3]. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not in Who's Who or Debrett's (and they are generally quite keen on Oxbridge dons (incidentally it might be better to say what college he is a Fellow of rather than the fact he doesn't speak Danish)). Has authored a few op-ed bits for the Guardian [4] - but no full length popular science book. Generally appears to be too young (I estimate his age to be about 30, and most academics won't meet WP:PROF until they're at least 40 - implying WP:TOOSOON. Willing to reconsider in a few years if he continues his career. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2014 (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.