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. Sandstein 19:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Espen Gaarder Haug

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Espen Gaarder Haug (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Appears that this may be a WP:SOAP violation. Unclear what WP:BIO standard this might meet. I have no doubt that some of the ideas Haug has had have garnered some discussion, but he is certainly no WP:CELEBRITY, notable WP:AUTHOR, nor notable for WP:PROF. Sourcing in the article seems to lack any indication that there may be something out there which provides biographical information rather than simple mention. jps ( talk) 10:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Also, I'm shocked to see that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article. Was there a process of overturning done? jps ( talk) 10:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Agree with the nominator on lack of notability and add that the article also appears to violate WP:AUTOBIOG. See, for example, the contributions of Green2Ocean, DrRiskMaster, GoldenPi, 88.89.96.208, and 88.128.85.173. From the history, it appears that the earlier decision to delete was never implemented. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 13:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. What I see in the history is that the current version was created immediately after the old version was taken to AfD, and a week before the old version was deleted. I'm not quite sure how that happens (maybe there's a page move it's not showing me). But in any case the previous AfD was not respected. — David Eppstein ( talk) 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete as in 1st Afd. It is instructive to look at the subject's profile on Google scholar. [1] The physics papers are free of content and supported only by self-citations. There are a few high-cited finance papers, but with an h-index of only 10, not enough to pass WP:Prof. The only possibility of notability that I see is WP:GNG for the subject's success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science, but I don't think this is enough. The scholar profile is strange, having several "publications" without any source. It makes me wonder if it possible to game that database. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC). reply
  • Google Scholar scrapes PDFs from anywhere and everywhere, leading to real oddities on occasion. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • It is good to see someone understand how google Scholar operates. I am amazed how some others try to make a big deal out of how Google scholar also scrapes up pdf files and working papers from everywhere. Look at the top cited papers books. Papers working papers published or put out on the web last few years are for most researchers irrelevant from a citation point of view etc. I mean how do we know if a paper put out the last couple of years will become well cited or not? Many researchers put out working papers to get feedback on ideas and critics (to improve their papers long before they even try to submit them to journals), why places such as research gate and other preprint archives like preprints.org, arxiv.org and vixra.org got very popular. EntropyFormula ( talk) 10:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • It is also possible to game it, for instance by claiming publications by others, replacing the bibliographic data on citations, or inappropriately merging listings of papers to combine their citation counts into a single bigger count. I don't really see evidence of that here, though. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is apparently possible to game the websites mentioned under "external links". He sold them the rocket equation as something new and made it look like a pure photon rocket with a high fuel to payload fraction would be realistic. -- mfb ( talk) 03:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm not finding in-depth reviews of his books, and having only two publications that are anything like well-cited is not enough for WP:PROF. (He coauthored with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, but notability is not transmitted across coauthorship links.) His physics "work" has been rightly ignored by the scientific community. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

"He sold them the rocket equation as something new and " Such comments indicates lack of understanding. There is simply a reference to a paper there published in Acta Astronautica, this is a peer reviewed well respected journal. This article can also be found in a pre-print version at Cornell's arXiv.org EntropyFormula ( talk) 08:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Xxanthippe wrote "The physics papers are free of content and supported only by self-citations. There are a few high-cited finance papers". Xxanthippe forget to refer also to books, the author has a book with over 900 citations, a large numbers of these (hundres) are in peer reviewed well respected journals in quant finance. It is likely one of the best known books among quants and traders that work with options. Options for professionals is a narrow field, but wikipedia is also about narrow fields, and well known names in these fields? Xxanthippe also wrote "The only possibility of notability that I see is WP:GNG for the subject's success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science". It clearly seems like Xxanthippe for some reasons is after this profile (the wikipage has been there for ages, why this defamatory attack now?, well it seems to be a line to follow). Parts of what Xxanthippe writes can possibly be considered libellous and defamation of character. That google scholar also refer to a lot of recent working papers not yet publishes, is this what Xxanthippe use to support his non scientific Libel?

""Libel - Definition

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession." EntropyFormula ( talk) 09:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Please be aware of a very strict Wikipedia policy of no legal threats. The last part of this comment is coming close to that bright line. jps ( talk) 09:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

No legal threats has been made, this do not mean we not should be aware of what society and also wikipedia ``consider" as defamation and libel ?? so we should all keep a nice tone on wikipedia, and point as much as possible to facts, and limit as much as possible subjective opinions and false claims. /info/en/?search=Defamation. Is this really the way one should operate on wikipedia as an editor, I am again referring to Xxanthippe comment "success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science" combined with him going in and basically just deleting most of a wikipage that has been up for many many years. And when someone come with something close to defamation we should possibly question what is their personal motives for such harsh editing and comments ? EntropyFormula ( talk) 10:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Possibly this comment is also interesting /info/en/?search=User_talk:Mitquant EntropyFormula ( talk) 10:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Would EntropyFormula like to say if he has any connection with the subject that could be considered WP:COI. If so he should declare it. I have no WP:COI in the matter myself. However, I have struck through the phrase that the editor objects to. If the editor objects to the characterization of the physics papers he could seek independent opinion at the physics notice board. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC). reply

I would point out that Mitquant has no edits other than those on their talk page, and their first edit was 27 September, an hour before EntropyFormula's posting above. This leads to some suspicion of Sockpuppetry. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

SteveMcCluskey I must say you claims/suspicion is wrong, and it looks like Mitquant already responded to this /info/en/?search=User_talk:Mitquant . EntropyFormula ( talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I will also like to return to Xxanthippe argumentation, that mostly seems to be based on populistic claims. Xxanthippe writes "The scholar profile is strange, having several "publications" without any source. It makes me wonder if it possible to game that database." I think Xxanthippe slander here shows that Xxanthippe try to cook soup on very little. Xxanthippe can go though lots of people on Google Scholars. Xxanthippe should be more specific how he think someone are Gaming google Scholar? Is it the many working papers there with only self citations Xxanthippe is referring to or exactly what is Xxanthippe referring to. Is Xxanthippe not familiar with google Scholar? Google Scholar automatically list a long series of papers, including working papers posted on a serie of working paper archives, such as research gate, and I think arxiv.org also as well as from other web sites. Productive researchers and writers tend write many papers. Many researcher (in particular when writing on narrow topics) only some of their works get cited a lot, other parts of their work not necessary cited. And when it comes to recent working papers it is very natural that they not are cited much yet by others, it can take years to get citations. Except from naturally the researcher himself/herself, if still working forward on the same "narrow" topic it is a natural thing to refer to own research when building forward on it. Xxanthippe should show evidence and not just try to come with populistic claims that he/she suspect gaming of Google Scholar. Also non of these working papers are even mentioned on the wiki page. What exactly is Xxanthippe point for indicating someone is Gaming google Scholar? that it is not allowed to write a lot of working papers? That working papers and all published papers need a lot of citations just for Google Scholar to pick them up? Do Xxanthippe really think a finance professor spend lots of time writing loads of working papers just to get a few papers with a few self citations when already a published book with more than 900 citations and paper with more than 100 citations? Possibly such academic exist, but it seems not very relevant even. It would be ridiculous only to write a lot of working papers just for the aim to get self citations in particular when it is so easy to check self citations with google Scholar. Xxanthippe seems here try to make it looks like Haug has gamed google Scholar with absolutely no evidence of it, listen again to what Xxanthippe claims "It makes me wonder if it possible to game that database." I do not think Xxanthippe is under paranoia? nor do I think Xxanthippe is a big conspiracy theorist? it is quite clear Xxanthippe use several populistic claims and drag out small parts of information and twist it into trying to ridicule someone and gain support from other editors. This so Xxanthippe can go ahead deleting something for whatever personal reasons Xxanthippe must have. This fit very well in with the view that this is very close to defamation, in particular when seen in connection to what else Xxanthippe has written, and how Xxanthippe has edited on this. EntropyFormula ( talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment. EntropyFormula, you need to read Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on personal attacks and legal threats. Short version: don't do either of those things. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete per WP:BIO1E. His "The complete guide to option pricing formulas" is well-cited but that seems to be the only claim to fame. It's not enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply

What is fame? we are talking about a profile known inside a very narrow topic. Is the phrase fame even very useful inside a narrow area. Still is wiki not also covering narrow fields?. Inside the narrow frame of quant finance it is naturally more than that one book. The whole point is Xxanthippe started mention google Scholar and he makes it looks like the author only have self citations this is not the case, except from his most recent papers and working papers. See also other book: Derivatives models on models over 60 citations. A paper co-authroed with Nassim Taleb "Option traders use (very) sophisticated heuristics, never the Black–Scholes–Merton formula" over 170 citations. People strongly criticizing others famous models (in well reputed published journals) will naturally have some people wanting to silence them, should possibly be taken into account when the history is written about who deleted or attempted to delete this profile? And how should people outside the narrow field of quant finance be able to judge who is known and not known in a narrow field?. A good idea would possibly be to make a long list of people listed on wiki in the field and see who should be removed and who not. Should not the burden on evidence not be on the people deleting a wiki page that have been there for very many years. Could someone specifically list why one has decided one wants to delete this profile now?. Only one seems to be under personal attacks here. It is then fair enough to point out that Xxanthippe are coming with claims that are on the borderline of defamation. And it looks like I am clearly not the only one with that opinion. EntropyFormula ( talk) 07:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Now I noticed also Xxanthippe claim "The physics papers are free of content". Even the few ones published in established peer reviewed journals?. And also all the working papers? A publishing process and way to many citations in research is possibly not as Xxanthippe possibly think it is? it is not like most researcher can write a paper, get it published the same day or week and then get a lot of citations immideatley. It is more like this (for many researchers): write a working paper, put it out on the web and or possibly present it on seminars etc, get some critics and feedback, improve it, possibly do the same again several times. When quality starts to feel great consider submit it to a journal, possibly accepted, often get feedback from reviewers on need improvement, possibly new round with improvements. Then some published, then often years before the work gets known and well cited. And lots of scientific research do never get well cited. The topic can be too narrow, or as with most researchers just footnotes (but even footnotes can be important enough) in the larger scope of science. So also this claim "The physics papers are free of content" seems to be on the borderline of defamatory, or is it even defamatory? Can someone better at this tell me more about what is wikipedias policy here? I mean should Xxanthippe then not at least show to one published critics showing this, or if not so at least point out specifically why he claim so. And this statement from Xxanthippe should not be seen in isolation, but I think together with his other claims such as "The only possibility of notability that I see is [>for the subject's success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science". . This is clearly not to do any personal attack towards Xxanthippe, this is to simply point out Xxanthippe very personal and close to defamatory attacks on a wikipedia profile. EntropyFormula ( talk) 08:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

So let us try to summarize why a handful of wikipedia editors now want to delete this wiki page

Xxanthippe claim "The physics papers are free of content" (but which one, the ones listed on the wiki page that the wiki profile evidently has written)

Xxanthippe claim "The only possibility of notability that I see is for the subject's success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science"

David Espstien claim "The complete guide to option pricing formulas" is well-cited but that seems to be the only claim to fame. It's not enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1.

mfb claim " He sold them the rocket equation as something new and made it look like a pure photon rocket with a high fuel to payload fraction would be realistic" did mfb understood anything written in that paper? The paper he must refer to is published in a well established peer reviewed journal. The paper clearly has a series of references to older paper on the Rocket equation so why then this very false claim that the paper present the rocket equation as something new? Is this yet another airy attempt to ridicule the wiki profile? The paper read by anyone that understand the topic even at a low level can see it is a suggested maximum velocity for matter and how that gives a ultimate limit on the Rocket equation. It is clear from the paper that there absolutely no one claiming the rocket equation as something new. And if he/she wants to criticize working papers (not even referred to on the wiki page) I will suggest he/she to come with specific critics or specific reliable references to critics.

Xxanthippe claim "The physics papers are free of content and supported only by self-citations." see comment further above on this page.

Claim by XOR'easter "I'm not finding in-depth reviews of his books" you do not have google and did not bother to google? http://www.espenhaug.com/0301_bookreviews.pdf, https://seekingalpha.com/article/110647-book-review-option-pricing-formulas-and-derivatives-both-by-espen-haug EntropyFormula ( talk) 08:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• I read those. Only the former counts as reliably published, and one review isn't enough for our standard. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

And yes then please take a look at the comments relevant to most of these claims also further up on the page! The pattern of very close to defamation by Xxanthippe is quite clear. If Xxanthippe has special motives (conflict of interest) for these attacks I suggest Xxanthippe should declare them now. EntropyFormula ( talk) 08:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Evaluating notability is standard on WP, I don't see evidence of COI about this (especially when the editor edited many different subjects since 2007). While there exist cases of COI editors wanting to delete articles, the usual case is COI edititing to promote by creating articles (or writing non-neutral content), etc. I see that you post lengthy comments here, so I recommend simply voting keep with concise policy-based arguments (in this case to demonstrate notability), the article can also still be improved meanwhile. When replying to a WP:!VOTE above, it's also best to reply inline under that one using indentation to thread the conversation (i.e. prefixing the paragraph with *:). Care should also be taken not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion, so moderation is recommended about the size and frequency of comments. — Paleo Neonate – 14:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article isn't making a claim to significance. Szzuk ( talk) 11:20, 1 October 2018 (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.