Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Robertson

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 05:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Robertson
Abraham Robertson garners 116 hits on google. Does holding a seat at the Savilian Chair of Geometry at the University of Oxford establish "enough" notability for inclusion on Wikipedia? No vote. GRider\talk 18:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Don't know how important he was, but seems at least a little interesting. Started out as a domestic servant who was sent to Oxford by his master when his talent was discovered.. There is no biography at the University of St Andrews mathematics site, which speaks against his inclusion. Very few hits on JSTOR. Is he included in the Dictionary of National Biography? If he is, I think he should be included here, otherwise perhaps merge what little information there is on him with the Savilian chair of geometry article, and do the same for other less notable holders of the chair. / u p p l a n d 19:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've checked and he in in the ODNB --nixie 06:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep then. If he is good enough for them, he is good enough for Wikipedia. / u p p l a n d 07:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Wyss 20:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't think teaching at Oxford alone is enough to be included here. He may be a promise that wasn't fulfilled. I would welcome more proof of his notability. JoaoRicardo 06:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. On second thought, considering that disk space is cheap, the man has been dead for centuries and the article doesn't advertise anything, keeping this will not do any harm. JoaoRicardo 06:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 09:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the ODNB is good enough for me. Paul August &#9742; 16:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)