Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. John254 03:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent. (Notability_(people)) This person deserves to be on the list, as he already is, but noone has provided references to support significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, even though reference was asked for almost two years ago. I don't know what notability guideline was like in the time of the first deletion discussion, but current notability guideline doesn't justify this article's inclusion. Lakinekaki (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Arthur_Rubin216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have stricken the above as it is incorrect and posted by an "anon" IP (see below). Verbal   chat  20:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He's there. The anon IP happens to be Lakinekaki.... -- Fyslee / talk 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Erdos Number Project datafile Erdos0, entry RUBIN, ARTHUR L. Also see P. Erdős, A. L. Rubin and H. Taylor (1979). "Choosability in graphs". Proc. West Coast Conf. on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing, Congressus Numerantium XXVI: 125–157. AfD hero (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In regards to bad faith nomination discussion by some below, I would really appreciate people don't use ad nominem arguments trying to guess my motives, but that they try to discuss the facts instead. I have requested reliable secondary sources more than a year ago, but none has been provided, and since I happened to interact with the User:Arthur Rubin recently, I took a look again at his WP page, and have noticed nothing has been done in regards to secondary sources, and have nominated article for deletion in accordance to WP:N_(People). I would have done it before if I had seen that sources were still missing. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to guess. Your motives are pretty obvious to anybody with half a brain.  --C S (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  03:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's a possible pass of WP:PROF #5 (known for originating an important new concept) from his 1979 paper with Erdős, “Choosability in graphs”: it has 241 citations (quite high for a pure math paper), and choosability is an important subtopic of graph coloring theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Really sorry to do this since the Arthur Rubin is a valued member of the Wikipedia community and an excellent admin (and the previous AfD seems to have been a bad faith nom), but I do not see this article as passing either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Putnam is a student competition and the victories there do not really confer either biographical or academic notability. Same goes for the Erdos number 1: having co-authored a paper with a famous person does not make an academic notable. As for AR's own academic record, I did quite a bit of searching in MathSciNet and the WebOfScience. MathSciNet lists 12 papers by him, the last one in 1997. Of them the only one that shows high citability is the joint paper with Erdos and Taylor "Choosability in graphs" from 1980 which does have 103 citations in MathSciNet (GoogleScholar gives 241 citations for this paper). The other 11 papers (that are not joint with famous mathematicians) show either zero or low single digits citation hits in MathSciNet and WoS (similar results in GoogleScholar). Sorry, but in my view this just does not add up to academic notability per WP:PROF.  David Eppstein is correct that one can possibly argue here for passing criterion 5 of WP:PROF, being known for originating an important new concept. But since the paper in question is joint with two other people, one of whom is a really famous mathematician (Erdos), and none of the other papers show significant citability, I am not inclined to accept the criterion 5 argument in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added citations which demonstrate some real-world notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what this reference you added shows, or cite a relevant sentence from it? Lakinekaki (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I had javascript disabled. Here it is: The Charleston Gazette- Tun.. May'21.1974 MATH GENIUS Arthur Rubin, whose days are numbered at Cal Tech, is the 18-year-old son of professors at Michigan State University. Capabilities Undetermined When a problem in math arises, even the gray- haired professors at the California school say without hesitation, "Ask Arthur." In Cal Tech Asks Arthur FATHER'S DAY GIFTS Tools Trains FOUNTAIN HOBBY CENTER Comer W. Wash. St., Bigley Ave. Phone 344-1441 By Jim Stingley The Los Angeles Times PASADENA, Calif. Ar- thur Rubin is to the mathe- matics world what Pegasus...
 * Lakinekaki (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the astute analysis of Nsk92 and the added reference from Colonel Warden nothwithstanding. --Crusio (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've found very few independent, third-party sources in which Mr. Rubin is the subject of the article. Doesn't appear to pass WP:Notability nor WP:PROF.  BWH76 (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have found sources in which Mr Rubin is the subject then he thereby meets our test of notability. That the sources are few in number is not relevant because notability explicitly does not require that the subject is important.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I didn't choose my words well. I've found no sources in which Rubin is the subject of the article.BWH76 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable academic, per CW and previous AfD discussion. The article seems well sourced and can be easily improved. Verbal   chat  09:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: One source provided actually writes about his mother and his name is mentioned in only one sentence:...survived by her son, Arthur Rubin of Brea, California... Another source is accessible only to people who pay subscription, so there is really no way for me to tell how significant coverage he received. Third source is cited above in part, and it seem to talk about a AR while he was a college kid, so that's hardly something that establishes Academic notability. Here is an example of a young mathematician who did establish academic notability. Finally, book source presented is just a duplicate of already existing source that lists Putnam winners in time. If a person is notable, one shouldn't need to go through these pains and subscription services to eventually find one or two articles about the person. In regards to publications, Nsk92 quite said it all. Lakinekaki (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An article topic is not required to establish academic notability. Articles are not even required to establish any kind of notability as the concept is just a general guideline to assist us in the creation of articles.  If you want to delete some sourced content like this, rather than keeping it or merging it, then you really need a policy to support your opinion.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the first time in an AfD that I hear that notability is not needed! As for academic notability, WP:PROF is actually designed to make it easier for academics to become notable, because for several reasons they often fail to satisfy WP:BIO even if they have major accomplishments. Rubin seems to fail both WP:BIO and WP:PROF to me and as Lakinekaki shows, the references that you added only show this person exists, not that he is notable in an encyclopedic sense. --Crusio (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter because Mr Rubin is evidently notable but FYI be aware that WP:N is comparatively new, being less than two years old and is not a Wikipedia policy nor a core policy. Per WP:PG, "Policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature.". Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that User:Lakinekaki's opinion is influenced by other articles at AFD such as Process equation and this nomination might be a case of WP:POINT. User:Lakinekaki's !vote is also misleadingly redundant to his nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is rather disconcerting and suggests that the nominator has an axe to grind with Rubin, instead of just being concerned about Wikipedia's content. I will maintain my delete vote for the moment because I am not convinced that Rubin is notable (and he certainly is not "evidently notable" as Colonel Warden asserts), but if this really is a case of WP:POINT I'll change my vote to neutral and will wait to vote delete in a future third nomination. Lakinekaki, please comment on the POINT accusation . --Crusio (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse my persistence but we should be clear about the facts of the matter. I did not simply assert that Mr Rubin was notable but provided evidence of same.  Do you dispute that the LA Times and Charleston Gazette are "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, of course I do not doubt that these sources are reliable and independent. Unfortunately, I have no access to these archives so I cannot see the articles for myself. Presence of sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition for notability and I just don't think that notability in an encyclopedic sense has been established. I may be wrong, but that's my opinion and there we are. --Crusio (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. AfD hero (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would only have it backwards if one would omit the word "significant" from your quote above. I agree that this topic has received coverage from reliable, independent sources, but I don't think this coverage is significant... As far as the remarks further below concern, up until this AfD (which I saw because I have "the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions" watchlisted, I had never even heard of Rubin. --Crusio (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the significance of high-scoring the putnam and having Erdos number 1 may be lost on people who are unfamiliar with the world of mathematics. That is like having the all-time college 100 yard dash record, and then running a relay race in the olympics with Maurice Green. AfD hero (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the significant coverage in the LA Times and Charleston Gazette already mentioned above (which automatically demonstrates notability), I think a lot of the problem here is that people here are comparing A. Rubin to professionals in the field and trying to apply WP:Prof, even though it doesn't really apply (hes not even an academic at this point). He might meet WP:Prof due to his collaboration with Erdos and his work on set theory, but this isnt really the right test to apply. A better test, IMO, would be the would be the subsection of ATHLETE directed at top-level ameture athletes. He passes this as he has won the most prestigous event in a non-athletic competitive field (math competitions). AfD hero (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. His Putnam results are covered in that topic/page. I did note the word "Genius"  in a quote... Mmmmmmmm and after all these years... 12 papers. The problem I see is this, using this level of distinction to get a wiki page, would mean just about every Uni Grad at his age (52) should then have a wiki entry. If I could see more news public domain references then that would be a OK... but winning a prize? Vufors (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite his comments and actions as an admin and editor that have led to Requests_for_arbitration and his editorial talk page comments informing us that he has at least a 160 point IQ !!!
 * Anyway, I strongly believe that based on his accomplishments outside of wikipedia he is notable. And I believe that because of the perception about his poor behavior as an editor and admin that much of this AFD is motivated by ill-will and possibly even revenge. None of which should have anything to do with an AFD. Editors and admins of wikipedia should avoid even the perception of such pusillanimous behavior.   --Firefly322 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep topping the Putnam and having an Erdos no. of 1 would be enough Sceptre (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep bad faith nomination by user due to Arthur's !vote at Articles for deletion/Process equation. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am sorry to see that much of the discussion concerns AR's role here on Wikipedia. Whether people have positive or negative feelings about him as a Wikipedian should really not be a factor in their decisions in this AfD and both grudge votes and sympathy votes should be avoided. The nom may be bad faith (I am not sure), but there are in fact valid policy-based reasons for deletion here. On the substance, let me address some of the above comments. In terms of   academic notability (in the sense of WP:PROF) student competitions like Putnam do not count (academic notability refers to notability for one's research). Erdos number 1 is not   an indicator of academic notability either. It is a well-established general principle in the application of all the notability guidelines that notability is not inherited (being a co-author, a child, a parent, a spouse of a notable person does not, in and of itself, make one notable). Neither is the Erdos number 1 indicative of particular importance of one's research. In terms of mathematical importance, Erdos was a somewhat arbitrary point in the mathematical universe and his name gave rise to the notion of an Erdos number not because of some special importance of his work but becuase he had a very large number of co-authors (I think over a 500 of them). There are many other modern mathematicians whose work is arguably more important and influential than that of Erdos, e.g. Andrew Wiles, Grigory Perelman, Mikhail Gromov, but having a small collaboration distance from either of them is not, by itself, an indicator of academic notability either. In terms of biographical notability under WP:BIO, I don't think there is a convincing case either. The same "notability is not inherited" considerations apply to the Erdos number 1 arguments. As for Putnam, I can't really seriously accept applying WP:ATHLETE here. Putnam is manifestly not an athletic competition, but a student academic contest. In terms of analogies with WP:ATHLETE, however, college sports participation is generally not enough for passing WP:ATHLETE either. One is required to either compete at the professional level in professional sports leagues or at the highest level of non-professional sports, such as world championships, olympic games, etc. The same logic applied to this case would imply that victories in college competitions of any other kind (academic contests, debate teams, singing contests, whatever) are not, by themselves, indicators of notability (they could be if there is significant coverage of such victories by independent reliable sources, but that is not the case here either). The bottom line is, I don't see either the requirements of WP:PROF or of WP:BIO being satisfied here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Athlete may be applied to nonathletic competitive events such as poker, chess, even "Magic: The Gathering" the card game. The notability criterion for amature non-athletic competitors is that they have ranked very highly in one of the most prestigious competitions, which the Putnam certainly is.
 * The Putnam is not just some random club. It is the highest level of math competition. As you might say, the world championship of competitive math. Winning the Putnam is probably harder than winning a gold medal at the olympics. The median score is often 0 out of 120, and the only people who take it are already hardcore undergrauate mathematics majors. People who do well (not even necessairily winning) get instant access to basically do whatever they want in math - any graduate program will take them, top mathematicians will work with them (such as Erdos...), their college will put their names in the promotional literature, etc. The reason it gets less newspaper coverage than, say, a big sports event (and by the way, it did get coverage, see the LA times article and the Charleston Gazette articles) is not because its any less unimportant, but rather for the same reason that you don't see math competitions on ESPN. AfD hero (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a professional mathematician myself and I have to deal with Putnam exams fairly frequently, as students from my university regularly participate in them and as faculty members we are regularly asked to help them with the preparation. So I know what Putnams are better than most. Trust me you are quite mistaken when you say that Putnam competitions are comparable to the olympics in terms of the kind of excellence, talent and preparation that is required. There is simply no comparison. Unlike say, poker, chess or other bona fide sports, competitions in math do not exist other than at a student level and in this way math contests are more similar to spelling bees. There are no professional or high level "adult" competitions in either math or spelling, so comparing math contests with amateure sports that do have a well-defined system of national and international competitions at both junior and adult level is rather misleading. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Category:Spelling bee champions. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen it and I must say that I am not a fan of that category either. Most spelling bee champions do not have separate articles about them and in fact WP:BLP1E should apply even to those few cases that do have such articles. I would, perhaps, be willing to accept that some spelling bee champs are notable but only if they receive significant coverage that goes beyond the of around the time when the spelling bee takes place. It is also true that spelling bees are in fact much more high profile events than Putnams, National spelling bee competitions are televised, they are usually covered in the national press and on TV etc. That is not the case for Putnams. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS seems to apply here. --Crusio (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You do have a point about there being no adult equivalent, but in terms of excellence required I think you are wrong. Just look at the list of winners... It's filled with Fields medal winners, Nobel prize winners, many top mathematicians of the 20th century. If you wanted to win in 1948, for example, you had to beat Robert Mills... Not going to happen unless you have incredible skills. I also don't know what goes on at your institution, but where I did my undergraduate people did take it seriously like a sport. Finally, its not like this guy just did well or won it once - he was one of the winningest competitors in the history of the competition and won it 4 years in a row.
 * As for WP:othercrap, 1 or 2 articles, or a larger number of randomly assorted articles is othercrap. A whole category is evidence of community concensus.AfD hero (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe things were different in 1940s and 1950s but now Putnams are not viewed as that big of a thing. I work at a large public research-oriented university and our team always does fairly well on the national Putnam competition. But, as far as I know, people don't really train for it during the year as everybody is too busy with their own studies. Each year around the end of September we get an e-mail reminding us that Putnams are coming and that we should encourage our better students to participate. There is a bit of advertising and then there is a meeting in October where interested students and faculty meet. Then there is a bit of training for about a month, but certainly nothing like professional sports or olympics. After the Putnams in early December everything goes back to the usual routine until the next October. That's how it works here and, frankly, I don't imagine things being very different at other departments. Students, especially good students, have too much on their plates anyway to take this stuff too seriously. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * neutral While I agree with Nsk92's analysis, I just can't get past the role that Articles for deletion/Process equation clearly plays in this nomination. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close I have to agree with those above that this is in retaliation for Articles for deletion/Process equation (which I also didn't think to be valid). People, this is not how you resolve disputes. I question the notability here as some have, but this is not productive. An editor without prior involvement can bring it back in a month if they're still worried. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. This debate has been poisoned by too many extraneous things. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 103 citations for a paper he wrote on mathscinet is fairly humongous. Even if it's in collaboration with a more famous mathematician, I think Mr. Rubin meets criterion #3 of WP:PROF -- he has published a work which is significant, to put it mildly, and has been widely cited. I don't think two other coauthors is sufficient to dilute the notability there. Now if this had been one of those gigantic collaborations with 500 co-authors .... RayAYang (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note The nominator, who had a possible CoI in bringing this AfD, claims to have left wikipedia, at least as a named editor, on their talk page. Is this relevant? Their reason is given as... deletionism. Should this be closed/withdrawn in that light? Verbal   chat  21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are misinterpreting what the nominator gave as a reason. It seems that he was referring to some editors here as being hypocritical about deletions. This should not be closed, but further discussed. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This anon IP happens to be Lakinekaki, who is "the nominator". The comment above is deceptive. -- Fyslee / talk 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There appear to be news articles about him. I don't see how he doesn't meet WP:N.  And being in the top 5 in the Putman exam certainly adds to notability in my mind.  Lots and lots of people take it and it's a very big deal.  We used to use its results to judge which students to recruit for summer research projects. Hobit (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The repeated success in the Putnam plus the news articles is sufficient.I wouldn't want to argue that coming in the top 5 one time only is automatic notability, but this extraordinary record certainly is. DGG (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but this should be covered in the Putman page, not as a stand alone entry. He is one of four? Vufors (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I know nothing about the subject of the article aside from the article itself (and what has now been written in this AfD). I'm a bit surprised, though, that many editors have the opinion that two newspaper articles constitutes "significant coverage."  I must admit that I cannot access these two articles, so I can't even judge whether Rubin is even the focus of either one.  I may be missing something, but how does this pass for significant coverage in independent, verifiable sources?  BWH76 (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N defines its terms: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.". The newspaper articles seem to satisfy this and it seems that there are likely to be others from that era that are more difficult to locate online.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I understand this. At the same time, though, only two independent sources (particularly if we cannot verify if they in fact do cover this subject in depth, relating to the claims of notability, etc.) that cover any individual is generally not enough to establish that individual's notability.  Assuming that there may be more sources out there that cover this individual is no good, either.  Again, I have no real interest in this article one way or another.  If we can dig up more verifiable independent sources, it would be a no-brainer keep.  Until then, it would appear that we're assuming notability of the subject instead of demonstrating the subject's notability; this doesn't meet our guidelines. BWH76 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it is spelled out anywhere but my understanding is that the existence of two sources is usually considered enough. Please bear in mind that notability is just a  guideline, that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that no-one has pointed to any policy or commonsense reason to delete this article.  My impression is that such nominations are mostly a matter of petty jealousy or spite rather than any more useful consideration.  Elsewhere we have some moaning that we have many thousands of professional footballers with articles.  The consensus seems to be that this is not a problem.  Readers who don't care for such articles should just move on. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Outstanding Putnam record and Erdos number of 1 both clearly establish notability under the "has received a notable award or honor" criteria. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Erdos number 1 is neither an award nor honor; nor is it a sign of notability, per the well-established "notability is not inherited principle". Nsk92 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Nsk92: Of course it is an honour ! Erdos was prolific but he didn't collaborate with just anyone ! And would you dismiss Nobel laureates (incidentally, a group of similar size to those with Erdos number 1) as only "notable by inheritance" ? I don't think so. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what are you talking about? Being a Nobel prize winner is, of course, an honor, but having co-authored a paper with a Nobel prize winner is not an honor or award. There is a well-established principle "notability is not inherited" in application of all the notability guidelines which says that having a close association (e.g. being a co-author a family member a friend, etc) of a famous person does not, in and of itself, make one notable. Moreover, honors and awards are awarded (usually by some notable organization or society); an Erdos number or having a small collaboration distance from any other famous person is not awarded. So in this technical sense it is not an award or honor either. Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Nsk92: I believe that a Erdos number of 1 is a significant honour and is prima facia evidence of notability. You do not. We can agree to differ on that. But there is no need for an uncivil response such as "what are you talking about ?". Such rudeness can only weaken your arguments. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I was being rude (I did start with "Sorry"), but if you found my comments rude, I apologize, I certainly did not mean them to be. On the substantive issue, it is not simply a matter of agreeing to disagree. If you have valid arguments for your position, I'd like to hear them, and I think others would too. As I said, in my opinion, your comparison with the Nobel prize winners is flawed for two reasons. First Nobel prizes are in fact awarded (an Erdos number is not). Second, an Erdos number is more like having co-authored a paper with a Nobel Prize winner rather than like having actually won a Nobel Prize. There is a long standing consensus on the "notability is not inherited" principle which applies to both people who co-authored papers with Nobel winners and to people who co-authored papers with Erdos (or any other famous scientist for that matter). The fact that one has co-authored such a paper is not, in and of itself, an evidence of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nsk92's (really not very uncivil) response. A co-author of a Nobelist is not by that single fact notable, neither are their cousins, nieces, or parents. The same goes for Erdos and people who published with him. --Crusio (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I find Nsk92's argument that co-authors of mathematicians far more influential than Erdos (eg. Andrew Wiles, Grigory Perelman, Mikhail Gromov) aren't considered automatically notable for that act alone to be a perfectly sensible refutation of Gandalf61's point, and just can't see any uncivility from him in the exchange above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - his accomplishments in the Putnam was covered by mutliple reliable sources inluding the LA Times which isn't small potatoes.  On this alone, I'd !vote keep although some might argue that it might be WP:BLP1E.  But when you combine this with a highly cited paper, it takes it beyond a single event.  -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you provide links/references to the multiple sources you mentioned? I see the LA Times article, though can't read it.  What others did you find?  BWH76 (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the references that are already in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep well-referenced article on an encyclopaedic subject of interest to our readers. No spam/promotional/blp concerns. It would be nice to have a little more basic biographical information, but this is definitely a net positive for the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh  14:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG D3L3T3/K33P. This AFD is already a farce, by the way.  Close the discussion.  I hate to see the nominator get the satisfaction of getting back at Arthur Rubin, even if it's in a minor way like this one.  --C S (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject, adequate sources for encyclopedia article, and no reason to deprive our readers of information about a notable scholar. DickClarkMises (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable by wikipedia standards. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable per the evidence given above. --Crossmr (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Winning the Putnam the maximum number of times establishes notability, in my view, per criterion #6 of WP:PROF.  Would anyone like to track down the other six?  The list is here.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but your logic is quite incorrect here. It does not matter for the outcome of this AfD (it is clear that the article will be kept and the AfD should probably be closed per WP:SNOW), but WP:PROF is a guideline that deals with academic notability, that has always been understood as notability for one's academic research. Victories in Putnams and other types of academic student competitions do not establish such notability. Such vicitories could go towards notability under WP:BIO as User:AfD hero argues above, but certainly not under WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation. The Putnam is a prestigious academic award, and there is nothing in WP:PROF indicating that the awards need to have occurred after some point in the academic career.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 15:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not about a point in one's academic career when an award takes place but rather what the award is given for. It is possible for an academic to prove a great theorem, to make a significant discovery or to make another valuable research contributions while still a graduate student or an undergraduate student (or even without having gone to college at all) and awards and honors for such achievements would be perfectly relevant for WP:PROF (the recent proof that deciding if a number is prime can be done in polynomial time, which involved a team of Indian researchers including several undergraduate students is a good example of such an achievement). However, WP:PROF as a guideline is about academic notability, which means notability for the person's research and innovations. Awards and honors that are not related to such research and innovation but are given for other kinds of achievements do not contribute to academic notability but rather to general biographical notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but there seems to be no textual support for this particular point of view. Perhaps you should make a case at WP:PROF that the award must be given for research, and not for other sorts of academic achievements.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is completely correct, the current text of the guideline does not spell it out. However in my experience this is how the guideline has been consistently applied and understood, so I would argue on the basis of the "spirit of the guideline" here. However, the point is largely academic -:) for the purposes of this AfD anyway. It seems clear that the AfD should be closed as keep per WP:SNOW. Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting (I hate deletion debates) but I think that the position that WP:PROF does confer notability on the four-time Putnam champs requires a little too much wikilawyering to be really tenable. That notability guideline lists five conditions which are clearly dependent on the person actually being a researching academic, and a sixth which is not clearly so; the intent, however, is clear, and it rather harms the argument for notability if the main support is a technicality.  Better, as Nsk92 said, to test against WP:BIO, though I note that there, persons notable for only one event are suggested not to be worth their own article, and it's been suggested that the athletics notability guideline doesn't cut it for the Putnam either.  However, again, going by technicalities is the wrong way; the guy is nearly unique in a pretty prestigious competition, he has a well-cited paper with a big mathematician, and someone called him a genius in the paper when he was 18.  As it is, his accomplishments as given in the article are not much by comparison with, say, Gregory Chaitin (another former teenage genius), but trying to argue that it falls just on the bad side of notability because of the exact prestige status of the Putnam or his particular relationship with academia is too petty to really take seriously.  Again, that's not a vote; it's just a comment on the debate. Ryan Reich (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting (I hate deletion debates) but I think that the position that WP:PROF does confer notability on the four-time Putnam champs requires a little too much wikilawyering to be really tenable. That notability guideline lists five conditions which are clearly dependent on the person actually being a researching academic, and a sixth which is not clearly so; the intent, however, is clear, and it rather harms the argument for notability if the main support is a technicality.  Better, as Nsk92 said, to test against WP:BIO, though I note that there, persons notable for only one event are suggested not to be worth their own article, and it's been suggested that the athletics notability guideline doesn't cut it for the Putnam either.  However, again, going by technicalities is the wrong way; the guy is nearly unique in a pretty prestigious competition, he has a well-cited paper with a big mathematician, and someone called him a genius in the paper when he was 18.  As it is, his accomplishments as given in the article are not much by comparison with, say, Gregory Chaitin (another former teenage genius), but trying to argue that it falls just on the bad side of notability because of the exact prestige status of the Putnam or his particular relationship with academia is too petty to really take seriously.  Again, that's not a vote; it's just a comment on the debate. Ryan Reich (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Referenced reliably. Verifiably notable. End of story. Antelan  14:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - notable enough. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.