Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (3rd 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   speedy keep. I see little good faith in this nomination, and the email canvas doesn't help Kevin (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Shaky to poor notability of subject; poor and/or unviewable sources; peacock terms; promotional and self-serving ► RATEL ◄ 02:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —► RATEL ◄  02:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No findings of substantial notability. Seems to have survived previous deletion attempts because he's an admin and has admin friends, although his block log tells a different story: ► RATEL ◄  02:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep & Speedy Close Notable, as before. Based on above comment and this edit, this AfD seems to be posted in bad faith. Dayewalker (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added the speedy close request above after this comment, as this bad faith nomination now appears to be dissolving into personal attacks and insults. By BLP, this probably should be closed quickly. Dayewalker (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not related. I simply came across the page while looking into Rubin because of his troubling abuse of sysop powers, and came across his non-notable wiki page. It's the sort of page I'd typically mark for speedy deletion. The fact that I think he's an awful admin is not the issue here at all. Don't muddy the waters please. ► RATEL ◄ 02:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments such as that one are what muddies the waters. If you have complaints about his admin ability, why don't you file an RfC about him? Blaming his article on your opinions of his admin abilities isn't going to influence anyone. Dayewalker (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon? Please take heed of what I said above: these are 2 separate issues. I'm not the only person to have found this article is not noteworthy. It has nothing to do with his sysop performance. Got it? ► RATEL ◄ 03:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Got it?" Yes, I got it, and I respectfully disagree. No need for this particular thread to continue. Good luck with all that. Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The third nomination of any AfD should be expected to contain new data and new analysis of the article content not mentioned in the previous ones. Arthur Rubin's 1979 paper with Paul Erdős on 'Choosability in graphs' gets 309 citations in Google Scholar, which is awfully good for a pure math paper. I invite the nominator to identify which of the 13 references he considers 'poor'. I don't know what he means by 'unviewable;' the sources appear to exist. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Ed, that search picks up papers by quite a few different Arthur Rubins.► RATEL ◄ 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable. Lara  03:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, this nomination needs to be watched. The nominator canvassed me via email to vote delete here based on a thread I started on AN/I a year and a half ago about the subject's use of administrative tools. Lara  03:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply alerting those who may be interested in this page, which I regard as self-promotional and not adequately meeting WP:PROF, as per comments in the other AfDs on this issue. The Arthur Rubin page is typical of the sort of page crying out for deletion: someone who once won some prizes in the USA for an academic subject, happened to be lucky enough to co-author with a famous mathematician (who himself doesn't seem to have made any breakthroughs in Mathematics, according to his wiki page), and now is apparently worthy of his own page here. This sort of junk would never make it into Britannica. ► RATEL ◄ 03:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're on a mission to yank his admin bit. This nomination seems to be a bad faith nomination. Regardless of your intentions, considering your current disagreements with the admin, you really shouldn't be the one to nominate this article, and I'm a hardcore deletionist when it comes to BLP, but not even I can find anything to grab on to here to drag it down. Furthermore, your email was a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. A simple alert goes on a talk page in the form of a neutral message, not an email requesting a delete vote. Lara  04:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, Lara, this guy is a nobody. He's one of those characters who peaked in college, you know, one step better than the guys who peak in high school. Giving him his own wikipage is absurd. You all know it. ► RATEL ◄ 04:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering you didn't give any actual reasons for deletion in your nom, perhaps you'd like to do that now. Lara  04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I never realised that having no real notability is not a reason for deletion. Please, why is he famous? Has he made any big contributions to mathematics? I don't care what his erdos number is, or how many brownie points he scored as a student, or his Shmenikowitz rank is, or what his PSA is. WHAT HAS HE DONE THAT'S REALLY NOTABLE? Sweet **, is what. ► RATEL ◄ 04:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fame" != notability. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:PROF is passed how? ► RATEL ◄ 05:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N overrides sub-guidelines; in this case, the article is sourced to sufficient reliable sources that cover the subject in detail to establish notability. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy close - Lara's comment above brings into question the motives behind this nomination. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not informing the subject (me) is certainly evidence of bad faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of whether I or the nominator should be the subject of an RfAr should be independent of this. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. Seems I'm starting to shoot from the hip, rather like you do, Arthur. ► RATEL ◄ 04:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator's comment above about Paul Erdős not having made any breakthroughs in mathematics betrays the nominator's poor knowledge of the subject, on top of his already-demonstrated bad faith: although Erdős may have published a lot of small papers he's also known for some big things, the probabilistic method high among them. And that one paper may be by far Rubin's most significant contribution as an academic, but it is significant as the citations attest (we have an article on its subject at list coloring which should probably be linked from Rubin's article). This doesn't fall under WP:BIO1E because, as well as that contribution, there are the Putnam results. I suggest a speedy close, not because this is a blatantly obvious keep (it's a keep, but I've seen far more obvious) but because it seems unlikely that an AfD with this sort of beginning is going to lead to a lot of light shed on the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the page on Erdős, which says he was more of a "problem solver" than a "theory developer" and contributed rather than broke new ground. but I bow to your greater knowledge while commenting that it seems wildly strange that merely co-authoring something with this guy is cause enough to have your own wikipage. ► RATEL ◄ 04:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Past AfDs used the argument that coauthorship with Erdős was enough to justify a keep, but I don't believe that to be true and it hasn't occurred yet in this AfD except in your own comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's so odd that previous afds on this page garnered quite a few Delete votes, but none this time, although instead we seem to be forming a bit of a gang against the nominator here. Time to consider the issue of whether the page should be kept and stop focussing on me. ► RATEL ◄ 05:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You might ask, what have you done to bring it upon yourself? And what might you do to calm the situation down? Hint: Continuing to reply to every single comment here is not the correct answer. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2009 (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.