Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (4th 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 per WP:SK#2. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

No notable achievements B-Objective (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for raising this a 4th time but I and it appears other just don't see this as notable page for Wikipedia, much more notable pages have been deleted as far as I can see.

In simple english: 1. Winning a Math competition 4 times does not make someone notable on it's own.... 2. Filing a patent does not make someone notable. 3. Having failed to achieve a seat on the assembly does not make someone notable. 4. Being smart does not make someone notable.

And since the 80's there has be no activity whatsoever, achievements are notable and in this case I just don't see enough to make it a worthy entry. Clearly a smart guy but not a notable one... B-Objective (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — B-Objective (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. It doesn't matter that the last major activity was in the 80s, as notability is not temporary. If other 'more notable' pages have been deleted, it also doesn't matter, per WP:WAX. Rubin has received adequate press coverage, therefore keep.  Jujutacular  talk 11:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 11:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Jujutacular, I didn't know that press coverage was one of the criteria for academic notability, is this correct?

The academic criteria are as follows:

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. - NO. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. - An undergraduate math competition, prestigious yes but "Highly Prestigious"? NO. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) - NO. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. - NO. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. - NO. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. - NO. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. - NO. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. - NO. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. - NO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro-Voice (talk • contribs) 12:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:PROF, the page you're quoting these criteria from: If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria. The primary criterion of Notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hut 8.5 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

*Delete, sorry forgot to give my verdict.. Euro-Voice (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — Euro-Voice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Significant coverage in reliable sources" is the primary criteria for determining notability of any article, regardless of the subject. See the general notability guidelines.  Jujutacular  talk 12:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * is also the nominator of this AFD. – xeno talk 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources.  GB  fan  12:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Jujutacular and GB fan. Also, it's interesting how a new member with no previous contributions appears to know so much about the guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback, but Rubin being a "Mathematician" should have notability requirements fall under the Academic category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro-Voice (talk • contribs) 12:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that someone doesn't pass the academic notability criteria doesn't mean they don't pass the general notability criteria, a fact stated explicitly in the academic notability criteria. Hut 8.5 12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG, therefore all the arguments made by the nominator are irrelevant. I also strongly suspect sock- or meat-puppetry here. Hut 8.5 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hut, specifically how does it pass WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" I see very very little coverage. Euro-Voice (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An article in the LA Times specifically regarding the subject is not a trivial mention. – xeno talk  13:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like, obvious. Pointy nomination by attack SPA. Only confirmation so far by another attack SPA. Quack quack? DNFTT--Abd (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - clearly meets GNG. Seems to be ulterior motive to nomination; would suggest someone check the drawers. – xeno talk 13:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Already opened them, got my double barrel ready for some duck hunting. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Euro-Voice is canvassing SkipSmith, Bwithh, Nsk92, Crusio, BWH76 and Vufors  GB  fan  14:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And a good thing that is, otherwise I would not have seen this and would not have voted speedy keep, because this obviously meets GNG (even if WP:PROF is more doubtful). No idea why Euro-Voice canvassed me... --Crusio (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You wanted it deleted in 2008: Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination). I think he went through the previous nominations and left (biased) comments for anyone who has ever argued this article should be deleted, which clearly violates WP:CANVASS. Hut 8.5 14:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it. It did look somewhat familiar, but since 2008 I have learned more about WP and have also become more inclusionist... :-) --Crusio (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Obvious troll is obvious. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. This is basically the same nonsense that was floated in the Reid Barton AfD, so I'll give the same argument I gave there. The Putnam carries a prestige at the national level far outdistancing other types of recognition at the undergrad level, for which most people outside the world of mathematics have no appreciation. Moreso, Rubin is one of only a handful of people (seven, actually) to have ever attained 4-time-fellow status. Separately, his "Choosability in graphs" paper seems to have >400 citations alone (GS) – an enormous number for a mathematics paper and arguably enough on its own per the impact clause of WP:PROF #1. Nom already blocked, AfD a waste of time for this one, etc. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep - As known and regardless subject,the primary criteria for determining notability of any article must be the existence of references. Here, they do exist! Rirunmot 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
 * 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.