Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (5th 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. Speedy keep. We've covered this ground. Nominator's account possibly compromised. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

The references provided for this article do not satisfy the requirements for notability. Many of these references are by-lines. These are not secondary sources. Further, they are not about the subject, they only contain contributions by the subject, and do not establish notability. Several of them do not meet the reliability test because they are not accessible. No listed source "addresses the subject directly in detail", which is the first requirement for notability in WP:NOTABILITY.

I think it is important to note that while this article has survived several nominations, its subject (and frequent editor) is an administrator here, and as such, should be held to a very high standard. He is free to share this information on his user page, and on Linked-In, but this does not belong in the main wiki. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is about time this matter was settled once and for all and a rigorous determination made as to exactly why (or why not) the subject fulfills Wikipedia's BLP notability standards. In the last AfD the debate was closed after only eight hours, an improper closure as it did not allow for the full 24 hour work/sleep cycle of Wikipedians throughout the world. I ask that this AfD be kept open for the regulation seven days to allow the full consideration that will put a permanent end to these repeated shenanigans. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete. I add a pro forma delete to discourage premature closure but I will be very happy to reverse this upon the presentation of convincing evidence for notability based upon accepted Wikipedia guidelines. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment. I may not vote, but almost all scientists have a bibliography section.  In this case, the editors appear to be using the papers as evidence I have written in those fields; primary sources, but generally adequate.  A secondary source would be the Math Reviews entry, which hardly anyone here has access to.  As for sources which are not accessible, you are absolutely wrong.  Print sources may be reliable even if not on the Internet.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources do not have to be accessible to be reliable. That is absolutely not the case: reliable independent secondary sources only have to exist. They do not have to be online, or free, or in multiple libraries. They only have to exist. --NellieBly (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. We've done this enough times already, and this nomination adds nothing new. Jowa fan (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2012 (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.