Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (6th 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. As in all previous discussions. The nominator has been blocked as a sock. Subsequent nominations should be speedily closed if not made by a well-established editor.  Sandstein  12:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Not notable, un-sourced 1. (un-sourced) Categorised as a scientist/mathematician, an aerospace engineer, a libertarian - there is no a single source supporting a 21st-century American mathematicians and an aerospace engineer notability - a singe unsuccessful run to represent the 55th district in the 1984 California State Assembly elections makes him not a notable libertarian 2.(un-sourced) No much needed secondary and tertiary sources. After reading his mother's obituary, the article about his unsuccessful run to represent the 55th district, and any of the papers he co-authored, is not possible to conclude that the article is about the same person 3. (not notable) Primary sources - co-authored papers The list of the papers in mathematics below shows that he co-authored 7 articles with his mother. Out of 10 in the list below 8 of them are cited just 12 times together (self-citations excluded). The average is 1.5 citations per paper. Some of them not cited at all. The only paper cited frequently (900 times) is the "Choosability in Graphs". This paper is about a graph coloring method already invented and developed by Soviet mathematicians (Vizing, Borodin) three years earlier. Also A. Rubin co-authored other 6 articles in engineering all low cited. Only two of them are cited more that 10 times.  The main problem is: A Rubin's contributions to mathematics and engineering cannot be separated and evaluated independently on the co-authors, therefore it's not possible to get a valid judgement about his scientific work significance and notability.

Note. This nomination shall be kept open for discussion at least seven days. Previous three nominations were closed just after a couple hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taribuk (talk • contribs)


 * Keep --- h-index of 32, Erdos number of 1. This is an extraordinarily irresponsible nomination.  And the nominator doesn't get to decide how long the discussion stays open for.  This is an obvious speedy and snow keep. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how you got an h-index of 32? Others here are getting much lower numbers. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Comment Erdos number is just a folklore (Chomsky's Erdos number is 4, for example), it's a Wikipedia requirement to keep discussion open at least seven days--Taribuk (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. h-index of 32? I get an h-index of 4. Could this be clarified before closure? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC).
 * I apologize. I blindly accepted the result of a Chrome plugin instead of counting myself.  I struck the h-index claim and I won't be using that plugin any more. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. These tools are unreliable because they cannot distinguish between people with the same name working in different fields. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Which category of notability do you think is passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Well, let's take this calmly (please). Speedy keeps have 5 times failed to resolve the discussion, so one might guess there was something to discuss, and I do think we should have this open for a full week this time. We inherently respect Arthur Rubin for his work here on Wikipedia: let us set that aside, as work here is very unlikely to earn notability (if we exclude spending one's life deleting the phrase "is comprised of"). What does that leave? There's one co-authored paper (with Erdős) that has been cited 900 times; and a series of student prizes. He's a notable Wikipedian, but that's not the same as a notable mathematician. As for the politics and the engineering, they are worthy but not notable. I remain to be convinced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur. I have long had doubts about the notability of him and personally, I think we should be extra strict when dealing with the notability of Wikipedians. It's pretty obvious that if Arthur weren't an editor, then it's very unlikely this would ever have existed, and if the maths prize sources were used to try and justify the notability of a young person today, it would be deemed insufficient. SmartSE (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources "Caltech Math Wiz," "The First U.S.A Mathematical Olympiad," and those relating to the Putnam fellowship meet WP:GNG. The Putnam fellowship meets WP:NACADEMIC's standard The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.  Meeting GNG and NACADEMIC are sufficient, he does not need to meet WP:NPOL as well.  Isolated facets of an article do not need to individually be notable in and of themselves provided there is a notable core. I'm not seeing the relevance of your "Primary sources - co-authored papers" bit.  Those are not actually cited anywhere in the current article (some of them are just mentioned), and they have no relevance one way or the other on his notability.  An article based on those sources would need to be deleted, but that's not the case here at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please explicitly state which multiple (3?) sources you think are enough to meet GNG? Only the LA Times article looks good to me. Regarding "highly prestigious academic award or honor" in my mind, this would be something like a Nobel Prize or prestigious award from a national academy, not an undergraduate scholarship. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have checked the full text of "The First U.S.A Mathematical Olympiad" and literally the only content in relation to Rubin is: Arthur Rubin West Lafayette H. S. West Lafayette, Ind.. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Similarly The Putnam Competition from 1938-2008 states only: Only seven people - ... Arthur Rubin... have been Putnam Fellows four times and: Most likely the youngest is Arthur Rubin, who was a winner in 1970 at age 14. SmartSE (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep if you're going to nominate an article for deletion which has been kept many times before then you should be prepared to respond to the reasons it was kept earlier. This nomination doesn't do that. The reasons are:
 * Subject meets WP:GNG, in particular that he was the subject of an article in the Los Angeles Times (amongst others).
 * Subject meets WP:PROF, specifically points 1 and 2, as demonstrated by the citations of his work and recognition he has received.
 * You also don't get to dictate how long an AfD lasts just because you nominated it. If some admin decides to close this as speedy keep then you can't stop them.  Hut 8.5  21:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You say "meets WP:GNG" and mention he had a LAT article. That isn't "multiple reliable sources".
 * You say "meets WP:PROF points 1 and 2". Does it? Here they are:
 * "1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
 * That seems very doubtful here; co-authoring one paper alongside someone famous does not demonstrate that the impact was due to AR (it was far more likely the famous co-author); and no independent reliable sources have been provided to demonstrate it, so we doubt any such exist.
 * "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."
 * Well, student awards, even well-known ones, don't come up to that standard, surely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you've wrapped "multiple reliable sources" in quotation marks, because that makes it look like the phrase is found in one of the pages you're referencing, and it isn't. Sure, we can speculate about whether the impact of that paper is down to Rubin or the highly distinguished researcher he was collaborating with, but it would just be speculation and the mere fact he was collaborating with Erdos at that level says something. The paper does have an extremely large number of citations (over 900 according to Google Scholar), and he is named as a prominent author on it, which is evidence of his impact on the field. Sure, most student awards don't qualify, but we are not talking about a normal student award, indeed the article says it is "widely considered to be the most prestigious university-level mathematics competition in the world", and Rubin is one of a very small number of people to have been named as a Fellow four times.  Hut 8.5  22:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Putnam competitions and the Math Olympiads are student level awards/accomplishments and they do not contribute to academic notability per WP:PROF. (Note that WP:PROF explicitly says the following on this point: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.") GScholar gives h-index of about 5 . There is one highly cited paper, with several co-authors, including a very famous mathematician (Erdos). I don't think there is a case for academic notability here. One could argue for passing WP:GNG on the basis of high school and college math competitions, but the case appears to be insufficient to me there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For those who are interested in additional citability data, MathSciNet lists 12 publications by him in total, with top citation hits of 328,4,1,1,1. Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Does that catch the engineering citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Some, but not all (also for math citations that occurred prior to 2000 MathSciNet coverage is fairly spotty). A WebOfScience search gives more complete results. The paper with Erdos is not indexed there because it was published in a conference proceedings back in 1980, well before WoS started indexing such things. However, a cited reference search for the title of the paper ("Choosability in graphs") does give a list of citations for that paper, about 440 in total. Most are in discrete math publications. The second most cited article in MathSciNet, with 4 citations there ("Stability index of invariant subspaces of matrices"), has 7 citations produced by a cited reference search in the WebOfScience. Nsk92 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Provisional delete on basis of failure to satisfy WP:Prof until h-index is clarified. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC).
 *  Delete Keep - as above. By the way, I think the h-index is 6, based on (900, 13, 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, ...), but it certainly isn't much higher than that, and so it is far from meeting WP:PROF. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, if I understand the toings and froings, we are agreed that this fails WP:PROF, but there's a consensus that WP:GNG is passed by a) sharing a famous paper and b) being probably the only person to get a Putnam fellowship 4 times over. That at least sounds like a reasonable claim to go along with, without feeling that we're overly subject to special pleading in this case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * GNG requires substantial coverage in multiple sources. We have yet to find those sources. SmartSE (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm highly skeptical of the good faith of this nomination; the reason for the many past speedy closures is that people with Wikipedia editing disputes with Rubin keep nominating this article for deletion as a way to retaliate. And the past Arbcom case shows both that Rubin has enemies who will persistently snipe at him, and that Rubin has reacted badly enough to that sniping to encourage his enemies to continue with their attacks. Regardless, let's look at the merits of the case.
 * A single highly-cited paper is probably not enough for WP:PROF. But perhaps as this recent article would argue the problem is with our standards rather than with the article. We should note that it's not just any paper; it's one that introduced a central topic on graph theory (Google scholar lists over 2500 papers that match the phrase "list coloring", so I think the concept has become so commonplace that people don't always cite the original work on it and that its citation count underestimates its influence) and is one of (depending on how you count) the five or ten most frequently cited of Paul Erdős's papers. So it's not merely "he has a paper with Erdős", but "he has a paper that, even among papers with Erdős, is famous". And given the well known collaboration patterns of Erdős, I think we can safely assume that, although Erdős surely provided some of the insights in the paper, a lot of the work of coming up with the problem to work on and making it a paper came from its other authors.
 * Putting that aside as well, I think he passes WP:GNG for his competition results. (These are explicitly off-topic for WP:PROF, but that means merely that we should consider different notability guidelines, not that he cannot be notable for them.) It's not easy to search publications from the 1970s, but as well as the article about him in the LA Times we have a Newsweek story that covers him in some depth and a New Scientist article with a couple of sentences about him, less in-depth but still an indication of his fame at the time . Even many years later, in 1998, he was still being listed in reliably published sources as one of only three four-time Putnam Fellows  and as recently as 2017 he was still being cited as the youngest fellow . And since we have the Putnam, the Olympiad, and the graph coloring work, there's no issue with BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This stuff is too far from me mathematically and I can't really judge the significance of his paper with Erdos. But my feeling is that, in relation to WP:PROF, the correct thing to do in this kind of a situation is to discuss that paper and its influence in greater detail in the List coloring article rather than to have a standalone biographical article. By the way the the List coloring article currently says that the concept of list coloring was introduced by Vadim G. Vizing in 1976. Regarding passing WP:GNG based on the competition results and related coverage, my personal impression is the coverage is too thin for that.  WP:GNG asks for coverage that addresses the subject "directly and in detail". The coverage here consists mostly of brief mentions. The 1974 LA Times article definitely provides specific and detailed coverage. I can't view the 1974 Newsweek article you linked, so I am not sure how much is there. But even assuming there are a few paragraphs specifically about him in that Newsweek article, cumulatively the coverage appears to me to be less (in fact significantly less) than what we usually require for passing WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * List coloring was introduced independently by Vizing and by E-R-T. At that time, Vizing was not well known within the Soviet Union and the Soviet mathematical literature was not always well-distributed to the rest of the world, so independent rediscovery was more likely (but it still happens often enough today for other reasons). Our article on list coloring used to have both papers in the lead sentence but that was removed two years ago, probably by accident, in an edit by that also broke the grammar of the first sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vizing was not well known within the Soviet Union" is a false statement. Google Scholar search for "V.G. Vizing" will show you the facts: Vizing was a well known mathematician in Soviet Union whose papers were even published by Springer. "Soviet mathematical literature was not always well-distributed to the rest of the world" makes no sense to me. Erdos was affiliated with Hungarian Academy of Sciences that time and, for sure, he had access to Soviet mathematical literature.--Taribuk (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This stuff is too far from me mathematically and I can't really judge the significance of his paper with Erdos. The point is, nobody here should be judging that and it should not require specialist knowledge to determine whether someone is notable or not - it is an objective assessment of the coverage a subject has received in RS. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing more sources to the discussion, however let's please stay focussed on them, rather than questioning the motives of anyone involved in the discussion. Regarding GNG though, I still do not see that any of the new sources provide the substantial coverage we require. I echo Nsk92 in regards to the Newsweek article as I cannot access it. If you or anyone else can read it in full, can you please provide a quotation so that the depth of coverage can be assessed? The New Scientist source isn't any help, because as you point out, it is only a couple of sentences. The title of the third source speaks volumes to me: "Fifty Years of Putnam Trivia " (my ephasis) and as with the sources I analysed above under Ian.thomson's !vote, it only mentions his name. I am struggling to access the exact full copy of the fourth source, but from the preview it looks to be same as this which is an update of "The Putnam Competition from 1938-2008" that I already analysed above. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep David Eppstein posted links showing mentions of the subject from 1974 to 2017—over 40 years. That, along with the nature of the mentions (one of only three [eight?] four-time Putnam Fellows and cited as youngest fellow) means notability is satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your rationale seems at odds with your !vote because, as you concede those are just mentions - a thousand mentions cannot be summed to create substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep this has been AfD'd five times, speedy kept the last three, and based on the state of the article, the nominator brings up no new information and in any case we typically don't delete articles for being unsourced, we delete them for being unnotable (or unable for sources to be found.) The subject passes WP:GNG and has for awhile. SportingFlyer  talk  04:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability hasn't actually been discussed in any detail since 2009. It is entirely possible that the previous consensus would no longer apply. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment @David Eppstein, @Johnuniq, @SportingFlyer About the Putnam Fellows. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says in 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1. Therefore we cannot count the Putnam Competition results as a proof of academic notability.--Taribuk (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True but irrelevant. As I already said, that does not mean that it cannot be used for notability. What it means is that we can't use WP:PROF for notability that way; we have to use WP:GNG instead. As my comment already does. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True and very relevant. From a general WP:GNG and insufficient we have to move to the particular WP:PROF and sufficient.--Taribuk (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination is rambling and incoherent. As the topic has been well aired previously, we need a better nomination to have another go around. Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this AfD is closed prior to the prescribed 168 hours per consensus here, I shall reopen it. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Keep. As other editors point out, the nomination is incoherent to the point of invalidity. The only substantive argument -- that people whose claimed notability comes entirely from collaborative work cannot be meaningfully evaluated -- is simply nonsense. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and a note to the nominator for wasting our time. This isn't a nomination that has any reasonable basis for deletion and the issues it does raise have been raised and rejected five times before. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is anyone else getting the impression that the nominator is the same person as indef-blocked sockpuppeteer Vujkovica brdo? Compare the arguments above about whether E-R-T could have known about Vizing's work with the ones made by Vb on Talk:Arthur Rubin, and their shared interest in Serbian issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now a new nonsense from A Rubin's friendDavid Eppstein. Of course, I read Talk:Arthur Rubin and extracted useful information found there. Shared interest in Serbian issues? Ha! That makes your friend A Rubin a 21st-century American mathematician for sure! Laughable indeed.--Taribuk (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per my analysis above of the sources presented by Ian.thomson and David Eppstein, it is clear that there is only a single source (the LA Times article) providing substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject so WP:GNG/WP:BIO are not met. The Putnam scholarship is clearly excluded from being suitable for meeting WP:PROF too, as is the low h-index. SmartSE (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The nominator, Taribuk, is a ✅ sock. See Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I am amazed by the amount of bad faith (both proven and alleged) that has been running through these AfD debates. The procedure that struck me most as being anomalous was in Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (5th nomination), which was closed as speedy keep after 3 hours with the only votes being 1xdelete and 1xspeedy keep as well as the nomination. I suggest that this 6th AfD be assessed objectively on the basis the available evidence, just as with any other AfD of a BLP, and that the alleged motives of the nominator and anybody else be discounted. I add that, to the best of my recollection, I have had no disputatious encounters with the subject of the BLP in his capacity as an editor of Wikipedia. I ask that the AfD be allowed to run its full term and be closed by an administrator who has had no previous connection with the Rubin story and is not one of the usual suspects. Who are the usual suspects? I don't know, because there is so much subtext here that is unclear to me, but I suspect that a lot of things have been going on under the hood. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete. Now that the citation record has been established, it is clear that it is not enough to pass WP:Prof. There is one highly cited paper (~ 900 cites) written with a distinguished mathematician and another coauthor. The few other papers published have had coauthors and few citations, so there is little evidence of independent achievement. The student awards do not satisfy WP:Prof. The consensus here, which I agree with, is that WP:Prof is not passed. Neither is WP:Politician. One case for keep that is at least coherent has been made by Eppstein, who argues that although the student awards do not qualify for WP:Prof, they pass WP:GNG when suppoprted by the media references. Other editors have agued that the references do not give the substantial coverage required by WP:GNG. I agree, and agree that there is no pass of WP:GNG either. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Delete does not meet any notability criteria for academics, and even more clearly fails notability criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep subject passes GNG. While this AfD has already outlasted the Wiki career of the bad-faith nominator, it does not need to go a full seven days. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why Speedy? What's the hurry? There are only four days to go and results will be more accepted if conventions are observed (as they were not in the last AfD). Better to discuss the issue here rather than in a long-drawn-out DRV as occurred after the irregularly closed 5th AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment we've now had 9 experienced editors !vote stating that the GNG is met, and yet not a single one has provided details on which multiple sources provide substantial coverage of the subject. Can anyone do so? SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * False. Read my comment again. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I replied to it already and you have not provided further information on how the sources your provided are sufficient. Since I've explained in detail why I don't think GNG is met, it would be helpful if someone could explain why it is met. Have you read the Newsweek article? SmartSE (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You read the comment, replied to it already, and yet felt it appropriate to write "not a single one has provided details on which multiple sources"? Wow, how...truthy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I said: "not a single one has provided details on which multiple sources provide  substantial coverage  of the subject". Surely someone of your experience knows the difference between that and simply "multiple sources"? SmartSE (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here, let me Google the Newsweek coverage for you since you appear incapable of finding it yourself, and incapable of writing truthfully about others' comments here: "The Pinball Genius When he was 4 years old, Arthur Rubin's parents gave him his first algebra book. At the age of 8, he left his third- grade schoolroom every afternoon to take a calculus course at Michigan State University, where he got the highest grades in the class. By the time he was 14, he was enrolled in advanced mathematics at Purdue University. Thus, at 15, Arthur found himself in the curious position of applying for college— but with a full graduate courseload of mathematics ..." That seems substantial enough for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The link you provided is just to the issue of Newsweek and a search for Rubin inside that turns up nothing for me, so please don't insult me with lmgtfy. It's not my fault that you did not provide sufficient information for me to assess the coverage. Now we are getting somewhere though - is that all the article or is there more? Or are you only seeing the snippet? Searching for that text still doesn't bring up a full text, but at least I now have enough information to see if someone can access an archive copy at WP:REX. If this turns out to be a full article about him, then I agree that GNG is probably met, but if it is only a couple of paragraphs then it's still not enough. SmartSE (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to at REX, the full copy of the Newsweek article can be accessed at archive.org. You need to create a free account to read it. It is about 4-500 words long so is certainly better than the other sources I've been able to review.   What do you think? SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the full reference to the Newsweek article, year edition, page? I can't get access to it there.The extract given by Eppstein sounds like the sort of credulous GeeWizary that has recently been rejected as a reliable source in the case of another mathematical prodigy Jacob Barnett. If the rest of the Newsweek article continues in that vein it is not a source reliable enough to hang WP:GNG upon. Further, multiple sources are need. An editor notes that nine experienced editors have voted that WP:GNG is met. Many of the Speedy keep votes that are scattered throughout this series of AfDs are light on content. I expect that the closing administrator will be able to assess arguments as well as count votes. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC).

It is I think the reason that link didn't work is that I had it out "on loan" - I've now returned it so it should work for you now. Create an account and click the link again and it should take you to the exact page. SmartSE (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the article focuses on two facts about Rubin: his Putnam award record, and his paper with Erdos. There's very little else in the article; he's apparently a financial analyst as well as an aerospace engineer professionally, and of course a contributor at this site.  There's a plausible argument that a 4-time winner of the Putnam award should be kept based solely on that accomplishment; if it were a comparable collegiate sporting achievement the article would almost certainly be kept (for example, Dave Barclay).  Finally, if this is deleted, we'll need to start similar discussions for Reid Barton and Gabriel Carroll. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most of the challenges of this piece at AfD were Speedy Keeps based on bad faith nominations. There has been no real discussion of the merits of the piece itself for nearly a decade. Notability seems scant, but this is a job for the people well versed in the SNG for mathematicians; I have no opinion other than the fact that a real debate needs to be had. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This is also a bad-faith nomination by a sock puppet (since blocked) that fails to provide any evidence of consensus having changed, or a coherent argument for deletion.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that nominator's nomination is incoherent and his arguments should be ignored. Other editors have made substantial contributions. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Keep One might consider these words from Time magazine: "The Putnam is arguably the most prestigious math contest in the world" (from December 16, 2002), along with other considerations. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2018 (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.