Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Biss


 * 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   delete. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I believe that this page does not meet the criterion WP:Notability. Please see the discussion page for my reasoning. Math31415 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Please see my arguments on the talk page.  Let me mention that similar discussions happen all the time and can be rather contentious.  In the spirit of this article, see e.g. this repeated argument over Piotr Blass, a minor mathematician and politician.  My main point is that if we are to keep Daniel Biss, we should include all parts of the article.  In other words, we should not delete the mathematical part and leave the politics, as one might be tempted to do as an easy compromise. Mhym (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete At first, I thought he had been a failed candidate for a party nomination to run Congress, but he's a failed candidate for a party nomination for a seat in the Illinois state legislature. Despite the feeling that the Illinois State Legislature is so important that people have written articles for not only every single one of the incumbents, but also for all of the people who are running for the office in November.  Even U.S. Congressional candidates don't get that type of entitlement, and the Illinois state legislature isn't Congress.  There's no need to compound stupidity with more stupidity.  Mandsford 21:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction: actually, he is not only a failed former candidate; he is also a current DEM party candidate for the seat in the IL state legislature. Given his near-win last time against an incumbent, he is likely to take this (now open) seat.  Not sure if this changes anything though. Mhym (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN on at least two counts.  A politician, according to the policy guideline, is notable if he/she "held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" and also states that "being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." Neither of these criterion are true in this case, so Biss is not notable as a politician, which leaves his achievements as an academic.  The notability guidelines are set out at WP:ACADEMIC using the so-called professor test.  In short, an academic must hold high office (such distinguished professor), undertaken breakthrough research or received a highly prestigious academic award to be considered notable.  Again, this is not the case with Biss.  In summary, not notable as either a politician or an academic.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although he has been a failed candidate for an election, he has received significant coverage in the news for not just that failed election, but is also receiving much coverage at the moment for his noticeable campaign for the IL House and has a good chance of winning (although this in itself is not sufficient, as per WP:CRYSTAL. Nonetheless, even with the publicity that he received from his two campaigns to the IL House of Representatives, he has also received publicity for his thesis, even though it has been proved wrong. Despite this, he has received coverage for his wrong thesis, and that contributes to his notability. The coverage that he received for his two campaigns, in my opinion, further confirms his notability. WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ACADEMIC are only if significant coverage cannot be found, and I feel that it can be in this case. --Slon02 (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As I explained thoroughly in the discussion, there is no evidence that the thesis of Biss, or the mistake in it, is in any way notable. The main mathematical sources of notability: press coverage about the theorem or error, people referring to the paper in other papers (as measured precisely by Mathscinet ), an ICM talk or Seminaire Bourbaki talk  or AMS ``hot topics" talk at an AMS meeting on the work, or an article about the work in the Notices AMS or Bulletin AMS, are all completely lacking.  Further, there are no WP:RS to indicate any "controversy" or other notability about the error. Since there seems to be almost a total lack of WP:RS for the math, the case relies only Biss as a politician. And I just don't see the case there. Everyone running for some (even quite minor) office gets a small amount of "coverage".  In most cases failed candidates don't have pages devoted to them.Math31415 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Math31415, being perhaps a novice, might not know that the notability standards for Mathematicians are by far below of what he is trying to describe, and are not formalized in any such way. E.g., Category:American mathematicians has about 1,000 people.  Maybe only 50-100 of them would fit the above description.  Not to advocate WP:OSE, but the current notability standards for mathematicians are already much stricter than that of NFL football players.  There is really no need to add much stricter standards.  Mhym (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am indeed a novice (sorry for mistakes caused by that). But, I have not seen any WP:RS given for any coverage of a controversy over, or notability of, any of Biss's papers, moreso than any of the thousands of other papers that have appeared in top journals. Also, thousands of mathematicians satisfy the criterion I give above. For example, at the last ICM [] alone, there were 20 sections of speakers, plus plenary, with about 10-13 in each section.  That makes for more than 210 people in that year alone. Note that Biss was not invited (at that time (2006) his paper was already published (2003), and still thought to be correct, but the work was not deemed important enough for an invitation).Math31415 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: I am rather reluctant arguing the individual points as I am not sure whether they are germane to the issue, and Math31415 clearly knows more on the math side, which may or may not be supported with RS's.  I checked the ICM and it is an international congress, which means maybe about 70-80 US mathematicians are honored with invited talks, and this is a lifetime accomplishment, most presenters being very senior and presumably the same year after year.  This makes a case that they all should have a WP page, but I don't see a case why Biss should not.  On the other hand, Biss is borderline anyway, I just wanted to refute the logic.  Mhym (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. As a mathematician, I do not think he meets WP:PROF; Scopus shows a very respectable 23 papers, but only 7 of them have been referred to more than once. Conference presentations, even in large numbers, national or international, do not add much to academic notability in math or in most other fields (except computer science and much of engineering). As a politician, I am very inclusive, and will accept major party candidates for national level positions, whether or not the win, but not for a state legislature. Obviously, if he does win election, he will meet the   notability standard for politicians.     DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 5 August 2010 (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.