Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Martin (Australian mathematician)


 * 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. X clamation point  06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Geoffrey Martin (Australian mathematician)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of passing WP:PROF. There are a couple of talk announcements on the web with his name, concerning triple systems and circulant graphs, but I was unable to find any real publications in MathSciNet. There was a previous discussion a couple of years ago that ended up as being no consensus, but that result may be clouded by the confusion that happened at about the same time in which the Australian Geoff Martin (possibly a graduate student at the University of Queensland?) Was confused with a different mathematician named Geoffrey Martin, now at Geoffrey K. Martin. With the confusion now discovered and resolved, it looks like this one should be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article doesn't say anything that can definitely be linked to any real person or give any references, and there's nothing on Google that can definitely be linked to this article. Charvest (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. His current claims to fame are being a mathemetician and being dux of his school for all but one year. Unless other claims to fame backed by reliable sources can be found, that isn't sufficient for an article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 04:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable mathematician. Salih  ( talk ) 07:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. My conclusion is the same as Charvest’s. After an extensive search using various tools, such as Worldcat, Google and various academic databases, I could not find evidence that the subject exists, let alone enough to establish notability under WP:PROF.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:39, 4 March 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.