Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Charles Martin Nash (2nd 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 r e direct, as redirects are cheap. east. 718 at 15:53, 11/5/2007

John Charles Martin Nash
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This person has no notability outside of a famous father. Furthermore, his article has existed in an incoherent stub status for several years and a Google search yields no reference outside of his own Wikipedia article Lordjeff06 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, A7: no assertion of notability. Powers T 12:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD:A7; A mention in the elder Nash's article is probably acceptable, and I see that there already is such a mention. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep significant coverage in press and books. JJL 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no coverage of him as a mathematician; he seems to be unpublished with the exception of his dissertation. Normally I would consider an Erdos number of 2 to be a strong indicator of notability but this may be the outlier. There is no coverage of him other than brief biographical details in connection with his father, in whose article he is already mentioned. --Dhartung | Talk 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, he has a publication as recent as 2002. But you're right that it's hard to find much by or about him. —David Eppstein 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Having an Erdos number of 2 (or any other value other than 0) is not a strong indicator of notability in any way. --Ramsey2006 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we have an article on Simon Pulsifer then we can have an article on J. C. M. Nash.  Jack (Lumber) 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A fine example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS -- Slarti bartfast  1992 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per Powers . Redirect per the comment below. -- Slarti bartfast  1992 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if the decision is that he fails WP:N then I hope it'll be redirected to the father or to A Beautiful Mind (book) rather than outright deleted. JJL 01:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. I don't know whether that comment was directed to me, but I'll reply anyway. A redirect sounds good to me. -- Slarti bartfast  1992 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per comments above. The claim to an Erdős number of 2 is shaky (in theory, anyway, the thesis adviser does not collaborate on the thesis, and adding Doktorvater to the Erdős number relationships is fairly novel). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not all that uncommon for a mathematician to have joint publications with a thesis advisor, so unless there has been a slip up in compiling the list (which is always possible), I would assume that he is listed for quite standard and non-novel reasons. --Ramsey2006 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True; I may be reading the article as making a stricter claim than it intends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 4 November 2007 (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.