Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. O'Connor (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   Keep Edmund F. Robertson and Redirect John J. O'Connor. I ended up disregarding the !votes of article creator as the account was a sock evading an indefinite block. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

John J. O'Connor (mathematician) + Edmund F. Robertson
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable personality who owns a semi-notable website. No references, external sources or inline citations for WP:V. Otherwise fails WP:ONEVENT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Please note, article creator has subsequently been indef-blocked by Rlevse)  Flewis (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's his homepage, if that helps.--Brittish incompetance (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to MacTutor History of Mathematics archive unless there's reason to think that he's notable for something other than founding this website. WP:PROF may be of assistance. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Article creator has since been unblocked after username change. --Crusio (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect both, as per Iain99. No reason that these one sentence vanity plates can't be part of the MacTutor article. Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - Agree, can be easily incorporated into MacTutor History of Mathematics archive -- Flewis (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll have to do a more careful search later on tonight, but my initial impression is that possibly Robertson is notable while O'Connor is not. In MathSciNet O'Connor only has 10 publications (2 of which are obituary articles) while Robertson has 130 publications, including several books and several volumes where he was an editor. In particular, Robertson has been an editor of all the proceedings volumes of the Groups - St. Andrews conference which is a notable international group theory conference that is more than 25 years old. I also do not believe that the characterization of these articles (even the one for O'Connor) as "vanity" articles is either correct or fair. The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive is a valuable and well-known site, which has indeed won quite a few awards, is well-known in mathematics and is in fact quite useful for Wikipedia in particular for providing detailed biographical information about notable mathematicians. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Robertson has also written a number of reasonably widely used textbooks on algebra, linear algebra and group theory. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, since 1997 Robertson is an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I have added a ref to the article. That seems sufficient to satisfy Criterion 3 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. O'Connor may not pass WP:PROF. However, is notable as one of the creators of MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. Salih  ( talk ) 15:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Robertson, redirect O'Connor, per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I wouldn't create the article if I didn't think they were notable. Also, it is a fully-notable website, not a semi-notable website.--Just Plain Brittish (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both, since they each individually meet the following WP:CREATIVE criterion: “The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work …” As far as WP:PROF is concerned, arguably only Robertson passes it, but both meet WP:CREATIVE, which is why I am recommending that both be kept.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Robertson, and redirect O'Connor to MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. For Robertson it is fairly clear that he passes WP:PROF: certainly criterion 1 and probably criterion 3 as well. An elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, plus his involvement in MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, plus his long-term editorship of the Groups-StAndrews series, plus his textbooks make a convincing case. With O'Connor, apart from his role in MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, I didn't really find much else. That's not enough for passing WP:PROF and I don't think it is sufficient for passing the WP:CREATIVE provision of WP:BIO either (especially since no biographical-type coverage of him by third-party sources appears to be available). O'Connor really looks more like a WP:BLP1E case and there does not seem to be a reasonable possibility of significantly expanding an article about him beyond the current short stub. Nsk92 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is one of those cases where there is at least some room for debate, and of course I may be wrong. Nevertheless, my understanding of the WP:BLP1E is that it refers to a situation like that of “Joe the Plumber” – someone that is associated with a big event (in this case, US election), and who is never heard of again. (Of course I am assuming that Joe the Plumber will disappear from sight.) O’Connor is permanently associated, and not by playing a minor role, it appears, with the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. What his article needs, in my view, is some additional material that would make it more useful for someone looking for information about the MacTutor co-creator.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to invoke WP:BLP1E directly here, but I did mean that this is like a BLP1E case in the sense that O'Connor's notability comes only in regard to his involvement in the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive and not on other grounds. It is also unlike BLP1E in that MacTutor History of Mathematics archive is actually an enterprise of sustained interest. If a person is only known for one achievement, then we have to decide if that achievement alone is sufficient to justify a biographical article about that person (e.g. if somebody wrote one successful book and nothing else). Basically we have to look at how significant that achievement is in deciding if it confers sufficient notability on the person. If we were talking about a significant invention or discovery, I would be inclined to say "yes". In this case, I am inclined to say "no". The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive is a very useful and commendable enterprise, but it does not produce new original research or new ideas. Rather, it is a compendium of biographical information about notable mathematicians. I do not believe that this is the sort of thing that WP:CREATIVE has in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I have just realized that there IS an article on Joe the Plumber, and a long one at that!--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * you are however right that "one event" does not apply to cases like this. And if Joe had spoken up and never been heard of afterwards he'd have fit in one event like everyone else who asked Obama a question--it was the major political use that made him notable regardless.    DGG (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Robertson and redirect O'Conner per Nsk92. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Both pass WP:PROFESSOR and WP:CREATIVE.--Just Plain Brittish (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Would youperhaps care to explain how O'Connor passes WP:PROF (and also WP:CREATIVE for that matter)? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This is the second keep vote by Just Plain Brittish in this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect O'Connor. I can't add anything to the reasons already stated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 10 November 2008 (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.