Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Brown Gardner


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Brown Gardner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Simply a college professor with some publications. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Simply a college professor with some publications" can be said of any professor... What is required for the article not to be deleted? He was influential in the mathematical community, and as such should have an article. Brazilian from Rio de Janeiro (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I wish I had access to MathSciNet, then I could find so many more references to him... He deserves an article on Wikipedia, but how can I convince you of that? Brazilian from Rio de Janeiro (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm newbie to Wikipedia, I first wrote the article and then started to search for references, but it's becoming hard without the adequate tools (also, I think that I need to repeat some references, because they need to be cited in-line for each fact or so it seems... and it's hard to write very differently but at same time it has to be interpreted in equivalent way, and so editing Wikipedia is very hard because of this: I can not write my opinion freely on this matter -- that he was very important in the USA mathematical community). Well, I'm going to sleep. Let what has to be to happen in this case I guess. Brazilian from Rio de Janeiro (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wilkens ref is substantial coverage in a reliable source. Pam  D  08:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A retrospective in a mainstream mathematical publication clinches WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep. The Wilkens reference makes a strong case for his notability (fitting into WP:PROF). Backing this up, his books are also well cited on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added additional information about his influence and intellectual output. His contributions to the world of mathematics through his own work and those he taught continues to this day.Timtempleton (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:PROF for the reasons David Eppstein said. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2015 (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.