Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dixon (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. Based on the sources listed by Tyrenius.  Sandstein  09:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Dixon (mathematician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No real evidence of notability; single good reference shows some involvement in a somewhat-notable event four years ago, but this seems to fail WP:ONEEVENT. The book he is cited as being the creator of doesn't have a wikipedia page, and the reference is to a dead googlebooks link. I nominated for speedy deletion but the nomination was removed by another user, so I've brought it to AfD instead.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The rationale give above no longer applies in view of information I have provided below, namely multiple events and ample substantial sources.  Ty  20:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Google books link now corrected - I'd missed out a leading underline character and for once didn't check the link after I'd added it. Sorry about that. PamD (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. The refs are there, but his contributions aren't worldwidely recognised. Minima  c  ( talk ) 11:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When you made that comment there were just two references available. I have provided over 30 below, including international coverage, yet you haven't responded, which implies your !vote has not taken the new sources into account.  Ty  20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Robert Dixon has received coverage on two different occasions, 2003 and 2006, after accusing Damien Hirst of copying his work. There were articles dedicated to this, as well as ongoing mentions subsequently, when the issue of Hirst's practice of "appropriation" was discussed. See Evening Standard (2003), The Times (2003),, The Daily Telegraph (2003), Evening Standard (2006), The Times (2006), The Guardian (2006), Channel 4 (2006), Metro (2006), RTV, Slovenia (2006), RTV Slovenia (2006), Daily Mail (6 June 2007),, Daily Mail (11 June 2007), El Universal, Mexico (2007),, RTV, Slovenia (2007), Evening Standard (2007), The Guardian (2007), The Times (2007).


 * This is on record, will continue to be referred to, and is strongly associated with Dixon himself. It is quite inappropriate to delete the article, as the material is verifiable and a summary included in Damien_Hirst already, so at the minimum there should be a merge and redirect. However, there is not space in the article on Hirst to fully explore the issue, and this can be done at more length in the one on Dixon.


 * I am not familiar with his work in mathematics per se, but a quick search shows he is mentioned in Computers in Art, Design, and Animation (1989),. He has a chapter in Fivefold Symmetry (1992). He has articles in New Scientist (1982), New Scientist (1983), New Scientist (1985). There are Google Books results for Mathographics, which also has 13,500 Google hits.


 * In conclusion, he passes the bar of WP:N.  Ty  00:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:PROF doesn't even come into play: he clearly doesn't pass. But we have no independent biographical information about Dixon himself: the sources are only about a claim of plagiarism by someone else. It's worth a brief mention in Damien Hirst, but that's already there, so there's nothing to merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you advocate Damien Hirst as the suitable location for the information, then this article should be a redirect there, as we are not deleting, but keeping, the content on wikipedia. It's not WP:BLP1E regarding the copyright dispute. For a start, there were two incidents, the first was in 2003 and the second in 2006. Furthermore, coverage has been enduring. The 2003 event was still being referred to three years later (before the second took place), as in The Times. Dixon's dispute has continued to be cited subsequently, e.g. in an article on intellectual property law: Wade, Alex. The Guardian (London), p.1, 10 March 2008. As well as Mathographics (Google Scholar), Dixon is the author of The Baumgarten Corruption (Google Scholar, Google Books, Google hits). He has also written for Leonardo, and Times Higher Education. The article should be moved to Robert Dixon (computer artist) per sources.  Ty  10:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We only need a redirect if we are merging the information from here to there. But the information is already there; there's nothing to merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is not kept, we need a redirect so that readers searching for his name in connection with this well-known and widely documented dispute will be redirected to the information they are looking for.  Ty  00:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per information provided by Tyrenius above, seems an ongoing issue...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on sources listed by Tyrenius. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination per Tyrenius: notability has been demonstrated beyond the original scope now.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:19, 23 May 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.