Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Stein


 * 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, and a note about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to the sole delete vote. Giggy UCP 08:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

William A. Stein

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline. mms 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep About 25 published or accepted  papers. One textbook "Elementary Number Theory "; one advanced book "A Brief Introduction to Classical and Adelic Algebraic Number Theory', others under contract. Principle author of apparently major software, "Primary author of SAGE: Software for Algebra and Geometry Experimentation:  http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage."  (& some others)  Not all associate professors are notable, not by a long shot, but he seems to be.  At 10 afds nominated per hour, I can see why there wasn't time to  write a detailed rationale, but it would help to know what aspect is considered insufficient? DGG (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's findings.  This person passes WP:PROF Corpx 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: DGG makes a convincing case. — m a k o ๛  03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per research of DGG. Espresso Addict 03:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's research. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but as lead developer of SAGE, which is notability beyond the normal publication rate of an associate professor. I am unsure about the recent edit history of, who has a) AFD'd a number of individuals, b) PROD'd a number of others, and c) massively decategorized under Category:Computer programmers and Category:Free software programmers, but my good faith assumptions are being tested. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment mms has explained to me on my talk page that he was simply collapsing categories, and has reconsidered his position on some articles. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the notability guideline for academics is Notability (academics), not the one linked. Lazy nomination. Charles Matthews 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete because I know of many professors who have a comparable amount of papers but haven't theirs own article in Wikipedia. It is the profession of a professor to come up with important seeming title for his work. But still I don't think every professor should be included in Wikipedia. At least not in the foreseeable future. There are existing articles which need desperately improvements. --mms 08:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles should be judged on their own merits in relation to the applicable criteria, not your general opinion on the status of Wikipedia as a whole. It's not a matter of other professors or other articles, it's about this one and whether it meets our criteria. If you feel the criteria are inappropriate or incorrect, work to change them; don't force non-existent criteria on articles.  Leebo  T / C  13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per above keep votes. NHRHS2010  Talk  19:22, 24 July 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.