Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. - Bobet 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin

This is a vanity article,for the user,Arthur Rubin,other than (has earned a place among the five top ranked undergraduate competitors ) thers nothing else.I don't think this is notable enof for wikipedia. Pixel ;-) 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Pixel ;-) 23:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made exactly two edits to the article, to add my year of birth, as an indication that it was acceptable to me that it appear in the article, and an attempt to Wikilink the title of my thesis, which seems to have come undone. I suspect a WP:POINT violation. The question of whether I'm notable is open, but the first sentence puts me in a group of 6 of over 20,000 (probably closer to 100,000) total students who have taken the William Lowell Putnam Competition. I decline to declare a Speedy keep, but the nomination reason is factually incorrect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,Yes,i suspect that you are not nottable enof.Are the winners of the contest nottable?Why a holle article?--Pixel ;-) 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not vanity and clearly notable, even when apparently known as "Wikipedia's Arthur Rubin" [1] (if true then I'm not sure that's the most flattering example I could have given, sorry Arthur). Yomanganitalk 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nottable per what?He has a fields medal,or noble?--Pixel ;-) 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHA.Ok,now i understand why you all mock me.No no,i now that thers no nobel in maths(any one has a gess why? :-))i was putting an example for nottability.I'm not a dumbt like you seem to sujest,you shouldn't make a link ither betewn my intellect and my spelling.--Pixel ;-) 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable. Nomination is neither compelling nor coherent. Opabinia regalis 00:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no need to look beyond the Putnam for notability, reliable sources are not a problem, future expansion seems possible. He's also won all of the Nobel prizes for mathematics so far, so I don't see a problem there ... RandomP 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but I'm not convinced that Putnam Top 5ers are encyclopedically notable (why "obviously" notable?) enough for their own article. As an academic mathematician, article so far fails WP:PROF. Bwithh 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy since he is well, a user. If some claim to notability can be articulated, then keep. FrozenPurpleCube 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The four years in a row feat is notable. Reid Barton did it too, and I saw him once at a math awards dinner in my high school career. An Erdos number of one, while not notable in and of itself, adds to this person's overall notability. It would be better, though, if this article could be expanded. YechielMan 02:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'd seriously consider Reid Barton for deletion too. He doesn't seem quite notable according to WP:PROF though I'm sure it's quite likely he'll qualify one day. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or he will simply burn out.--Pixel ;-) 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Erdős number 1. Putnam exam top 5 finisher 4 consecutive years is also notable. Nomination reason given is factually inaccurate, and I doubt that the nominator is qualified to assess encyclopedic notability of mathematician bios. Quale 04:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your worme and kind words.What i see is an undergraduate competition,and then nothing(apart erdos thing).From the notability critiria only (7.The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.) seems to be closer to the situation.And from that i undestand it like the fields medal or something,not an undergraduate competition.And yes,i now that ther isn't a nobel for maths,you whant my opinion on this?--Pixel ;-) 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Are we going to give everyone with an impressive resume in their field a wikipedia entry? And to head off the increasingly hostile tone of the article supporters, yes, I am qualified to assess the encyclopedic notability of mathematician bios. SkipSmith 06:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Personally, I think he's more notable as a Wikipedian admin. (A good admin yet still...) Though with the article, I would give more weight to his Erdős number then to the Putnam Competition since at it's core the former is work with probably one of the most notable mathematician and the later is ultimately just a contest. It is a difficult and very selective contest but still just a contest. 205.157.110.11 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He is a repeat Putnam Fellow, a Caltech graduate, and a mathematician with Erdős number 1. I don't know anyone else in the same group. Do you? Giftlite 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Six people have won the Putnam fellowship 4 times, 15 have won 3 times. There are 509 people with an Erdos number of 1. There are thousands of Caltech graduates. I'm sure I could find thousands of people that have a unique combination of several prestigious titles, accomplishments, or awards. Uniqueness isn't the same as notability. SkipSmith 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - doesn't look like a vanity article to me. Erdős 1 is a pretty reliable indicator for notability in mathematicians. Needs to be expanded --Storkk 12:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Erdos number = 1 makes a mathematician notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should we create entries for all 509 mathematicians with an Erdos number of 1? SkipSmith
If we have anything to say about them and somebody wants to write them, then yes by all means. 509 is not a huge number of articles by any standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and there are only 1948 people with a Bacon number of 1. We've got some article writing to do ... SkipSmith 07:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the Katsumi number.--Pixel ;-) 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_Rubin&oldid=1072759541"