Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (6th nomination)

1656:, which was closed as speedy keep after 3 hours with the only votes being 1xdelete and 1xspeedy keep as well as the nomination. I suggest that this 6th AfD be assessed objectively on the basis the available evidence, just as with any other AfD of a BLP, and that the alleged motives of the nominator and anybody else be discounted. I add that, to the best of my recollection, I have had no disputatious encounters with the subject of the BLP in his capacity as an editor of Knowledge (XXG). I ask that the AfD be allowed to run its full term and be closed by an administrator who has had no previous connection with the Rubin story and is not one of the usual suspects. Who are the 1057:

people don't always cite the original work on it and that its citation count underestimates its influence) and is one of (depending on how you count) the five or ten most frequently cited of Paul Erdős's papers. So it's not merely "he has a paper with Erdős", but "he has a paper that, even among papers with Erdős, is famous". And given the well known collaboration patterns of Erdős, I think we can safely assume that, although Erdős surely provided some of the insights in the paper, a lot of the work of coming up with the problem to work on and making it a paper came from its other authors.

1043:. I'm highly skeptical of the good faith of this nomination; the reason for the many past speedy closures is that people with Knowledge (XXG) editing disputes with Rubin keep nominating this article for deletion as a way to retaliate. And the past Arbcom case shows both that Rubin has enemies who will persistently snipe at him, and that Rubin has reacted badly enough to that sniping to encourage his enemies to continue with their attacks. Regardless, let's look at the merits of the case. 1611: 545:

that aside, as work here is very unlikely to earn notability (if we exclude spending one's life deleting the phrase "is comprised of"). What does that leave? There's one co-authored paper (with Erdős) that has been cited 900 times; and a series of student prizes. He's a notable Wikipedian, but that's not the same as a notable mathematician. As for the politics and the engineering, they are worthy but not notable. I remain to be convinced.

820:

researcher he was collaborating with, but it would just be speculation and the mere fact he was collaborating with Erdos at that level says something. The paper does have an extremely large number of citations (over 900 according to Google Scholar), and he is named as a prominent author on it, which is evidence of his impact on the field. Sure, most student awards don't qualify, but we are not talking about a normal student award, indeed

927:

indexing such things. However, a cited reference search for the title of the paper ("Choosability in graphs") does give a list of citations for that paper, about 440 in total. Most are in discrete math publications. The second most cited article in MathSciNet, with 4 citations there ("Stability index of invariant subspaces of matrices"), has 7 citations produced by a cited reference search in the WebOfScience.

1896:

third- grade schoolroom every afternoon to take a calculus course at Michigan State University, where he got the highest grades in the class. By the time he was 14, he was enrolled in advanced mathematics at Purdue University. Thus, at 15, Arthur found himself in the curious position of applying for college— but with a full graduate courseload of mathematics ..." That seems substantial enough for me. —

1620: 2124:- Most of the challenges of this piece at AfD were Speedy Keeps based on bad faith nominations. There has been no real discussion of the merits of the piece itself for nearly a decade. Notability seems scant, but this is a job for the people well versed in the SNG for mathematicians; I have no opinion other than the fact that a real debate needs to be had. 1227:

article as I cannot access it. If you or anyone else can read it in full, can you please provide a quotation so that the depth of coverage can be assessed? The New Scientist source isn't any help, because as you point out, it is only a couple of sentences. The title of the third source speaks volumes

2094:

the article focuses on two facts about Rubin: his Putnam award record, and his paper with Erdos. There's very little else in the article; he's apparently a financial analyst as well as an aerospace engineer professionally, and of course a contributor at this site. There's a plausible argument that

1922:

that you did not provide sufficient information for me to assess the coverage. Now we are getting somewhere though - is that all the article or is there more? Or are you only seeing the snippet? Searching for that text still doesn't bring up a full text, but at least I now have enough information to

544:

Well, let's take this calmly (please). Speedy keeps have 5 times failed to resolve the discussion, so one might guess there was something to discuss, and I do think we should have this open for a full week this time. We inherently respect Arthur Rubin for his work here on Knowledge (XXG): let us set

1222:

Thank you for bringing more sources to the discussion, however let's please stay focussed on them, rather than questioning the motives of anyone involved in the discussion. Regarding GNG though, I still do not see that any of the new sources provide the substantial coverage we require. I echo Nsk92

1003:

OK, if I understand the toings and froings, we are agreed that this fails WP:PROF, but there's a consensus that WP:GNG is passed by a) sharing a famous paper and b) being probably the only person to get a Putnam fellowship 4 times over. That at least sounds like a reasonable claim to go along with,

1139:

List coloring was introduced independently by Vizing and by E-R-T. At that time, Vizing was not well known within the Soviet Union and the Soviet mathematical literature was not always well-distributed to the rest of the world, so independent rediscovery was more likely (but it still happens often

559:

I concur. I have long had doubts about the notability of him and personally, I think we should be extra strict when dealing with the notability of Wikipedians. It's pretty obvious that if Arthur weren't an editor, then it's very unlikely this would ever have existed, and if the maths prize sources

270:

The list of the papers in mathematics below shows that he co-authored 7 articles with his mother. Out of 10 in the list below 8 of them are cited just 12 times together (self-citations excluded). The average is 1.5 citations per paper. Some of them not cited at all. The only paper cited frequently

1382:

Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion

1304:

this has been AfD'd five times, speedy kept the last three, and based on the state of the article, the nominator brings up no new information and in any case we typically don't delete articles for being unsourced, we delete them for being unnotable (or unable for sources to be found.) The subject

1166:

will show you the facts: Vizing was a well known mathematician in Soviet Union whose papers were even published by Springer. "Soviet mathematical literature was not always well-distributed to the rest of the world" makes no sense to me. Erdos was affiliated with Hungarian Academy of Sciences that

1120:

asks for coverage that addresses the subject "directly and in detail". The coverage here consists mostly of brief mentions. The 1974 LA Times article definitely provides specific and detailed coverage. I can't view the 1974 Newsweek article you linked, so I am not sure how much is there. But even

1056:

the problem is with our standards rather than with the article. We should note that it's not just any paper; it's one that introduced a central topic on graph theory (Google scholar lists over 2500 papers that match the phrase "list coloring", so I think the concept has become so commonplace that

865:

1895:

Here, let me Google the Newsweek coverage for you since you appear incapable of finding it yourself, and incapable of writing truthfully about others' comments here: "The Pinball Genius When he was 4 years old, Arthur Rubin's parents gave him his first algebra book. At the age of 8, he left his

926:

Some, but not all (also for math citations that occurred prior to 2000 MathSciNet coverage is fairly spotty). A WebOfScience search gives more complete results. The paper with Erdos is not indexed there because it was published in a conference proceedings back in 1980, well before WoS started

819:

I'm not sure why you've wrapped "multiple reliable sources" in quotation marks, because that makes it look like the phrase is found in one of the pages you're referencing, and it isn't. Sure, we can speculate about whether the impact of that paper is down to Rubin or the highly distinguished

1068:, but that means merely that we should consider different notability guidelines, not that he cannot be notable for them.) It's not easy to search publications from the 1970s, but as well as the article about him in the LA Times we have a Newsweek story that covers him in some depth 1767:

Why Speedy? What's the hurry? There are only four days to go and results will be more accepted if conventions are observed (as they were not in the last AfD). Better to discuss the issue here rather than in a long-drawn-out DRV as occurred after the irregularly closed 5th AfD.

2014:

What is the full reference to the Newsweek article, year edition, page? I can't get access to it there.The extract given by Eppstein sounds like the sort of credulous GeeWizary that has recently been rejected as a reliable source in the case of another mathematical prodigy

1684:. There is one highly cited paper (~ 900 cites) written with a distinguished mathematician and another coauthor. The few other papers published have had coauthors and few citations, so there is little evidence of independent achievement. The student awards do not satisfy 792:

That seems very doubtful here; co-authoring one paper alongside someone famous does not demonstrate that the impact was due to AR (it was far more likely the famous co-author); and no independent reliable sources have been provided to demonstrate it, so we doubt any such

262:) No much needed secondary and tertiary sources. After reading his mother's obituary, the article about his unsuccessful run to represent the 55th district, and any of the papers he co-authored, is not possible to conclude that the article is about the same person 2016: 1842:

I replied to it already and you have not provided further information on how the sources your provided are sufficient. Since I've explained in detail why I don't think GNG is met, it would be helpful if someone could explain why it is met. Have you read the

1489:. As other editors point out, the nomination is incoherent to the point of invalidity. The only substantive argument -- that people whose claimed notability comes entirely from collaborative work cannot be meaningfully evaluated -- is simply nonsense. 600:

actually cited anywhere in the current article (some of them are just mentioned), and they have no relevance one way or the other on his notability. An article based on those sources would need to be deleted, but that's not the case here at all.

595:

as well. Isolated facets of an article do not need to individually be notable in and of themselves provided there is a notable core. I'm not seeing the relevance of your "Primary sources - co-authored papers" bit. Those are

1232:" (my ephasis) and as with the sources I analysed above under Ian.thomson's !vote, it only mentions his name. I am struggling to access the exact full copy of the fourth source, but from the preview it looks to be same as 279:

A Rubin's contributions to mathematics and engineering cannot be separated and evaluated independently on the co-authors, therefore it's not possible to get a valid judgement about his scientific work significance and

630:

article looks good to me. Regarding "highly prestigious academic award or honor" in my mind, this would be something like a Nobel Prize or prestigious award from a national academy, not an undergraduate scholarship.

2076:

I think the reason that link didn't work is that I had it out "on loan" - I've now returned it so it should work for you now. Create an account and click the link again and it should take you to the exact page.

213: 742:

if you're going to nominate an article for deletion which has been kept many times before then you should be prepared to respond to the reasons it was kept earlier. This nomination doesn't do that. The reasons

2035:

is met. Many of the Speedy keep votes that are scattered throughout this series of AfDs are light on content. I expect that the closing administrator will be able to assess arguments as well as count votes.

1813:

we've now had 9 experienced editors !vote stating that the GNG is met, and yet not a single one has provided details on which multiple sources provide substantial coverage of the subject. Can anyone do so?

1121:

assuming there are a few paragraphs specifically about him in that Newsweek article, cumulatively the coverage appears to me to be less (in fact significantly less) than what we usually require for passing

824:

says it is "widely considered to be the most prestigious university-level mathematics competition in the world", and Rubin is one of a very small number of people to have been named as a Fellow four times.

699: 1653: 111: 106: 101: 96: 91: 86: 2095:

a 4-time winner of the Putnam award should be kept based solely on that accomplishment; if it were a comparable collegiate sporting achievement the article would almost certainly be kept (for example,

1197:

here should be judging that and it should not require specialist knowledge to determine whether someone is notable or not - it is an objective assessment of the coverage a subject has received in RS.

384:, Erdos number of 1. This is an extraordinarily irresponsible nomination. And the nominator doesn't get to decide how long the discussion stays open for. This is an obvious speedy and snow keep. 1525: 1506:

and a note to the nominator for wasting our time. This isn't a nomination that has any reasonable basis for deletion and the issues it does raise have been raised and rejected five times before.

871:. There is one highly cited paper, with several co-authors, including a very famous mathematician (Erdos). I don't think there is a case for academic notability here. One could argue for passing 328:

1. McEliece, Robert J., and Arthur L. Rubin. "Timesharing without synchronization." International Telemetering Conference Proceedings. International Foundation for Telemetering, 1976. (4)

1558:

and extracted useful information found there. Shared interest in Serbian issues? Ha! That makes your friend A Rubin a 21st-century American mathematician for sure! Laughable indeed.--

271:(900 times) is the "Choosability in Graphs". This paper is about a graph coloring method already invented and developed by Soviet mathematicians (Vizing, Borodin) three years earlier. 1627: 719: 983:- as above. By the way, I think the h-index is 6, based on (900, 13, 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, ...), but it certainly isn't much higher than that, and so it is far from meeting WP:PROF. 1652:

I am amazed by the amount of bad faith (both proven and alleged) that has been running through these AfD debates. The procedure that struck me most as being anomalous was in

166: 2141:

This is also a bad-faith nomination by a sock puppet (since blocked) that fails to provide any evidence of consensus having changed, or a coherent argument for deletion.

1861:

You read the comment, replied to it already, and yet felt it appropriate to write "not a single one has provided details on which multiple sources"? Wow, how...truthy. —

1140:

enough today for other reasons). Our article on list coloring used to have both papers in the lead sentence but that was removed two years ago, probably by accident, in

1257:

David Eppstein posted links showing mentions of the subject from 1974 to 2017—over 40 years. That, along with the nature of the mentions (one of only three four-time

207: 52:. As in all previous discussions. The nominator has been blocked as a sock. Subsequent nominations should be speedily closed if not made by a well-established editor. 81: 1370: 1258: 821: 486:

I apologize. I blindly accepted the result of a Chrome plugin instead of counting myself. I struck the h-index claim and I won't be using that plugin any more.

173: 1927:. If this turns out to be a full article about him, then I agree that GNG is probably met, but if it is only a couple of paragraphs then it's still not enough. 766:

You also don't get to dictate how long an AfD lasts just because you nominated it. If some admin decides to close this as speedy keep then you can't stop them.

438:

Erdos number is just a folklore (Chomsky's Erdos number is 4, for example), it's a Knowledge (XXG) requirement to keep discussion open at least seven days--

787:"1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." 1096:

This stuff is too far from me mathematically and I can't really judge the significance of his paper with Erdos. But my feeling is that, in relation to

502:

Thanks for the explanation. These tools are unreliable because they cannot distinguish between people with the same name working in different fields.

1953:. You need to create a free account to read it. It is about 4-500 words long so is certainly better than the other sources I've been able to review. 889:

For those who are interested in additional citability data, MathSciNet lists 12 publications by him in total, with top citation hits of 328,4,1,1,1.

1660:? I don't know, because there is so much subtext here that is unclear to me, but I suspect that a lot of things have been going on under the hood. 1468: 1450:

The nomination is rambling and incoherent. As the topic has been well aired previously, we need a better nomination to have another go around.

1749:

subject passes GNG. While this AfD has already outlasted the Wiki career of the bad-faith nominator, it does not need to go a full seven days.

1336:

Notability hasn't actually been discussed in any detail since 2009. It is entirely possible that the previous consensus would no longer apply.

256:- a singe unsuccessful run to represent the 55th district in the 1984 California State Assembly elections makes him not a notable libertarian 855:. Putnam competitions and the Math Olympiads are student level awards/accomplishments and they do not contribute to academic notability per 487: 385: 2161:

I agree that nominator's nomination is incoherent and his arguments should be ignored. Other editors have made substantial contributions.

1696:. One case for keep that is at least coherent has been made by Eppstein, who argues that although the student awards do not qualify for 1074:. Even many years later, in 1998, he was still being listed in reliably published sources as one of only three four-time Putnam Fellows 1704:

when suppoprted by the media references. Other editors have agued that the references do not give the substantial coverage required by

2110: 1579:

per my analysis above of the sources presented by Ian.thomson and David Eppstein, it is clear that there is only a single source (the

1399:

True but irrelevant. As I already said, that does not mean that it cannot be used for notability. What it means is that we can't use

17: 869: 1528:

Vujkovica brdo? Compare the arguments above about whether E-R-T could have known about Vizing's work with the ones made by Vb on

321:

9. André C. M. Ran , Leiba Rodman & Arthur L. Rubin Stability index of invariant subspaces of matrices (9) self cited 6 times

139: 134: 1071:

and a New Scientist article with a couple of sentences about him, less in-depth but still an indication of his fame at the time

2196: 2170: 2152: 2133: 2116: 2086: 2045: 1981: 1936: 1905: 1890: 1870: 1856: 1837: 1823: 1805: 1777: 1758: 1741: 1721: 1669: 1639: 1604: 1567: 1541: 1516: 1513: 1498: 1494: 1480: 1459: 1438: 1416: 1394: 1345: 1320: 1292: 1270: 1245: 1206: 1176: 1157: 1134: 1089: 1027: 1013: 992: 970: 936: 920: 898: 884: 835: 814: 776: 731: 711: 690: 664: 640: 610: 569: 554: 526: 511: 495: 472: 447: 419: 393: 143: 64: 339:

6. Timothy R. Schempp and Arthur L. Rubin: An application of Gaussian Overbounding for the WAAS fault free error analysis (8)

579:: The sources "Caltech Math Wiz," "The First U.S.A Mathematical Olympiad," and those relating to the Putnam fellowship meet 228: 1100:, the correct thing to do in this kind of a situation is to discuss that paper and its influence in greater detail in the 369: 336:

5. Wallis, D. E., Taylor, H., Rubin, A. L.: FPLA mechanization of arithmetic elements to produce A+B or to pass A only (0)

126: 670: 195: 1163: 2215: 273:

Also A. Rubin co-authored other 6 articles in engineering all low cited. Only two of them are cited more that 10 times.

40: 1732:

does not meet any notability criteria for academics, and even more clearly fails notability criteria for politicians.

1116:

based on the competition results and related coverage, my personal impression is the coverage is too thin for that.

1881:

of the subject". Surely someone of your experience knows the difference between that and simply "multiple sources"?

254:- there is no a single source supporting a 21st-century American mathematicians and an aerospace engineer notability 1490: 332:

3. T. Truong, I. Reed, R. Lipes, A. Rubin ; S. Butman Digital SAR Processing Using a Fast Polynomial Transform (6)

1737: 1455: 875:

on the basis of high school and college math competitions, but the case appears to be insufficient to me there.

800:"2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." 1950: 1901: 1866: 1833: 1537: 1412: 1191:

This stuff is too far from me mathematically and I can't really judge the significance of his paper with Erdos.

1153: 1085: 727: 707: 491: 389: 2099:). Finally, if this is deleted, we'll need to start similar discussions for Reid Barton and Gabriel Carroll. 189: 1379:

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level:

1053: 1315: 1009: 988: 810: 761:, specifically points 1 and 2, as demonstrated by the citations of his work and recognition he has received. 550: 1693: 357: 2104: 1141: 589:

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

2019:. If the rest of the Newsweek article continues in that vein it is not a source reliable enough to hang 1080:. And since we have the Putnam, the Olympiad, and the graph coloring work, there's no issue with BIO1E. — 584: 185: 2211: 1754: 1078: 606: 36: 626:

Can you please explicitly state which multiple (3?) sources you think are enough to meet GNG? Only the

2184: 560:

were used to try and justify the notability of a young person today, it would be deemed insufficient.

2192: 2166: 2041: 1967: 1773: 1733: 1717: 1665: 1476: 1451: 966: 916: 522: 507: 468: 415: 334:

4. R. J. McEliece, E. R. Rodemich, and A. L. Rubin The Practical Limits of Photon Communication (13)

1162:"Vizing was not well known within the Soviet Union" is a false statement. Google Scholar search for 235: 1897: 1862: 1829: 1551: 1533: 1510: 1408: 1358: 1217: 1149: 1081: 723: 703: 221: 2147: 1800: 1366: 1331: 1310: 1266: 1145: 1005: 984: 806: 546: 1491:

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.

781:

You say "meets WP:GNG" and mention he had a LAT article. That isn't "multiple reliable sources".

754:, in particular that he was the subject of an article in the Los Angeles Times (amongst others). 1680:. Now that the citation record has been established, it is clear that it is not enough to pass 1524:. Is anyone else getting the impression that the nominator is the same person as indef-blocked 2129: 2100: 2082: 1977: 1932: 1886: 1852: 1819: 1600: 1563: 1555: 1529: 1434: 1390: 1341: 1288: 1241: 1202: 1172: 1072: 1023: 686: 660: 636: 565: 443: 365: 319:

8. Bal KishanDass; Siri KrishanWasan; Arthur L Rubin: Burst Distribution of a Linear Code (1)

130: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2210:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

1919: 1697: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1592: 1426: 1400: 1385:

Therefore we cannot count the Putnam Competition results as a proof of academic notability.--

1236:

which is an update of "The Putnam Competition from 1938-2008" that I already analysed above.

1097: 1065: 1049: 954: 860: 856: 758: 592: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

1750: 621: 602: 2032: 2020: 1924: 1914:

and a search for Rubin inside that turns up nothing for me, so please don't insult me with

1791: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1588: 1584: 1422: 1404: 1306: 1122: 1117: 1113: 1061: 872: 751: 580: 307:

4. The Cardinality of the set of Dedekind Finite Cardinals in Fraenkel‐Mostowski Models (2)

2188: 2162: 2067: 2037: 1960: 1769: 1713: 1661: 1635: 1610: 1472: 1130: 1109: 1018:

GNG requires substantial coverage in multiple sources. We have yet to find those sources.

962: 932: 912: 894: 880: 518: 503: 464: 411: 201: 1591:

are not met. The Putnam scholarship is clearly excluded from being suitable for meeting

1374: 1507: 349: 55: 2142: 1942: 1875:

No, I said: "not a single one has provided details on which multiple sources provide

1795: 1362: 1262: 1105: 1101: 1279:

Your rationale seems at odds with your !vote because, as you concede those are just

805:

Well, student awards, even well-known ones, don't come up to that standard, surely.

2125: 2096: 2078: 1973: 1928: 1882: 1848: 1815: 1596: 1559: 1430: 1386: 1337: 1284: 1237: 1198: 1168: 1019: 828: 769: 682: 656: 632: 561: 439: 361: 122: 70: 1104:

article rather than to have a standalone biographical article. By the way the the

160: 1075: 1069: 311:

6. Weak Forms of the Axiom of Choice and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (1)

252:) Categorised as a scientist/mathematician, an aerospace engineer, a libertarian 1956: 1631: 1233: 1185: 1126: 928: 890: 876: 305:

3. Kinna-Wagner Selection Principles, Axioms of Choice and Multiple Choice (3)

1108:

article currently says that the concept of list coloring was introduced by

1004:

without feeling that we're overly subject to special pleading in this case.

679:

Most likely the youngest is Arthur Rubin, who was a winner in 1970 at age 14

675:

Only seven people - ... Arthur Rubin... have been Putnam Fellows four times

323:

10. P Erdos, AL Rubin, H Taylor Choosability in Graphs (900) four versions

1467:. If this AfD is closed prior to the prescribed 168 hours per consensus 1077:

and as recently as 2017 he was still being cited as the youngest fellow

301:

1. Extended operations and relations on the class of ordinal numbers (1)

1283:- a thousand mentions cannot be summed to create substantial coverage. 958: 460: 456: 407: 1167:

time and, for sure, he had access to Soviet mathematical literature.--

2185:

The Putnam is arguably the most prestigious math contest in the world

351:

This nomination shall be kept open for discussion at least seven days

1583:

article) providing substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject so

648: 330:

2. E. Posner, A. Rubin: The Capacity of Digital Links in Tandem (12)

1654:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (5th nomination)

591:

Meeting GNG and NACADEMIC are sufficient, he does not need to meet

354:. Previous three nominations were closed just after a couple hours. 303:

2. Independence Results for Class Forms of the Axiom of Choice (2)

1064:

for his competition results. (These are explicitly off-topic for

2204:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

784:

You say "meets WP:PROF points 1 and 2". Does it? Here they are:

2187:" (from December 16, 2002), along with other considerations. 1261:

and cited as youngest fellow) means notability is satisfied.

700:

list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

651:" and literally the only content in relation to Rubin is: 1628:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo

1915: 1048:

A single highly-cited paper is probably not enough for

156: 152: 148: 653:

Arthur Rubin West Lafayette H. S. West Lafayette, Ind.

220: 2074:"The Pinball Genius". Newsweek. 1974-06-10. p. 76-77. 517:

Which category of notability do you think is passed?

2183:

One might consider these words from Time magazine: "

1148:

that also broke the grammar of the first sentence. —

1425:and insufficient we have to move to the particular 410:of 32? Others here are getting much lower numbers. 234: 112:

Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (7th nomination)

107:

Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (6th nomination)

102:

Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (5th nomination)

97:

Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (4th nomination)

92:

Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (3rd nomination)

87:

Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination)

1688:. The consensus here, which I agree with, is that 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2218:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1532:, and their shared interest in Serbian issues. — 720:list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions 718:Note: This discussion has been included in the 698:Note: This discussion has been included in the 1910:The link you provided is just to the issue of 1708:. I agree, and agree that there is no pass of 1060:Putting that aside as well, I think he passes 863:explicitly says the following on this point: " 463:of 4. Could this be clarified before closure? 313:7. Maximal principles for sets and classes (0) 1923:see if someone can access an archive copy at 309:5. Accumulation functions on the ordinals (0) 8: 2027:sources are need. An editor notes that nine 911:Does that catch the engineering citations? 717: 697: 355: 284: 1550:Now a new nonsense from A Rubin's friend 1403:for notability that way; we have to use 298:Coauthored with his mother Jean E. Rubin 1421:True and very relevant. From a general 79: 1407:instead. As my comment already does. — 1375:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics) 1190: 678: 674: 652: 588: 268:) Primary sources - co-authored papers 868:") GScholar gives h-index of about 5 671:The Putnam Competition from 1938-2008 649:The First U.S.A Mathematical Olympiad 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 77: 82:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin 24: 647:I have checked the full text of " 289:All A Rubin's papers, co-authored 1618: 1609: 1828:False. Read my comment again. — 1054:this recent article would argue 953:on basis of failure to satisfy 583:. The Putnam fellowship meets 406:Can you explain how you got an 1228:to me: "Fifty Years of Putnam 1: 1945:at REX, the full copy of the 1617:The nominator, Taribuk, is a 1595:too, as is the low h-index. 1112:in 1976. Regarding passing 2235: 2197:12:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2171:01:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2153:01:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2134:15:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC) 2117:03:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC) 2087:10:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC) 2046:02:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC) 1982:20:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC) 1937:18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC) 1906:18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC) 1891:18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC) 1871:17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC) 1857:16:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC) 1838:16:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC) 1824:13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC) 1806:13:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC) 1722:01:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 1692:is not passed. Neither is 527:01:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 65:12:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 1778:21:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC) 1759:15:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC) 1742:03:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC) 1670:06:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC) 1640:02:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC) 1605:22:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1568:22:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1542:19:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1517:15:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1499:12:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1481:10:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1460:08:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1439:08:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1417:07:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1395:07:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1346:13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1321:04:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1293:10:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1271:02:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1246:13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1207:13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1177:08:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1158:02:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1135:02:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1090:00:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1028:13:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1014:13:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 993:22:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 971:21:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 937:23:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 921:23:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 899:22:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 885:21:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 836:22:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 815:21:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 777:21:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 732:21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 712:21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 691:22:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 665:21:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 641:21:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 611:21:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 570:21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 555:20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 512:05:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC) 496:13:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 473:21:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 448:20:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 420:01:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 394:20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 2207:Please do not modify it. 1949:article can be accessed 32:Please do not modify it. 245:Not notable, un-sourced 76:AfDs for this article: 1471:, I shall reopen it. 1878:substantial coverage 1554:. Of course, I read 1309:and has for awhile. 316:Coauthored by others 277:The main problem is: 2029:experienced editors 1972:What do you think? 1223:in regards to the 951:Provisional delete 1920:It's not my fault 1734:John Pack Lambert 1556:Talk:Arthur Rubin 1530:Talk:Arthur Rubin 1429:and sufficient.-- 1052:. But perhaps as 734: 714: 373: 360:comment added by 344: 343: 63: 2226: 2209: 2150: 2145: 2113: 2107: 2075: 2071: 2031:have voted that 1971: 1964: 1803: 1798: 1622: 1621: 1613: 1335: 1318: 1221: 1189: 831: 772: 625: 459:of 32? I get an 285: 239: 238: 224: 176: 164: 146: 62: 60: 53: 34: 2234: 2233: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2216:deletion review 2205: 2148: 2143: 2111: 2105: 2073: 2065: 2023:upon. Further, 1968:Johnpacklambert 1965: 1954: 1801: 1796: 1619: 1615:Checkuser note: 1329: 1314: 1215: 1183: 1110:Vadim G. Vizing 829: 770: 619: 340: 290: 181: 172: 137: 121: 118: 116: 74: 56: 54: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2232: 2230: 2221: 2220: 2200: 2199: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2156: 2155: 2136: 2119: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1951:at archive.org 1939: 1898:David Eppstein 1863:David Eppstein 1830:David Eppstein 1808: 1790:Seems to pass 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1762: 1761: 1744: 1726: 1725: 1674: 1673: 1658:usual suspects 1645: 1643: 1642: 1607: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1552:David Eppstein 1545: 1544: 1534:David Eppstein 1519: 1501: 1484: 1462: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1409:David Eppstein 1371:Putnam Fellows 1359:David Eppstein 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1324: 1323: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1274: 1273: 1259:Putnam Fellows 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1218:David Eppstein 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1193:The point is, 1181: 1180: 1179: 1150:David Eppstein 1082:David Eppstein 1058: 1045: 1044: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 996: 995: 975: 961:is clarified. 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 904: 903: 902: 901: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 782: 764: 763: 762: 757:Subject meets 755: 750:Subject meets 745: 744: 736: 735: 724:David Eppstein 715: 704:David Eppstein 695: 694: 693: 667: 644: 643: 614: 613: 574: 573: 572: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 488:192.160.216.52 479: 478: 477: 476: 450: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 397: 396: 386:192.160.216.52 342: 341: 337: 335: 333: 331: 329: 327: 325: 324: 322: 320: 318: 317: 315: 314: 312: 310: 308: 306: 304: 302: 299: 297: 295: 292: 291: 288: 282: 274: 272: 269: 263: 257: 255: 253: 247: 242: 241: 178: 117: 115: 114: 109: 104: 99: 94: 89: 84: 78: 75: 73: 68: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2231: 2219: 2217: 2213: 2208: 2202: 2201: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2146: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2120: 2118: 2114: 2108: 2102: 2098: 2093: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2069: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2017:Jacob Barnett 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1969: 1962: 1958: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1812: 1809: 1807: 1804: 1799: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1745: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1694:WP:Politician 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1575: 1574: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1526:sockpuppeteer 1523: 1520: 1518: 1515: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1463: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367:SportingFlyer 1364: 1360: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1333: 1332:SportingFlyer 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1322: 1319: 1317: 1312: 1311:SportingFlyer 1308: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1253: 1252: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1226: 1219: 1214: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1165: 1164:"V.G. Vizing" 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146:Joel B. Lewis 1143: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1106:List coloring 1103: 1102:List coloring 1099: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1073: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1006:Chiswick Chap 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 994: 990: 986: 985:Chiswick Chap 982: 980: 976: 974: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 947: 938: 934: 930: 925: 924: 922: 918: 914: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 900: 896: 892: 888: 887: 886: 882: 878: 874: 870: 867: 862: 859:. (Note that 858: 854: 851: 850: 837: 834: 833: 832: 823: 818: 817: 816: 812: 808: 807:Chiswick Chap 804: 803: 802: 801: 799: 791: 790: 789: 788: 786: 785: 783: 780: 779: 778: 775: 774: 773: 765: 760: 756: 753: 749: 748: 747: 746: 741: 738: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 716: 713: 709: 705: 701: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 673:states only: 672: 668: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 645: 642: 638: 634: 629: 623: 618: 617: 616: 615: 612: 608: 604: 599: 594: 590: 586: 582: 578: 575: 571: 567: 563: 558: 557: 556: 552: 548: 547:Chiswick Chap 543: 542: 528: 524: 520: 516: 515: 513: 509: 505: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 474: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 451: 449: 445: 441: 437: 434: 433: 432: 431: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 395: 391: 387: 383: 382:h-index of 32 379: 376: 375: 374: 371: 367: 363: 359: 353: 352: 348: 338: 294: 293: 287: 286: 283: 281: 278: 267: 261: 251: 246: 237: 233: 230: 227: 223: 219: 215: 212: 209: 206: 203: 200: 197: 194: 191: 187: 184: 183:Find sources: 179: 175: 171: 168: 162: 158: 154: 150: 145: 141: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 119: 113: 110: 108: 105: 103: 100: 98: 95: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 72: 69: 67: 66: 61: 59: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2206: 2203: 2180: 2138: 2121: 2101:power~enwiki 2097:Dave Barclay 2091: 2028: 2024: 1946: 1911: 1877: 1876: 1844: 1810: 1787: 1746: 1729: 1700:, they pass 1677: 1657: 1649: 1644: 1623: 1614: 1580: 1576: 1521: 1503: 1486: 1464: 1447: 1381: 1378: 1354: 1313: 1301: 1280: 1254: 1229: 1224: 1194: 1040: 978: 977: 950: 949: 864: 852: 827: 826: 768: 767: 739: 627: 597: 587:'s standard 585:WP:NACADEMIC 576: 452: 435: 381: 377: 356:— Preceding 350: 346: 345: 300: 276: 275: 265: 259: 249: 244: 243: 231: 225: 217: 210: 204: 198: 192: 182: 169: 123:Arthur Rubin 71:Arthur Rubin 57: 49: 47: 31: 28: 1751:Lepricavark 1747:Speedy keep 1504:Speedy Keep 1448:Speedy Keep 1302:Speedy Keep 822:the article 622:Ian.thomson 603:Ian.thomson 326:Engineering 296:Mathematics 280:notability. 266:not notable 208:free images 2189:Jjjjjjjjjj 2163:Xxanthippe 2068:Xxanthippe 2038:Xxanthippe 1961:Xxanthippe 1941:Thanks to 1770:Xxanthippe 1714:Xxanthippe 1686:WP:Prof#C2 1682:WP:Prof#C1 1662:Xxanthippe 1626:sock. See 1473:Xxanthippe 1369:About the 963:Xxanthippe 913:Xxanthippe 669:Similarly 519:Xxanthippe 504:Xxanthippe 465:Xxanthippe 412:Xxanthippe 260:un-sourced 250:un-sourced 58:Sandstein 2212:talk page 2149:(discuss) 1847:article? 1802:(discuss) 1624:Confirmed 1514:(contrib) 1508:Eggishorn 1452:Andrew D. 37:talk page 2214:or in a 2144:Hawkeye7 2025:multiple 1947:Newsweek 1943:Chris857 1912:Newsweek 1845:Newsweek 1797:Hawkeye7 1712:either. 1581:LA Times 1377:says in 1363:Johnuniq 1281:mentions 1263:Johnuniq 1225:Newsweek 628:LA Times 370:contribs 358:unsigned 167:View log 39:or in a 2139:Comment 2126:Carrite 2122:Comment 2092:Comment 2079:SmartSE 1974:SmartSE 1929:SmartSE 1883:SmartSE 1849:SmartSE 1816:SmartSE 1811:Comment 1698:WP:Prof 1690:WP:Prof 1650:Comment 1597:SmartSE 1593:WP:PROF 1560:Taribuk 1522:Comment 1465:Comment 1431:Taribuk 1427:WP:PROF 1401:WP:PROF 1387:Taribuk 1355:Comment 1338:SmartSE 1305:passes 1285:SmartSE 1238:SmartSE 1199:SmartSE 1169:Taribuk 1142:an edit 1098:WP:PROF 1066:WP:PROF 1050:WP:PROF 1020:SmartSE 959:h-index 955:WP:Prof 861:WP:PROF 857:WP:PROF 830:Hut 8.5 771:Hut 8.5 759:WP:PROF 683:SmartSE 657:SmartSE 633:SmartSE 593:WP:NPOL 562:SmartSE 461:h-index 457:h-index 453:Comment 440:Taribuk 436:Comment 408:h-index 362:Taribuk 214:WP refs 202:scholar 140:protect 135:history 2072:It is 2033:WP:GNG 2021:WP:GNG 1925:WP:REX 1916:lmgtfy 1792:WP:GNG 1730:Delete 1710:WP:GNG 1706:WP:GNG 1702:WP:GNG 1678:Delete 1589:WP:BIO 1585:WP:GNG 1577:Delete 1511:(talk) 1423:WP:GNG 1405:WP:GNG 1307:WP:GNG 1230:Trivia 1195:nobody 1123:WP:GNG 1118:WP:GNG 1114:WP:GNG 1062:WP:GNG 979:Delete 957:until 873:WP:GNG 853:Delete 793:exist. 752:WP:GNG 581:WP:GNG 186:Google 144:delete 1957:Nsk92 1632:Bbb23 1186:Nsk92 1127:Nsk92 929:Nsk92 891:Nsk92 877:Nsk92 677:and: 347:Note. 229:JSTOR 190:books 174:Stats 161:views 153:watch 149:links 16:< 2193:talk 2181:Keep 2167:talk 2130:talk 2083:talk 2042:talk 1978:talk 1959:and 1933:talk 1902:talk 1887:talk 1867:talk 1853:talk 1834:talk 1820:talk 1788:Keep 1774:talk 1755:talk 1738:talk 1718:talk 1666:talk 1636:talk 1601:talk 1564:talk 1538:talk 1495:talk 1487:Keep 1477:talk 1469:here 1456:talk 1435:talk 1413:talk 1391:talk 1342:talk 1316:talk 1289:talk 1267:talk 1255:Keep 1242:talk 1234:this 1203:talk 1173:talk 1154:talk 1131:talk 1086:talk 1041:Keep 1024:talk 1010:talk 989:talk 981:Keep 967:talk 933:talk 917:talk 895:talk 881:talk 811:talk 743:are: 740:Keep 728:talk 708:talk 687:talk 661:talk 637:talk 607:talk 577:Keep 566:talk 551:talk 523:talk 508:talk 492:talk 469:talk 444:talk 416:talk 390:talk 380:--- 378:Keep 366:talk 264:3. ( 248:1. ( 222:FENS 196:news 157:logs 131:talk 127:edit 50:keep 1794:. 1630:.-- 1365:, @ 1361:, @ 1144:by 598:not 258:2.( 236:TWL 165:– ( 2195:) 2169:) 2132:) 2115:) 2109:, 2085:) 2044:) 1980:) 1935:) 1918:. 1904:) 1889:) 1869:) 1855:) 1836:) 1822:) 1776:) 1757:) 1740:) 1720:) 1668:) 1638:) 1603:) 1566:) 1540:) 1497:) 1479:) 1458:) 1437:) 1415:) 1393:) 1383:1. 1373:. 1344:) 1291:) 1269:) 1244:) 1205:) 1175:) 1156:) 1133:) 1125:. 1088:) 1026:) 1012:) 991:) 969:) 935:) 923:. 919:) 897:) 883:) 866:1. 813:) 730:) 722:. 710:) 702:. 689:) 681:. 663:) 655:. 639:) 609:) 568:) 553:) 525:) 514:. 510:) 494:) 471:) 455:. 446:) 418:) 392:) 372:) 368:• 216:) 159:| 155:| 151:| 147:| 142:| 138:| 133:| 129:| 2191:( 2173:. 2165:( 2128:( 2112:ν 2106:π 2103:( 2081:( 2070:: 2066:@ 2048:. 2040:( 1976:( 1970:: 1966:@ 1963:: 1955:@ 1931:( 1900:( 1885:( 1865:( 1851:( 1832:( 1818:( 1780:. 1772:( 1753:( 1736:( 1724:. 1716:( 1672:. 1664:( 1634:( 1599:( 1587:/ 1562:( 1536:( 1493:( 1483:. 1475:( 1454:( 1433:( 1411:( 1389:( 1357:@ 1340:( 1334:: 1330:@ 1287:( 1265:( 1240:( 1220:: 1216:@ 1201:( 1188:: 1184:@ 1171:( 1152:( 1129:( 1084:( 1022:( 1008:( 987:( 973:. 965:( 931:( 915:( 893:( 879:( 809:( 726:( 706:( 685:( 659:( 635:( 624:: 620:@ 605:( 564:( 549:( 529:. 521:( 506:( 490:( 475:. 467:( 442:( 422:. 414:( 388:( 364:( 240:) 232:· 226:· 218:· 211:· 205:· 199:· 193:· 188:( 180:( 177:) 170:· 163:) 125:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (6th nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index