Deletion of Daniel Biss

Comment: Fails the notability criteria of  on at least two counts.  A politician, according to the policy guideline, is notable if he/she ''"held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office"'' and also states that ''"being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'.''" Neither of these criterion are true in this case, so Biss is not notable as a politician, which leaves his achievements as an academic.  The notability guidelines are set out at  using the so-called ''professor test''.  In short, an academic must hold high office (such distinguished professor), undertaken breakthrough research or received a highly prestigious academic award to be considered notable.  Again, this is not the case with Biss.  In summary, not notable as either a politician or an academic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: As I explained thoroughly in the discussion, there is no evidence that the thesis of Biss, or the mistake in it, is in any way notable. The main mathematical sources of notability: press coverage about the theorem or error, people referring to the paper in other papers (as measured precisely by Mathscinet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Reviews), an ICM talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Congress_of_Mathematicians or Seminaire Bourbaki talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminaire_Bourbaki or AMS ``hot topics" talk at an AMS meeting on the work, or an article about the work in the Notices AMS or http://www.ams.org/publications/journals/journalsframework/bull Bulletin AMS, are all completely lacking.  Further, there are no  to indicate any "controversy" or other notability about the error. Since there seems to be almost a total lack of  for the math, the case relies only Biss as a politician. And I just don't see the case there. Everyone running for some (even quite minor) office gets a small amount of "coverage".  In most cases failed candidates don't have pages devoted to them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: Math31415, being perhaps a novice, might not know that the notability standards for Mathematicians are by far below of what he is trying to describe, and are not formalized in any such way.  E.g., :Category:American mathematicians has about 1,000 people.  Maybe only 50-100 of them would fit the above description.  Not to advocate , but the current notability standards for mathematicians are already much stricter than that of List_of_current_NFL_team_rosters|NFL football players.  There is really no need to add much stricter standards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: I am indeed a novice (sorry for mistakes caused by that). But, I have not seen any  given for any coverage of a controversy over, or notability of, any of Biss's papers, moreso than any of the thousands of other papers that have appeared in top journals. Also, thousands of mathematicians satisfy the criterion I give above.  For example, at the last ICM http://www.icm2006.org/ alone, there were 20 sections of speakers, plus plenary, with about 10-13 in each section.  That makes for more than 210 people in that year alone. Note that Biss was not invited (at that time (2006) his paper was already published (2003), and still thought to be correct, but the work was not deemed important enough for an invitation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Although he has been a failed candidate for an election, he has received significant coverage in the news for not just that failed election, but is also receiving much coverage at the moment for his noticeable campaign for the IL House and has a good chance of winning (although this in itself is not sufficient, as per . Nonetheless, even with the publicity that he received from his two campaigns to the IL House of Representatives, he has also received publicity for his thesis, even though it has been proved wrong. Despite this, he has received coverage for his wrong thesis, and that contributes to his notability. The coverage that he received for his two campaigns, in my opinion, further confirms his notability.  and  are only if significant coverage cannot be found, and I feel that it can be in this case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:ACADEMIC)