Deletion of Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination)

Comment: Winning the Putnam the maximum number of times establishes notability, in my view, per criterion #6 of .  Would anyone like to track down the other six?  The list is http://www.maa.org/awards/putnam.html here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: his accomplishments in the Putnam was covered by mutliple reliable sources inluding the LA  Times which isn't small potatoes.  On this alone, I'd !vote keep although some might argue that it might be .  But when you combine this with a highly cited paper, it takes it beyond a single event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I am sorry to see that much of the discussion concerns AR's role here on Wikipedia. Whether people have positive or negative feelings about him as a Wikipedian should really not be a factor in their decisions in this AfD and both grudge votes and sympathy votes should be avoided. The nom may be bad faith (I am not sure), but there are in fact valid policy-based reasons for deletion here. On the substance, let me address some of the above comments. In terms of    academic notability (in the sense of ) student competitions like Putnam do not count (academic notability refers to notability for one's research). Erdos number 1 is not   an indicator of academic notability either. It is a well-established general principle in the application of all the notability guidelines that notability is not inherited (being a co-author, a child, a parent, a spouse of a notable person does not, in and of itself, make one notable). Neither is the Erdos number 1 indicative of particular importance of one's research. In terms of mathematical importance, Erdos was a somewhat arbitrary point in the mathematical universe and his name gave rise to the notion of an Erdos number not because of some special importance of his work but becuase he had a very large number of co-authors (I think over a 500 of them). There are many other modern mathematicians whose work is arguably more important and influential than that of Erdos, e.g. Andrew Wiles, Grigory Perelman, Mikhail Gromov, but having a small collaboration distance from either of them is not, by itself, an indicator of academic notability either. In terms of biographical notability under , I don't think there is a convincing case either. The same "notability is not inherited" considerations apply to the Erdos number 1 arguments. As for Putnam, I can't really seriously accept applying  here. Putnam is manifestly not an athletic competition, but a student academic contest. In terms of analogies with , however, college sports participation is generally not enough for passing  either. One is required to either compete at the professional level in professional sports leagues or at the highest level of non-professional sports, such as world championships, olympic games, etc. The same logic applied to this case would imply that victories in college competitions of any other kind (academic contests, debate teams, singing contests, whatever) are not, by themselves, indicators of notability (they could be if there is significant coverage of such victories by independent reliable sources, but that is not the case here either). The bottom line is, I don't see either the requirements of  or of  being satisfied here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:ATHLETE||WP:ATHLETE||WP:ATHLETE||WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: Really sorry to do this since the Arthur Rubin is a valued member of the Wikipedia community and an excellent admin (and the previous AfD seems to have been a bad faith nom), but I do not see this article as passing either  or . Putnam is a student competition and the victories there do not really confer either biographical or academic notability. Same goes for the Erdos number 1: having co-authored a paper with a famous person does not make an academic notable. As for AR's own academic record, I did quite a bit of searching in MathSciNet and the WebOfScience. MathSciNet lists 12 papers by him, the last one in 1997. Of them the only one that shows high citability is the joint paper with Paul Erdos|Erdos and Taylor "Choosability in graphs"  from 1980 which does have 103 citations in MathSciNet (GoogleScholar gives 241 citations for this paperhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Choosability%20in%20graphs%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws). The other 11 papers (that are not joint with famous mathematicians) show either zero or low single digits citation hits in MathSciNet and WoS (similar results in GoogleScholarhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Arthur+L.+Rubin%22&btnG=Search). Sorry, but in my view this just does not add up to academic notability per .  David Eppstein is correct that one can possibly argue here for passing criterion 5 of , being known for originating an important new concept. But since the paper in question is joint with two other people, one of whom is a really famous mathematician (Erdos), and none of the other papers show significant citability, I am not inclined to accept the criterion 5 argument in this case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: There's a possible pass of  #5 (known for originating an important new concept) from his 1979 paper with Erdős, “Choosability in graphs”: it has 241 citations (quite high for a pure math paper), and choosability is an important subtopic of graph coloring theory
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: 103 citations for a paper he wrote on mathscinet is fairly humongous. Even if it's in collaboration with a more famous mathematician, I think Mr. Rubin meets criterion #3 of  -- he has published a work which is significant, to put it mildly, and has been widely cited. I don't think two other coauthors is sufficient to dilute the notability there. Now if this had been one of those gigantic collaborations with 500 co-authors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I've found very few independent, third-party sources in which Mr. Rubin is the subject of the article.  Doesn't appear to pass otability nor 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:PROF)