Deletion of Arthur Rubin (6th nomination)

Comment: Seems to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Putnam competitions and the Math Olympiads are student level awards/accomplishments and they do not contribute to academic notability per . (Note that  explicitly says the following on this point: "''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 1.''") GScholar gives h-index of about 5 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14&q=%22Arthur+L.+Rubin%22&btnG=. 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  on the basis of high school and college math competitions, but the case appears to be insufficient to me there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 ''LA Times'' article) providing substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject so / are not met. The Putnam scholarship is clearly excluded from being suitable for meeting  too, as is the low h-index
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: The sources "Caltech Math Wiz," "The First U.S.A Mathematical Olympiad," and those relating to the Putnam fellowship meet .  The Putnam fellowship meets 's standard {{tq|The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.}}  Meeting GNG and NACADEMIC are sufficient, he does not need to meet  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 ''not'' 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NPOL)

Comment: 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 passes  and has for awhile
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)