Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Nsk92, 04:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)