Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Biss
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
— User:Math31415, 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)