The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Bialostocki

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Test case. Bio of a relatively unremarkable prof. GS h-index of 11, MathSciNet h-index of 8. Suggestion that notability may be in question answered by appeal to Erdos number, which I do not consider grounds for notability (notability should not be inherited). Ray^Talk 00:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 00:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. You are quite correct that consensus is that Erdos number does not give a pass of WP:Prof. Cites are on the low side, let us see what the mathematicians think. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There is very little that can be said (with appropriate sources) about who he is or what his accomplishments might be. Apparently he retired a year or so ago [1], explaining the lack of recent publications. His level of citation (on Google scholar) is not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. This is not a high-citation field, so I don't want to draw too much of a conclusion from the citation count, but it does make it harder to argue for notability that way, and I don't see any other WP:PROF criterion that he could use. Before tagging the article for notability I searched for other evidence, but didn't find any. And certainly the Erdős number is just a case of WP:INHERITED: he once worked with someone famous, but that doesn't make him famous himself. There is a single sentence about him in Soifer's coloring book saying that he once ran a computer search for solutions to a combinatorial problem; that's also not the basis for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mathematicians have spoken and given sound reason. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per all above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that could be a claim to notability that is currently in the article is the Erdős number. If those don't do it, then I'd have to say delete. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Eppstein's research -- usually professors' retirement or obit notices give evidence for passing WP:PROF if such evidence exists, but the linked article does not (it asserts that he was an above average teacher, but that's not enough for a pass without at least state-level or, better, national recognition). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the consensus is that being an Erdos 1 is not a sign of notability, I have no counterargument within Wikipedia's guidelines. (For example, there used to be a short documentary about Prof. Bialostocki called "Every Summer" that would run on public access in Moscow, ID, but there are no references to it on the Internet.) I'd like to note that I'm unaware of an Erdos 1 having ever been deleted before, that there appear to be other Erdos 1s with pages who may be lacking in notability, and that the existence of the "List of people by Erdős number" suggests that being an Erdos 1 may itself be a sign of notability, partly academic and partly non-academic. But I recognize that none of these arguments are valid under the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" guidelines.LawSetsValence (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.