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. This can be recreated if/when he meets WP:PROF, but the consensus is that, at present, he does not, nor is the IMO sufficent to pass WP:ATHLETE. Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darij Grinberg

[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article was deprodded on the grounds that the subject won a gold medal in the 2006 International Mathematics Olympiad. This does not automatically confer notability on the subject: roughly the top 10% of participants receive golds, and anyway as a high-school competition it would hardly seem to rise to the level of WP:ATHLETE. The only other evidence of notability is some triangle centers named after the subject in the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers. I believe, per a comment made by User:David Eppstein, that this can be used as a source for articles, but not as a source for establishing notability, much like the OEIS. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grinberg introduced the term Blaikie point of O and g for the point Z of concurrence, and defined the S-Blaikie transform of O as the Blaikie point of O and OS; he has won two silver medals (2004, 2005) and one gold medal (2006) at the International Mathematical Olympiad; and additionally he was Bundessieger of the Bundeswettbewerb Mathematik four times. The subject is notable in my eyes. Inniverse (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that the subject flat out fails WP:PROF. So "introduc[ing] the term Blaikie point of O and g for the point Z of concurrence, and defin[ing] the S-Blaikie transform of O as the Blaikie point of O and OS" seem to be very questionable grounds for keeping the article. As for the mathematics competitions, the bar for notability is (or was at one time) quite high: the policy under which this falls is WP:ATHLETE. For some perspective, even the article Arthur Rubin, four time Putnam Mathematics Competition winner, was not generally regarded as notable enough on the strength of the subject's competition record. (And the Putnam is considerably more prestigious than either the IMO or the Bundeswettbewer.) Rather it was the Erdos number 1 of the subject, together with the outstanding Putnam record that ultimately tipped the scales in that case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than just being a Erdos coauthor, Rubin's paper with Erdos on "Choosability in graphs" is a highly cited paper in the field. This most likely satisfies WP:PROF criterion #1, but even this is questionable. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 00:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school level awards do not confer academic notability, (see item 9 in 'Notes and Examples' in WP:PROF). MathSciNet shows only 4 publications by the subect, with no citations. Similarly scant citability data in GoogleScholar. According to his own website[1] he appears to be a graduate student. If he did introduce an important and broadly used new concept, he might qualify for satisfying Criterion 1 of WP:PROF, but that does not appear to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. None of the three triangle centers named after him in ETC shows up as the subject of a significant level of other research in Google scholar, so I don't think he can claim to have a notable concept named after him. I did find one paper "Grinberg triangles" by Deko Dekov in the Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry but it seems to be self-published (Dekov's own journal) and in any case that's still not a significant level of other research. This is not close to the scholarly prominence expected for WP:PROF (unsurprisingly, as most of the WP:PROF criteria approximate something you would expect to see from a full professor at a good research university rather than someone who is still a student), and while the Olympiad gold is a significant accomplishment I don't think it is good enough by itself either. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A gold medal at the Int'l Math Olympiad (is quite an achievement but) does not suffice, nor does his work as a mathematician (yet) provide him sufficient notability as an academic. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 00:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an academic (fails WP:PROF). Use of WP:Athlete to rule on IMO contestants is highly unorthodox, in spite of the name "olympiad".Arcfrk (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of the four given references, two are primary and one doesn't say anything about the person. That is not suitable for a BLP and it does not hint at notability. Paul Carpenter (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. But with no prejudice against recreation if he later passes WP:PROF. Ozob (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add: WoS, GS, and plain Google are all unaware of the concepts of "Blaikie points" and "Blaikie transformations", so these are clearly not notable at the moment as the article would have us believe. WoS shows h-index of 0. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2010 (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.