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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Truss[edit]

John Truss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Is the only reason this article exists, because his daughter is set to become UK Prime Minister? I do not think his academic research output on its own meets WP:PROF. There are also many emeritus professors in the UK, so this on its own should not be used to assume notability. Also, all of the references in the article so far do not have John Truss mentioned in their headline but rather his daughter Liz. Uhooep (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Is the only reason you nominated it for deletion because his daughter is set to become UK Prime Minister? You should have given it a chance while it is under construction. See here too. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously considered creating the article myself, but upon researching the subject, concluded there wasn't enough to confer individual notability here. That's not to say others can't substantiate notability of course, but it's not there yet in my opinion. Uhooep (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree which was why it had an "under construction" tag. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uhooep (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the article just need some improvement and few reliable references. I did a quick search about his publications and the subject looks notable. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  agree Jg10101 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Truss does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG at this time (previous notability discussion located here: Talk:John K. Truss). This article history can be merged with John K. Truss so that it can be easily restored if notability changes in the future. TJMSmith (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NPROF C8 based on the findings below that he was co-editor in chief of Journal of the London Mathematical Society.

Comment The journal that Truss co-edited, the Journal of the London Mathematical Society, had an impact factor of 0.88 in 2021. This would fail to put the journal in the top 71% of journals by impact factor according to this 2017 report, therefore I would argue that this is not enough by itself to pass WP:PROF C8, which requires "a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". Uhooep (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the problems with impact factors, the operative words here are "in their subject area". Mathematics is a low citation field. While not a tippy-top journal, JLMS is highly respectable in the field, and I believe it meets the standard. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics journals score notoriously poorly on impact factors, because citations happen slowly relatively to other fields, especially lab sciences or engineering. There is also the "well-established" part of that criterion: being published since 1926 by a historically significant mathematical society (despite having "London" in its name, it's actually a national organization in the UK) suggests that there should be no argument over that. --RFBailey (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Thinking I didn't know she had a notable father, I clicked on the link in the article about the newly selected Prime Minister, and then saw the obvious: she doesn't! – Athaenara ✉ 14:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the only references are passing mentions in articles focused on his daughter. As an aside, the article is also inaccurate - it says she is Prime Minister which is not (yet) true; right now she is leader of the governing party and is set to become PM tomorrow. anything could happen between now and then. WaggersTALK 14:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable both under the GNG (coverage of his life will continue to grow in reliable sources over the coming days) and as a mathematician. Emeritus professor at a top university. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing notable about this fellow. GNG not met. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NPROF #5, as he was "Professor John K. Truss (University of Leeds)" already in 2000, when he would have been 52 or 53, so the fact that he is now an emeritus professor at Leeds is based on his having been a full professor before retirement. See Professor John K. Truss (University of Leeds) UCL short course in 2000. Edwardx (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a full professor before retirement doesn't make him meet NPROF #5. Being an emeritus professor doesn't either. EddieHugh (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPROF #5 reads "has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Named chairs are uncommon in the UK and Leeds University is a "major institution". Edwardx (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that an emeritus professor is equivalent to a distinguished professor appointment. That would make all emeritus professors meet this criterion, and we'd be very busy creating new articles. At Leeds, named chairs exist – [1], [2]. EddieHugh (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EddieHugh, I believe the argument that Edwardx is making is actually that all full professors at UK universities pass WP:NPROF C5, since named chairs are less common there versus in the US. I have heard this argument before, and am fairly skeptical. (But I don't think the math department at Leeds does have a named chair, and I am a keep !vote via WP:NPROF C8.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very low bar... the definitions aren't very clear, but an official UK source states: "Among academic staff, 22,810 or 10% were employed on a contract level described as a professor in 2019/20." EddieHugh (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The citation record looks a little below what I'd look for for WP:NPROF, even in a low citation field like pure mathematics. WP:NAUTHOR looks somewhat plausible, or at least possible: a somewhat casual search yields one review [3] of an authored textbook, and another review [4] of a pair of edited volumes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Not enough evidence of notability beyond the WP:INHERITED reasons for creating an article, which are themselves also not evidence of independent notability. I tagged this for notability at a point where it was a one-line stub saying only that he is a retired mathematics professor. It has been expanded, but only with routine detail (his education, family life, academic career, and a listing of selected publications, all of which are appropriate things to include in an academic biography but do not contribute to notability) and a single review of a textbook (that does not stand out among many other textbooks for the same topic). He does have a second book, the monograph "Foundations of Analysis", but I found only the standard MathSciNet and zbMATH reviews of it; because these databases review all mathematical publications, they are generally considered not to count towards notability. The third thing listed as a book is an edited volume not an authored work. So I don't think we have enough for WP:AUTHOR, and his citation counts are too low for WP:PROF#C1 to be relevant. Re Edwardx and Philafrenzy: full professor is not enough by itself for WP:PROF#C5 notability, even in England where it might mean a little more than in the US, and neither is emeritus. C5 asks for someone who is still working at something one step beyond an ordinary full professorship (often marked as a named professorship or distinguished professorship), while emeritus is an honorary title given to retired professors. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He's done some interesting stuff with Fraïssé limits, at least to people who are interested in Fraïssé limits...but I don't think any of it was impactful enough on the field to get a C1b pass, and none of the other NPROF criteria seem to be met either. JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The joint editorship is enough to meet C8, I suppose. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No coverage in reliable sources, other than passing mentions concerning his daughter. He doesn't appear to have achieved anything notable as a mathematician, and this should never have been created.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't he be merged with Liz's article? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete at this time. Citation record, while quite respectable, looks a bit short of WP:NPROF. Subject's books don't appear to have gotten enough attention for WP:NAUTHOR, or at least no one has found evidence of such. There's a moderate bit of coverage of the contrast between the subject's political views and those of his notable daughter, mostly in unreliable tabloid sources (see WP:RSP) so far. If this increases, it could change the notability situation via GNG (but WP:CRYSTAL applies). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing to weak keep. The WP:NPROF C8 case outlined by RFBailey below brings me over. The Journal of the London Mathematical Society I think certainly qualifies as a major, well-established journal, and the subject appears to have been editor over a period of at least about 4 years. The significant citations help support (even if short of what I'd like to see for a standalone WP:NPROF C1 case), and the bit of attention that the books received does not hurt. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: The subject of this article is a person I once knew, so I will stay neutral. (I usually also try to keep work and Wikipedia separate.) However....
  • The tabloid stories about his political views are not reason themselves for this article to exist (although I wish a better news outlet would provide some coverage).
  • The current article is in a poor condition, but that is grounds for improvement (for instance, it fails to mention that there are children other than Liz). The draft by TJMSmith [5] did a better job of discussing his mathematical work, such as determining the full automorphism group of the Rado graph (which is referenced on the Rado graph page). These contributions (on automorphisms of homogeneous structures) are likely of more overall significance than the textbooks.
  • It's hard to rely on something like Google Scholar for assessing notability for work that predates the internet age, as the citation counts are unreliable.
  • Among WP:PROF, there is also Criterion 8, "The person has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." There was a period when he was joint editor-in-chief of the Journal of the London Mathematical Society (of UK-based mathematical journals, a fairly important and long-established one) with his colleague Jonathan Partington. [6] [7] (Finding better references online quickly is tricky, as the past issues of the journal don't show frontmatter, backmatter, and so on.) This criterion seems to apply here, and is probably easier to demonstrate than Criterion 1. --RFBailey (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per just above. All the cycle structures of automorphisms of R were his findings.^[1] He showed that universal edge-coloured graphs had simple automorphism groups.^[2] His classification of bounded amorphous sets significantly influenced mathematician Peter Cameron’s work.^[3][4][5] According to Cameron himself, Truss disproved some of his own "misguided" conjectures.^[6][7][8] See also amorphous set. The maths is a bit complex for me but several other math experts cite him. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree Comrade-yutyo (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People just want this page gone because his daughter has the wrong politics. He is notable in his own right. 71.173.18.42 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He will likely become more notable as time goes on. Faronnorth (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not established based on our predictions. See WP:CRYSTAL Bgv. (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would he become more notable? The guy is retired. As far as I can tell he had a successful but not GNG-breaking career as an academic, and now happens to be the father of the PM, and completely out of the limelight besides. Also, being a parent of a PM doesn't confer notability in itself - see Family of David Cameron where we observe that neither of his parents have WP articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is he really retired? He has produced seven papers in the last five years, most recently as sole author. We can't refuse an article for Truss just because David Cameron's father doesn't have one. If Cameron senior had been a notable mathematician rather than a stockbroker, maybe he would have an article. The reason that he may become more notable, in addition to already qualifying as an academic, is because of the insatiable interest of the media in the relatives of prime ministers. It may be purient or unjustified but eventually there will be enough to tip over the line for the GNG. In fact, in Truss's case there are interesting things to say about the contrast between his and his daughter's politics that are not currently in the article because the sources have not yet been written. They will be. In the meantime, he remains notable as a mathematician. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember that WP:PROF is the standard we have to follow for academics, which works a bit differently from WP:GNG. But in neither case can we go around forecasting future notability. --RFBailey (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems strong enough to me.—TrottieTrue (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while it would be incredibly coincidental if his noteworthiness was the reason for the creation of this page having read the details and citations I am satisfied it reaches the threshold of notability. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to me to just about pass WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Can't tell if he held an established chair or a personal chair, but seems to be just about eminent enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF and WP:GNG Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per which criterion of WP:PROF, and why? Without an explanation this is just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is enough material about him to meet GNG (even if most of that coverage has his daughter's name in the headline - the headline is not what makes a subject meet GNG) and a plausible argument from Edwardx that he meets NPROF too. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 2 books by reputable academic publishers (AW & OUP), not to mention the fact that WorldCat shows holdings of those books >600, is conclusive...likewise would his editorship of JLMS be conclusive. Most "delete" !votes seem to be unaware of his notable activities that are easy passes of PROF. 128.252.11.235 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep mathematician who made noteworthy contribution.--RZuo (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edwardx's interpretation of NPROF. Deryck C. 08:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Not convinced meets WP:NPROF (not quite enough cites, not a named chair prof and emeritus prof isn't sufficient, and not sure the co-edited journal is significant enough) or WP:NAUTHOR (not quite enough signifcant reviews), but isn't that far off. Some other coverage is very much focussed on his daughter rather than him. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'd originally looked at https://exaly.com/journal/13559/journal-of-the-london-mathematical-society and saw "Journal of the London Mathematical Society is the 991st out of 2,248 Mathematics journals." and thought it wasn't significant though, but given on the same page it's in the top 19% for impact factor and top 4% for h-index I'm changing my !vote to weak keep instead. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of people think he meets WP:NPROF no support has been given for how he meets WP:NPROF. For those voting keep please clarify how you think he meets WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. Several people have said specifically why above, namely point 8 "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area", viz the Journal of the London Mathematical Society which is a major and certainly well-established (since 1926) journal in its field. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Relisting. It is baldly false to claim no support has been given for how he meets WP:NPROF. There are plainly several well-articulated reasons above. I will restate mine, namely that 2 books by reputable academic publishers (AW & OUP), which WorldCat shows to be widely held, passes PROF 1 and editorship of JLMS passes PROF 8. I've been here on-and-off for many years and have observed during the last several an increasingly unfortunate trend toward agenda-based behavior and editing. I had initially disregarded the comment by one of the editors above related to politics, but relisting in light of what is clearly at least a no consensus default keep now seems not terribly inconsistent with this charge. 65.113.135.165 (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does having two books published meet "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (PROF 1)? Editorship for PROF 8 is a reasonable case to make, but I don't understand the PROF 1 argument. EddieHugh (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the AfD record. It is an established precedent resting on 100s of cases. 128.252.172.7 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it certainly is not. JoelleJay (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGG used it many many times. That probably makes it a precedent. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:D942:AC01:209C:7E26 (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given your first example of this alleged argument, I'm skeptical this is true. JoelleJay (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prof 8 isn't a "case". It's a matter of fact isn't it? And therefore a straight pass for notability. Why hasn't this been closed as keep on that basis? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, while I am a weak keep !vote myself, there are a large number of !votes that do not hew to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Having books that some libraries hold does not grant notability (although several reviews of such books would meet WP:NAUTHOR). Being a full professor generally does not meet WP:NPROF C5. (I am aware of the arguments that full professors in the British system might, but I believe this to be somewhat contentious at best.) Being cited by Peter Cameron does not meet WP:NPROF C1; the citation record in general is a little on the light side for WP:NPROF C1, even in a low-citation field like math. (Note that user RFBailey has argued that Google Scholar may be missing some citations on older work, and there may be a good faith argument to be made there.) Regarding WP:NPROF C8, user Uhooep has argued that one of the flagship journals of a major mathematical society is not sufficiently major and well-established to meet the criteria; few Keep !votes have referred to WP:NPROF C8 or addressed this point. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is, of course, a rock-solid precedent established over hundreds of AfDs that 2 books handled by notable academic publishers constitute notability. (DGG himself has probably made that argument on 100s of AfDs.) That was my main point (I'm 65.113.135.165 above) and it is enough to close this case as keep. Holdings, which are another quantitative metric (like citations) that have also established notability in 100s of AfDs, are, in this case, sufficiently high (>600) to constitute another independent indicator of notability. Editorship of JLMS is a 3rd. These points were all stated clearly above. So, the questions remains: why was this relisted? 128.252.172.7 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you claiming that having 2 books published through notable academic publisher alone is sufficient for notability? If so, can you back that up by pointing to previous concensus discussion? Because I don't see how publishing alone would satify criteria 1 of WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I will admit here to my lack of search prowess, since I burned about 30 minutes just to find one reference to this precedent in an AfD from a few years back: ...we conventionally go by rules of thumb that DGG has articulated many times, roughly: at least 2 books by reputable publishers (especially including university presses like CUP or PUP, etc) and having "good" institutional holdings. It would perhaps be worth a ping to DGG for some elaboration. I don't know if his position has evolved on this matter, but I do know that this threshold was invoked successfully in many AfDs in years past. 128.252.172.7 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: Would you be able to comment on this? My understanding was the requirements for notability are now stricter than they used to be. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, I have to point out that claiming requirements for notability are now stricter brings us inevitably back to the issue of the de facto notability standard that we have discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon. Namely, it is hollow to claim higher standards when BLPs exist for many postdocs and asst professors that plainly violate those very stated standards. I am, in good faith, trying to create awareness that WP has get a handle for actually enforcing some level of uniformity if it ever aspires to rise above populist status. 128.252.172.7 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was DGG's !vote in the AfD you linked: DeleteThe relevant standard here is WP:CREATIVE, not WP:PROF; she's a poet, not a scholar of poetry. The most likely criterion is awards, and I see no awards of any sort except student awards. Fellowship for bing a poet in residence are not awards in the usual sense. In terms of her single book, it hard to judge poets by the extent of copies of the book, but it is her first and only book. There seem to be no formal published reviews. The praise from Natasha Tretheway is not a published review, but a blurb quoted in a blog posting advertising a bookstore appearance. This seems a clear case of Not Yet Notable. DGG is explicitly not evaluating that case through NPROF, but rather through NAUTHOR.

What you quoted was part of a comment from Agricola44 specifically regarding norms for poets (or, at the broadest, authors in the humanities). Furthermore, what Agricola is referencing is more of a quick-fail exclusion criterion rather than a threshold for inclusion--i.e., not every author with two books with decent holdings is notable, but almost all the ones who are notable (and were evaluated strictly through this criterion) do check those boxes. JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I absolutely do not believe that 2 books by reputable publishers is sufficient for notability. That alone does not demonstrate impact. WP:GNG/WP:NPROF/WP:NAUTHOR are what apply. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it remarkable that the IP editor is citing two AfD discussions that ended in delete to support a keep case based on 2 published books. FWIW, two books, each with two reviews in reliable sources, would probably be a pass of WP:NAUTHOR (and avoiding WP:BLP1E). Perhaps this is what the IP editor is thinking of? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep i do not see any concensus to be deleted as it clearly passes WP:GNG guidelines. Villian Factman (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable and meets WP:NAUTHOR Point 4(d) "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". 3,628 library holdings are enough to prove that his works are significant enough, so he is, therefore, notable. 103.21.1.242 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong set of criteria, unless you're saying that he's a 'creative professional' (sorry, mathematicians, your creativity is undervalued by society). And (obviously) a library isn't a gallery or a museum. EddieHugh (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There actually do exist mathematicians whose work has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Erik Demaine, with works in MoMA and the Smithsonian, comes to mind. But in general, I agree with you: this criterion is for artworks in museum, not for books in libraries. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note According to Semantic Scholar he has a h-index of 17 with 1220 citations, 90 of which are shown as "Highly Influential". Philafrenzy (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If Carrie Johnson gets an article, surely John Truss gets one too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It's a solid article on a significant figure. Moondragon21 (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Whispyhistory, his mathematical endevours ensure him fame. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2022 (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.