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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Pebody[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Luke Pebody (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Mathematician who solved a problem in recreational mathematics, and who has since left academia. Citation levels are too low for WP:NPROF C1, even in a low citation field, and I don't see any other indication of notability. Recreational math has an above-average chance of being discussed in mainstream news sources (for possible GNG), but I didn't find any sources of this type. Listed as 2nd nomination, since it was discussed at "Votes for Deletion" in 2003 (part of this discussion is present on the talk page of the article, but it otherwise seems to be lost to history). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per nom. Citability is too low here (h-index of about 5), and nothing else to show satisfying WP:PROF. Does not satisfy WP:GNG either. To the extent some notability is present here, this appears to be a WP:BIO1E case. Peabody's solution is already referenced in the necklace problem article, and that's sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem he solved doesn't seem to be so significant that it conveys notability on him separately for solving it, and there seems to be little else. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps enough to justify the one-line mention that is already at necklace problem, but does not meet any notability criteria to warrant a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am Luke Pebody and see very little need for this page to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.128.35 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. While we can take the subject's wishes for deletion into account in marginal notability cases, per WP:BLPDELETE, there is no way for us to verify your assertion that you are the subject of the article. Usually in these types of situations a person wishing to have a WP article about them deleted should submit a request to OTRS through the OTRS ticket system. They can verify the details there, while preserving the privacy protections, and if the claim checks out, somebody from OTRS then posts a verification note in the relevant AfD. You can find more details and relevant links at WP:OTRS. Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that Nsk92 says is correct. I'll add that barring last minute arguments, the page will probably be deleted in another day or so (7 days from posting). So you might want to wait before going to the trouble of figuring out OTRS. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not related to the question of deletion: if anyone could take a look at Necklace problem#Formulation and convert it into something decipherable, that would be wonderful. (I left a comment on Talk:Necklace problem, but this page seems more likely to attract attention.) --JBL (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken a pass. It turns out that Pebody made significant progress but does not appear to have completely solved the problem. He solved it for all odd-length necklaces and formulated a conjecture for even length that appears to remain open. This also leaves open the question of which lengths have the worst case and what that worst case is. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, that's much better! --JBL (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The work is interesting, but does not warrant a WP:BLP article for the author. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2020 (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.