Talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Real editor

It's nice for Wikipedia to have accomplished editors such as Mr. Rubin! Shawnc 09:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This comment in the bio could use a citation: "Rubin went directly from high school to graduate school at Caltech, enrolling simultaneously as an undergraduate."

That alone is not very notable. After all, undergrads can take graduate courses. What would be better would be a citation that verified that Rubin was accepted into a graduate maths program straight out of high school. The way it is worded now is ambiguous, unsourced and non-notable. At minimum a citation would help. DrL 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Actually, you're right. Could matching my High School's web site for the graduation date against the math geneology site help? I can't think of a secondary source for the combination, at the moment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, I was accepted as both an undergraduate and a graduate student (or, to be precise, a dual graduate/undergraduate student); the idea was that I was to get separate BS and PhD degrees in 6 years. However, I failed enough undergraduate courses that meeting the undergraduate requirements was problamatical.... But there would probably be no WP:RS, as admission records are not public records. Still, there is unlikely to be a secondary source, and, as noted before, a primary sources would not be easily obtained.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's all about me.

Other facts that might be worthy of inclusion in the article, if references can be found. To avoid even the appearance of WP:AUTO, I'm only going to correct information in the article itself, but concensus seems to be I can add information here and let others decide whether it's notable and adequately sourced. (I added my year of birth at the request of the creator of the article, confirming I didn't mind its appearance. I think he/she had the information.)

1. U.S. patent 7,089,452
2. Third place tie in the first USA Mathematical Olympiad (1972). Greitzer, S (March 1973). "The First U.S.A Mathematical Olympiad". The American Mathematical Monthly. 80 (3). Mathematical Association of America: pp. 276-281. Retrieved December 5, 2006. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. Listed in 2007 Marquis Who's Who in America (even if the majority of my correspondance with them is their attempts to get me to buy a copy of the book.)
4. Ran for California State Assembly (55th district) on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1982? (I think it was '82. It could have been '84. I'm sure it was the 55th district.)

I'm sure point 1 is listable, and point 3 can be referenced when the book is published. Point 4 can probably be referenced from the California Secretary of State's records, although records that old may not be online. If I find a cite for point 2, I'll add it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Added citation for point 2 above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Me again

I've uploaded a picture at Image:Arthur_Rubin_self.jpg. Please edit it (or a low-resolution image) into the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Done ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Really not notable personality

He really is not notable personality. He looks as a self-made "expert of everything". I would like to see his scientific papers on the web, especially from the last 20 years period. The article includes unsourced materials and should be nominated for deletion asap.

• In this controversial context his role of administrator has to be verified.
• On the other hand I see too much Rubin's personal explanations on this page - who is

the real author/editor of such short biography?

--Fedelis 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As you should be able to determine, my only edit to the article was in adding my year of birth, as WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays suggests that non-public figures should be able to determine whether information which could lead to identity theft is to be included in the article. I have commented on this talk page, and on the AfD, possibly more than I should have, but I have not edited the article, nor suggested edits except on this talk page and the AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Fedelis. This article appears to be nothing more than shameless self promotion and his role as an administrator here should be carefully reviewed. An American mathematician with a Ph.D. who ranked in the "five top" undergraduates several times in a series of competitions is certainly not noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Knowledge Enabler 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a 4-time Putnam Fellow is clearly notable, there being 7 (according to the current article) among all math undergraduates in the US and Canada in the past 80 years, which seems an approriate "universe" for the selection. I had nothing to do with its creation and little to do with its editing. On the other hand Fedelis has one edit (here) and Knowledge Enabler has 2 here Talk:Arthur Rubin‎, and 4 mainspace edits, all reverted in part by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT clear that being a 4-time Putnam Fellow is notable in the specific wikipedic sense: exactly this issue is being debated on the page of another 4-time Fellow, Gabriel Carroll. Moreover, not every four-time fellow has a wikipedia page. (However, one should not read too much into who's got a wikipedia page since one of the pageless four time winners, Bjorn Poonen, is a leading mathematician by anyone's standards.) Let us remember that the Putnam Exam is a contest for young students and not for adults. Putnam results are obviously of some interest, as evidenced by the fact that we remember and keep track of who won the exam more than 60 years ago, but there is no clear precedent that any level of success in contests at the high school and college level is wikipedia-worthy. If such pages exist only to restate contest information that is (or should be) available elsewhere, there is little value added. In my opinion, the present page falls under this category: while it is interesting to know a bit about everyone (and I wonder whether the idea of deleting insufficiently notable people will persist on wikipedia), there is nothing in the article that really justifies its existence. It certainly raises the suspicion that it would not exist without Dr. Rubin's wikipedic involvement, both in general and specific to his own page. In particular I think that writing in directly to suggest further information about oneself to be included in the article and to weigh in on one's own notability is...well, unethical is too strong (there is no harm being done here) but it is a bit unseemly, no? Plclark 09:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Plclark

Not notable is right. Self-aggrandizing, yes. Jeeny (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks, feel free to nominate this article for deletion. Since it already survived one deletion attempt, putting {{prod}} on it is the wrong way to go, so don't try that. Feel free to review Arthur's editor and admin role, but note that that has nothing to do with this article and this is the wrong place to discuss that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would you view it as "Self-aggrandizing"? As far as i can tell the subject of the article has not made significant edits and the creator of the article created several articles, or was editing other articles for Putnam scholars at the same time. Thus, the original motive for creating this article appears to be to document Putnum scholars, NOT for vanity reasons. David D. (Talk) 16:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Putnam prize, but winner didn't get attention in secondary sources. As there are no secondary sources, and in line with WP:N, this article should be deleted, unless if Time magazine article reference mentioned above is provided. Lakinekaki (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

erdos number 1? American Mathematical Society dosen't think so.

http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/collaborationDistance.html?group_source=189017&AuthorTargetName=rubin%2C+a&group_target=&Submit=Search

AMS sais there is no path.

Maybe because cited paper is from a conference, and not a journal: Proc. West Coast Conf. on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing, Congressus Numerantium XXVI: Or is it a journal?

Anyhow, some comment about this would be appreciated.

ps. this is how a search result looks like for an author with Erdos number = 1 [1]

216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.oakland.edu/enp/thedata.html file Erdos0. AfD hero (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Or use this link at the AMS: [2]. You have to give the name as "Rubin, Arthur". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. They need to fix instructions. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any non-trivial published work about this author?

WP:N: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple [more than one], non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other.

Non-trivial means I think more than just a mention in the listing or a table (wiki is not a directory). Also, how does a published paper or patent qualifies an author for notability? It qualifies the subject of that paper/patent.

And yes, I would not even bother writing this if you did not do WP:OR when qualifying bios (with multiple published non-trivial works in multiple journals and with multiple authors) as no sense theory. Just exposing bias in your edits. Lakinekaki 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was an article in Time on me, probably in 1966 or 1967. But I'm not sure I could find it again; my mother's "brag" file disappeared in one of our moves. However, the articles about the first USA Mathematical Olympiad (where I'm one of eight), and the Putnam exam (one of five or six) may qualify. As for your alleged multiple authors, I don't feel that multiple articles in conspiracy theory journals by conspiracy theorists about conspiracy theorists theorists, or intelligent desgin journals by intelligent design proponents about intelligent design proponents necessarily qualify as notable publications .— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You should cite the Time article then, and just put [reference needed] tag as someone will find it eventually (maybe in Time archives[3]). That makes a huge difference, in my opinion, for this article. As far as your blurb about conspiracies is concerned: Cybernetics and Systems, Kybernetes , Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, Complexity[4], etc. As you say, they are all together in this. Lakinekaki 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find article in the Time archive but failed. Maybe you could do the search, as you may remember some keywords used in it. Lakinekaki 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not say it is non-trivial, but it is funny stuff. Not sure if it is this particular Arthur Rubin, but it has some of his flavor. Quote is found here http://fumbling.com/phloem/quotes.txt "There cannot be freedom without equality and here we do not have equality." Yes, we do. All NSPs have the equal rights to filter out your posts.

One might wish that more would do so. --Giovanni Greco and Arthur Rubin, news.groups A classic. Quite droll, really. Trivial, and droll. Planetaryjim (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Categories

I shouldn't edit my own article, except for obvious typos, but should Category:American Jews be changed to the subcategory Category:Jewish American scientists? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD

I tagged CSD on this article, the person, though among the five top-ranked undergraduate competitors (who are themselves not ranked against each other) in the William Lowell Putnam Competition four times, such and such, there is no notability asserted to general media. I tried to Google and use other search engines to prove notability but the engines showed little information otherwise most are linked to university sites, patent sites, as well as uploaded online PDF files. Please check this. The Wandering Traveler (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the CSD criteria more carefully. A7 is for articles that do not contain an assertion of significance, and this article clearly does. If you have concerns about the notability of the article please use WP:AFD. Hut 8.5 09:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be retaliation for my (among others) reverts of his edits, for what it's worth. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism reversal

I reverted some anon revisions which may have had a valid point, but included a clear WP:BLP violation (cockfighting). I have no objection to the removal of my running for state assembly, although I disagree with the rationale, and "unranked" is grammatically incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a citation for your state assembly run, and have added it (the LA Times covered it) so I'd say that it's notable enough to stay (and is now verifiable). -- Atama^chat 20:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Clear OR

Why was my removal of blatant OR reversed, Epstein? You may not access documents on the web, make tallies on your fingers and toes, and insert them in BLPs. Thats's basic editing. ► RATEL ◄ 05:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, based on your actions tonight, I'd strongly suggest you just let the matter of Rubin drop for now. You're personally involved, please just let it slide until cooler heads can prevail. Dayewalker (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are all rules suspended? Can I not play by the rules too? Am I breaking rules here? If so, point them out to me and I'll stop. ► RATEL ◄ 06:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to quote policy to you, I'm just trying to make a good faith request that you stop for now. The majority of your edits over the last few hours have all been in regards to this editor, his page, and his admin status. If there's a problem, you can bring it up later, I'm just trying to defuse what seems to be a snowballing situation.

I actually know that snowballs have no fuses, it's just late and my metaphors have really started to suffer. Dayewalker (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well since you ask nicely I'll stop for now. But the page is a bit of a mess and I'll be back to make changes per the rules, noting broken links and suchlike. ► RATEL ◄ 06:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

Not to be negative, but, to judge from Mathematical Reviews, this seems to be an extremely minor mathematician who has published nothing in the last ten years. The adjectives used to describe him (and possibly the existence of this page to begin with) seem out of proportion. What is his current affiliation? Feketekave (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

More sources

If someone wants to add more information on this person, here are a couple of more sources I found - Short People article from 1974, Article in LA Times that may be available. Cheers. Remember (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the smallest amount of arithmetic a good idea?

My reading of dates says the subject of this article was a Putnam Fellow for the fourth time at age 17. Keep that in mind if there are thoughts of undermining or removing the article in the future. It is not an advertisement because this alone might have justified an article. Treatment of the subject as a prodigy of historical note is responsible in the larger context that people can also read about more prolific mathematicians here. If there is a good article on child prodigies and their later accomplishments, I would suggest inclusion of discussion of Dr. Rubin in a balanced way, but only with his assent and only using outside sources (not an interview here). Mention of him in a listing is also a reasonable option. One thing about the article is a failure, perhaps. Because he is also an admin here, there is a slight problem. It's a part of the story that readers are entitled to from the article itself, in my opinion. This latter may be asking too much.Julzes (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the following, if you simply want me to do whatever I want, you may prefer to remain silent. This would tacitly make it clear there is no conflict of interest, as well as save you a bit of your own time. If you don't respond at all, I will go ahead with the edits you may presume from reading the following, but not for at least ten days. If your question pertains to anything in addition to this section, handle that where and how you prefer. This is about the handling of Arthur Rubin in Wikipedia articles.Julzes (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you object to being placed on the list of child prodigies? I found that and edited it a little bit (more stuff on the Polgar sisters (chess)). Your connection with Wikipedia makes me feel an obligation to get your permission.

Regarding this article, I was just indicating that those who have a gut reaction to your relatively small publication record (that makes them want to edit it in a negative way) should have a little clearer picture. I'm totally ambivalent about the suggestion I made on your being an administrator and your work here generally being included in the article. I can see that an encyclopedia should try to avoid being self-referencing; but, on the other hand, it looks like a significant part of your recent life has been spent here. If people think including the fact that you are deeply involved in the work of this encyclopedia would undermine it, you, or anyone else in some way, then it definitely should not be in the article. I would highlight the sewer cover award you got, if the subject were accepted for the article. It says something positive--in a humorous way--about both you and Wikipedia.

The idea of putting you in the article on child prodigies, not just the list, was ill-considered. There are people closer to being household names in the category. You would hopefully be known to most--American at least--mathematicians, but you probably shouldn't be in an article on child prodigies for that reason.

Please let me know what you think about all of these things at your leisure. If I've crossed some line that I'm not aware of, please inform me in as gentle a way as possible.Julzes (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I just saw the People Magazine article from 1974 in the above. I probably won't edit that into the article now, but it's on the agenda.Julzes (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I see your publication record is at least of modest size from justask.com (I think that's what it was). This article in Wikipedia is short of detail. Is that preferred for some reason or just happenstance? If it's by design, I won't touch the article. If not, I can fit in a half of a day to get this right some time in the next couple of weeks.Julzes (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rubins actually contributes to wikipedia as an admin

Thats quite cool. although i dont vloody get why he doesnt expand this, like add a picture, creat couple of sub headings, you know get the ball rolling.--Greg.loutsenko 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AUTO. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Arthur Rubin wrote about himself through sock puppets. He is violating Wikipedia's basic policy on conflict of interest. 202.57.48.69 (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can any other Admin correct this? Rubin has secretly written about himself, and tried to fool us all!

202.57.48.70 (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be trolling. Arthur has said no such thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Political affiliation?

I removed two categories covering political affiliation (Liberterian) since I didn't see that material covered in the article. The subject of the article mentioned that they did run for political office under a certain party and that one of the sources possibly covers it? I guess the question is whether one's political affiliation is notable/relevant for this type of bio, ie mathematician? If so, how can this material be worked into the article/sourced? What do others think? Not a huge deal either way. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Youngest Putnam Fellow

The statement "He first became Putnam Fellow at the age of 14 (in 1970), making him the youngest person (till date) to have achieved this feat" seems not completely sourced. The age is correct, but the reference states "Most likely the youngest is Arthur Rubin, who was a winner in 1970 at age 14." It's also not reviewed; it's an author's update of a reviewed paper originally appearing in the American Mathematical Monthly in 2004, in which my name didn't appear as the youngest. I don't think I should edit the article, but I feel I should comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How is Arthur Rubin Notable

I am shocked that this page has survived let alone was created!

Without being offensive and just stating the facts here:

1. Winning a Science project does not make someone notable.
2. Filing a patent does not make someone notable.
3. Having failed to achieve a seat on the assembly does not make someone notable.
4. Being smart does not make someone notable.

What has Arthur Rubin actually achieved to be notable? Or is it just that he is an administrator of Wikipedia?

Seriously someone please help me with this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Objective (talk • contribs) 09:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And who's sockpuppet are you? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin and there was a clear consensus to keep the article. You are free to start another Articles for deletion discussion if you like. In view of the strength of the consensus last time my guess is that you won't get very far, but that is, of course, just an opinion, and you are welcome to try. You must have very little experience of how Wikipedia works if you think that the community gives special preference to anyone who is an administrator. My experience, in fact, suggests the opposite: many editors (including myself) on becoming admins have found that they then receive much more hostile reception than before. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since writing the above I have discovered that there have been three AfDs, all of them resulting in "keep". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks James I can understand that what was ACHEIVED, what has he done with his brain? I read the input and I just don't see the consensus but I will look again... B-Objective (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

James on my count roughly 33% of the respondents said voted delete while the others voted to keep... that doesn't seem like a "clear consensus"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Objective (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

AfDs are not decided on a count of the numbers expressing opinions, which are not "votes". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

content not discussing how to improve the article

Wow, what is most amazing is that Arthur Rubin HIMSELF VOTED TO KEEP HIS OWN PAGE! There is no shame.. just amazing... B-Objective (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Ahem. I commented, I did not "!vote". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Liar - now edit yourself out of this: "Keep. I made exactly two edits to the article, to add my year of birth, as an indication that it was acceptable to me that it appear in the article, and an attempt to Wikilink the title of my thesis, which seems to have come undone. I suspect a WP:POINT violation. The question of whether I'm notable is open, but the first sentence puts me in a group of 6 of over 20,000 (probably closer to 100,000) total students who have taken the William Lowell Putnam Competition. I decline to declare a Speedy keep, but the nomination reason is factually incorrect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)" - you should know better.81.169.26.186 (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC) What Arthur Rubin meant is that AfD discussions are not votes, so this edit is a comment and not a vote. Hut 8.5 07:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability?

Having just discovered this article, I'm somewhat at a loss as to how it's managed to pass 4 AFDs so far. I'm aware that bringing it to a fifth, less than six months after the last one, could be seen as disruptive, so I won't do that; but given that most of the comments on the previous AFD were along the lines of 'keep, passes WP:GNG', could someone explain exactly how this article passes WP:GNG? As far as I can tell, the subject has received only one piece of significant coverage in a reliable source, the 1974 LA Times article. That wouldn't suffice for notability. This is, apparently, a non-notable mathematician, so why has this article survived so long? Robofish (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no absolute requirement that multiple such sources be presented. WP:GNG says that the number required depends on the depth of coverage and quality of the source, which here were both very good. In addition he has won several notable awards and someone in the last AfD argued that one of his papers got enough citations to pass WP:PROF by itself. I don't think it's a good idea to place a {{notability}} tag on an article that has survived four previous AfDs. Hut 8.5 20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed the template. I'm still sceptical, but I can't say I'm an expert when it comes to mathematics, so if people who know better think he passes WP:PROF, I'll defer to them. Robofish (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's still here because he's an admin. Most of these are unverifiable. A compilation of the instances that one is able to find a certain name on the internet does not constitute notability. That is what Google is for, not Wikipedia. These cites do not meet the "significant coverage" portion of the requirement, because they reference by-lines, not biographical content, nor do they pass the independence test. No single cite seems to establish notability. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Add Category:California Libertarians ?

Add Category:California Libertarians ? 99.35.12.129 (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a citation, and is it worthy of inclusion?--Mollskman (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the sourced information that I ran for California State Assembly on the Libertarian Party ticket is in the article; I have no comment as to whether it's notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like overkill

I appreciate the attempts to expand this article in the wake of the latest baseless AfD, but I'm not sure how appropriate the additions to the lede are. "Law student" may be appropriate, but "Wikipedian" and "Libertarian politician"? I question whether being a Wikipedian is notable enough for inclusion in an article's lede. As for "Libertarian politician", it doesn't seem accurate, as Rubin was not elected to the Assembly for which he ran. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The source for him being Wikipedian is a New York Times article. What you seem to be questioning is whether it's *significant* enough, but whether it's *notable* enough is another question: it has been noted, by a top newspaper, ergo it is notable. My feeling, though, is that the sort of picayune detail represented by the fact that we can source his Wikipedia work on 9/11 conspiracies but can't source the fact that he's an admin is the sort of thing one gets as a more-or-less-automatic consequence of having an article on someone of only marginal notability: the set of reliable sources available to make an article has too small a sample size to represent the subject sufficiently accurately. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability doesn't come into content - you're thinking of weight. I agree though that "libertarian politician" is pushing it a little too far - wikipedian is probably ok, considering the NYT article. I found it pertinent that the NYT didn't describe him as a mathematician though, which after all, is apparently the reason he is notable. If it wasn't for the fact that we now this AR is a wikipedian, we could struggle to realise that the NYT are actually talking about the same person! SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Gary Lorden

I'm not sure he should be linked. I mean, his article was deleted in 2006, even though he was technical advisor for Numb3rs. I shouldn't edit my own article, but this seems to violate WP:REDLINK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted under A7, and I'm rather surprised to see that being a maths professor at Caltech wasn't considered an assertion of significance. There does seem to be a strong possibility that he is notable and the original deletion wasn't valid. Hut 8.5 21:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a professor (even at Caltech) is not one of the criteria in WP:PROF. That said, there's a case to be made for criterion C1: e.g. Lorden's 1971 paper "Procedures for reacting to a change in distribution" has over 500 citations in Google scholar, an impressively large number, indicating that he has made a big impact. So I'm not sure WP:REDLINK applies, but WP:WTAF still does. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a professor isn't enough to get past WP:PROF, no, but it is more than enough to get past A7. Hut 8.5 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We could strike the entire sentence and append it to the preceding one since they both cite the same source, perhaps? Something along the lines of "His talents were recognized around Caltech, and praised by his undergraduate advisor in an interview." There is an unused academic advisor space in the infobox where we could include Mr. Loden's name as hard text. I hesitate to be too specific on the content of the article as original source link was dead, and I replaced it with a link to archive.org that was throwing temporary errors (judging by the original access date, when the errors cleared we should have been looking at the right material). However, the page is still unavailable. I'll defer the decision on the actual edits to someone else while the AfD is ongoing, unless I'm given the go-ahead.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, go ahead. Your attempting to improve this article would go a long way toward convincing folks that your AfD nomination was in good faith. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was gone for a bit, and now it seems the DRV has closed, so I guess there's no more conflict of interest. I'll give it a go, and when someone inevitably gets grumpy, I'm sure they can undo it. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that brings it more in line with other articles in the "mathematicians" and "putnam fellows" categories. I also tried to make sure the sources were up to date. I wasn't sure about how to deal with the lines about his being a wikipedia contributor... editor? administrator? or whether or not that was something that I should keep. I see in the history it has come and gone a few times. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It was removed before for lack of a non-primary source, which it now has. But we don't have a source for his being an admin, only for being an editor. And I'm not sure the part about 9/11 should stay though — it's what the source is actually about but it may be a case of WP:UNDUE. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure we do WP:List_of_administrators/A-F. I don't see any WP:UNDUE problem if a) the article is supposed to be here and b) we can say he's an admin. Talking about his activities and contributions here seems a logical item to include.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Financial advisor?

An anon added: "As of 2005, Rubin was working as a financial advisor." I'm afraid that's neither correct nor sourced. I was an "Advisor" and a "Top Reviewer" in the Financial category of Epinions.com, but that's not really the same thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this, Dr. Joe Gallian, who runs the Univ. of Minnesota Duluth REU program maintains a webpage called "Putnam Fellows Career Path" (http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html) where he has updates on where past Putnam fellows are today (including their achievements and such). The database listed your "Professional Appointment" as "Financial adviser (2005)". I was assuming he obtained this information by contacting you directly, but I guess I was wrong. I would still like to update the article with the correct information about your current professional appointmentMozart20d (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on your LinkedIn profile, I have updated your Wikipedia entry and to include positions in industry which you've held in the past. I also included this list on Dr. Gallian's "Putnam Fellows Career Path" (http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html).Mozart20d (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't basing something on a linkedin profile classed as original research, not to mention that linkedin profiles are self edited (I think)? Looks like a flimsy excuse to beef up the article ready for the 6th AfD... 62.255.248.225 (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Self-edited is correct. I'm not sure Mozart should have done that. However, an editor is allowed to disregard information from reliable sources which he reasonably believes (from sources) to be incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:American Jews

Without even looking for sources, since he watches this page I wonder if Arthur Rubin has any comment on his ethnic background, reliable sources for it, and its inclusion in this article. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I have no objection to inclusion of Judaism, but I doubt reliable sources can be found. It's possible that my "graduation" from confirmation class is online.... but that would only include my name. Perhaps my mother's obituary? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

http://www.scientificethics.org/jewish-antisemitism.htm and http://fitzinformer.blogspot.ca/2010/09/jewish-mathematician-caught-editing.html are anti-reliable sources; i.e., something appearing in those sources makes it less likely to be accurate. Could someone please remove those and the statements sourced?

I would be justified it doing so, myself, as one of the statements added is a BLP violation, but I won't do it. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I agree that these are attack sites and as such unacceptable for a BLP (or anywhere else in Wikipedia). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

retired?

I know the NYT article says I'm retired, but my LinkedIn page says I'm looking for work. Would it be possible to remove "retired"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"About" template: is this necessary?

I'm somewhat puzzled by the text at the top of this article:

This article is about the mathematician. For the pianist, see Arthur Rubinstein. For the President of Global Development for Starbucks Coffee Company, see Arthur Rubinfeld.

Why would someone expect at all that a page titled "Arthur Rubin" was about a person called "Arthur Rubinsomethingextra"? If this page needs to link to those two names at all, it should be via the {{distinguish2}} template instead. But really, I think that part should simply be deleted. Any objections? Jowa fan (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For the New York wife-murderer, see .... For the former treasurer of New Jersey, see....

OOPS, I mean accused wife-murderer.

:-) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Lafayette

My mother died in West Lafayette, Indiana. not in Lafayette, Louisiana. (It may have been Lafayette, Indiana, depending on the definition of "death".) I shouldn't have reverted the — person — whom I've reverted on his film reviews, but something needs to be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the original quote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Madison Capitol Times

For what it's worth, that article was apparently from the Madison Capitol Times, but it was reprinted from the Los Angeles Times; whose online archives are now behind a paywall, even if they went back that far. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The citation links to a page reproduction of the actual newspaper - The Madison Capital Times (Capital with an "a"). Page 7 in the July 6, 1974 edition. Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

55th assembly district

I shouldn't edit my own article, but could someone unlink the 55th assembly district; that was 3 reapportionments ago, and the last one moved the district significantly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) B

 Done, but don't you think it is a problem that the 55th district article talks about only what the district is now and not what it used to be prior to the most recent redistricting? I'm sure lots of politicians' articles have the same issue and the same thing will happen again the next time we redistrict. The correct fix would seem to be to include some historical information about past locations of the district. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

removed section

Arthur is also a Wikipedia contributor. On the September 11 attacks related discussions he argued for re-inclusion of conspiracy-theory related links. Although he does not believe the conspiracy theories, he says they are part of the September 11 story. [5]

References

User:Johnuniq, I must note that your statement that ref does not verify the text is not true. Maybe you can read the NY Times article, and than undo your revert.

Also, I don't see why some minor publications referenced in the article are more WP:DUE than NY Times article? 202.8.75.186 (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I did quickly look at the source but my primary concern was that the text proposed for the article was WP:UNDUE. I see that "push back" in the NYT article could be used to verify "he argued for", so I was a bit hasty in part of my edit summary. The NYT piece is focused on the fact that the many readers interested in the 9/11 topic would not find a link to the conspiracy theories in the main article; the fact that the NYT paraphrased some comments from two editors was merely to illustrate the NYT story (they had no interest in the two editors). I think the NYT coverage of Rubin's role (we use the surname when referring to the subject of an article) is much more nuanced than the proposed text which could be interpreted, despite the follow-up "does not believe", as saying that Rubin pushed conspiracy theories. At any rate, the brief mention in an article only tenuously connected with the subject does not warrant a "Wikipedia" section. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean. However, I don't think three paragraphs constitute a brief mention. In fact, author even cites a brief biography of Mr. Rubin, and my guess is that he chose particular two Wikipedia editors because of their notability, and most likely because of their activity in editing article in question. I cannot see how much mention Mr. Rubin has in first or third reference as they are not accessible, but my guess would be about as much.. Failing in state assembly election does not seem to deserve WP:DUE either, by your standards... 202.8.75.186 (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If the NYT ever writes a story on Wikipedia where they focus on a few editors and give an overview of their work and approach, and if any of those editors have an article, it is very likely that the review would warrant a mention in their article. However, in this case the NYT wanted to talk about an aspect of 9/11, and they looked for two comments to highlight the issue, and mentioned those. That's not showing any interest in the particular editors (also see "nuanced" above). Re an election—the issue there is that most people would regard the fact that a person had participated in a significant election to provide useful biographical information, whereas many people in the general community would not even be aware that Wikipedia has editors. I'll probably have a rest on this for now and leave it for others to comment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, more opinions are always welcome! Cheers. :) 202.8.75.186 (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Branch of judaism

Is he a practicing Jew, and if yes, which branch? (to be mentioned in article)--82.137.13.125 (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Why should anyone care? Unless there are sources that support the relevance of this information to our article, it shouldn't be in there. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I could comment, but there still wouldn't be a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that people and organisations are reliable sources for themselves (their POVs). Nevertheless, this rather evasive answer seems to favour the hypothesis that the subject of the article is a rather non-practicing Jew.--82.137.10.152 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it more favors the hypothesis that you're nosy and it's none of your business. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopaedias are for nosy people, aren't they? 86.185.216.178 (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROFTEST

This whole Erdős number business seems silly. Do people take this seriously? It seems that Erdős wrote around 1500 mathematical papers and most were co-authored. An Erdős number of 2 sold for $127.40 on eBay. Rubin was second author on his paper with Erdős so it’s hard to tell what his role was. Did Rubin himself ever author any significant work? It would be great if someone could dig up some sources to get this bio on track. As it stands now, this article does not seem to meet the WP:PROFTEST. DrL 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it meets WP:PROFTEST. The first paragraph seems to provide adequate notability, noting I'm one of five 4-time Putnam exam "winners". If you don't like it, suggest an AfD. (And, BTW, the Putnam exam site provides a secondary source that I was an undergraduate, as it's only open to undergraduates. My years as a graduate student have a secondary source at the math geneology web site — and this comment falls under one of the execeptions to WP:AUTO, that of correcting errors.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I wasn't questioning the fact that you were an undergrad (obviously you were), but that you were admitted to a graduate program straight out of high school. That would need a source. Hence my edits to the article. The math geneology website is openly editable and contains at least one fictitious entry, so I wouldn't recommend flogging that as a credential. DrL 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

... and the Erdős number sale never went through.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• It actually did, according to the CHE: "Your Last, Best Chance to Improve Your Erdős Number," by Richard Monastersky. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6 August 2004, page A16. You might be referring to an earlier auction. DrL 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am not a deletionist. I am merely suggesting improving the article by including some notable professional works. I agree with you that it doesn't meet WP:PROFTEST. Note that the Lowell prize is not a professional prize, but a student prize and so of limited value and notability. The article may give an inaccurate impression of constructive professional activity where little or none exists. If there are any relevant publications, of any importance at all, it would really help the article to add them. DrL 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Has he contributed anything noteworthy to mathematics? Any noteworthy papers as a mathematician? What does he do today, to begin with? Is he a professor of mathematics at a university? That is, while his achievement in winning the Putnams is somewhat interesting, is he noteworthy for anything else? 66.108.106.230 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

I don't claim to meet WP:PROF, as I'm presently working in industry, rather than as an academic. One could argue that having an Erdos number of 1 might, in itself, meet WP:PROF. As for my most notable results — where could we find a WP:RS as to what was a notable result? I feel that some of the results in joint papers with my late mother were notable in the field of statements of set theory related to the Axiom of choice, but we didn't spend much time allocating credit as to who wrote what.

It's also been suggested that I should post my CV and publication list here and let others determine what is notable. I'm not sure that's in keeping with WP:AUTO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 15:35, September 23, 2006 (UTC) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Rubin was second author on his paper with Erdős so it’s hard to tell what his role was." Too late to be useful, now, but the authors of mathematics papers are almost always listed in alphabetical order, not by perceived importance of contribution. Dricherby (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't overlook the possibility that Erdős numbers might be both silly and serious. 86.185.216.178 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Father

If Arthur Rubin deserves a Wikipedia article, then surely his father, Herman Rubin, does too. (Incidentally, that 'If Arthur Rubin deserves...' should not be read as indicating that I think he doesn't, I have no opinion on the matter.) 86.185.216.178 (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, although I've found more mentions on the Internet about my late mother, Jean E. Rubin. I believe her to be more influential, although my father is probably more renowned. It's not my place to put together an article, though. I also don't know precisely what my father is best known for. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(A little history lesson.) I had little input as to the initial creation of my article, other than agreeing to have my birth year listed. My other edits on the article, itself, consist of removing (usually vandalism) defamatory statements from the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this paper abstract, Herman Rubin "is well known for his broad ranging mathematical research interests and for fundamental contributions in Bayesian decision theory, in set theory, in estimations for simultaneous equations, in probability and in asymptotic statistics". From the evidence in that abstract alone (e.g. fellow of two societies) it does look like he passes WP:PROF and warrants having an article here. The citation record (criterion C1) is also clear. "Deserves" is the wrong verb, though: many undeserving people are notable and many deserving people are not. And many people who would clearly be considered notable do not have articles for the reason that nobody has taken the trouble to write one... —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This talk page should relate to this article, so if we are talking about whether or not to include details of rub in's father here, then this is the right forum, - but if this discussion about whether to create a completely separate article, then i suggest it is either discussed elsewhere, or the article is simply created. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

(discussion moved here from my talk page)
Your latest edit was not, IMO, on point. I was interviewed for that article (probably located through Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin), and it's clearly a real interview, and it would be absurd to assume that Arthur Rubin and User:Arthur Rubin are not the same, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that they are not one and the same person. I expect you of all people to understand that we're not here to create an encyclopedia about itself or to drag Wiki politics into mainspace. There are lots of administrators here at WP, many with strong opinions on various topics, but being one of their number should not automatically qualify that person for a mainspace article because they managed to get themselves interviewed. So on that note, you are not, IMO, on point. The very fact that you have taken issue with the removal of this meta-content from the WP article about you is exactly why we have policies around COI. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI supports discussions, so why the aggressive tone? Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no aggression intended or inferred. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, so is there a need to discuss anything, or are you happy with the current state of the article (which mentions the 9/11 editing stuff)? It looks ok to me—of course being interviewed by the NYT does not make a person notable, but there is no suggestion that the notability of this article relies on that interview. I do not see anything at WP:SELF which suggests that material should be removed, and it seems relevant for a bio to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Would this content stand up on its own in an article? Will it be notable and relevant in 10 years time? Are we really comfortable with crossing the line from something that was an internal, administrative WP affair to declaring this to be a real-world issue for readers who have no knowledge of the internals of WP? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a bio of a person, and a small part of that person's life is the fact that they edit at Wikipedia. It's not a big deal in the scheme of things, but the NYT thought it sufficiently interesting to briefly mention, and that seems reasonable support for inclusion of the mention, and they did not seem concerned that readers might not know what a Wikipedia editor was. The incident was not anything about administrative matters—it was about editing and conspiracy theories which a RS wanted to discuss, and the text in the article is very brief. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely the article should mention his wikipresence.--5.15.178.198 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability

I still don't believe this person is notable enough to have an article. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 06:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Heroeswithmetaphors and Arthur Rubin: See the list of references here. Do we need to find any more reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the article's subject? Jarble (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Article content and notability issues

I'm trying to improve the article content, but I see here multiple issues:

1. All sources in the article are primary by their nature. There is no way to say that references [1] and [3] are talking about the same person. We need secondary sources glueing together primary references.
2. His career description is reduced to a single sentence (He earned his Ph.D. at the California Institute of Technology in 1978, under the direction of Alexander S. Kechris.[2]).
3. As to Dr Rubin's research (mathematics) I was able to locate only 8 articles he co-authored and plus two not co-authored. However, there is a few other articles that belong to computer science. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong). We need an overview of his research that clearly separates his work from the coauthors' work (and weights it academically) in a form a publicly available secondary source. Without such overview it is not possible to talk about Dr. Rubin's career notability.
4. Also, I cannot find a single source talking about his aerospace engineer career. Dr. Rubin's LinkedIn CV shows that he mainly worked as a software engineer from 1971 until 2013 with some gaps between consecutive employments. His LinkedIn CV content cannot be verified through publicly available secondary sources, therefore it's not possible to talk about his aerospace engineer career notability.
5. As to the Awards and honors section, IMHO, Putnam Competition is an annual mathematics competition for undergraduate college students, therefore not an award or honor of an American mathematician. This sentence, in the same section

"A Putnam fellowship is awarded to the five highest ranked scorers in the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, an annual competition for undergraduate college students enrolled at institutions of higher learning in the United States and Canada. "

is completely out of context since we have internal link in the biography describing this competition in details. The USA Mathematical Olympiad is a high school mathematics competition and all honors and awards coming from that competition are not awards or honors of an American mathematician

Of course, these high and undergraduate student achievements shall be visible in the biography, but, IMHO, they are too weak to be in the Awards and honors section. Look, for example, list of awards and honors of Dr. Rubin's advisor, Alexander S. Kechris at his Biographical Sketch in order to correctly understand my suggestion.

7. Dr. Rubin is categorized here as a 21st-century American mathematician, but among those 8 articles he co-authored (plus two authored by him) as a mathematician none was published in 21st century.

I'll be grateful to anyone to instruct me how to find secondary sources talking about his overall career.--93.86.33.191 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

MathSciNet lists 12 papers, the latest in 1997. His 1979 paper on list coloring is very highly cited, although it wasn't the first on the subject (Vizing also wrote about it in 1976). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it about the concept of list colorings and the article [13] in the reference list? (V. Vizing introduced this concept in 1976.) If so, this article ("Choosability in graphs") is authored by Erdős, Rubin, and Taylor. The article notability is not questionable, but, to be fair and impartial, we cannot say what (in the article) belongs to Dr. Rubin and, therefore, we cannot attribute the whole article to Dr. Rubin. What if most of the article content belongs to Erdős? If the latest paper was published in 1997, how Dr. Rubin could be categorized as a 21st-century American mathematician then?--93.86.33.191 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinions from random internet users are not useful at Wikipedia unless discussing an actionable proposal to improve an article, based on policies and guidelines. Please post your analysis regarding the 1997 paper at another website because it is not relevant here. Ask at WP:HELPDESK how to nominate the article for deletion if you reach the private conclusion that notability is not satisfied (private = there is no need to tell everyone about your thoughts; just do it, or stop posting here). Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my comment here is an actionable proposal to improve an article based on policies and guidelines. A part of Conduct policies are WP:NPA and WP:CIV which you should be aware of ("Opinions from random internet users are not useful at Wikipedia"). Here I'm looking for credible and verifiable secondary sources much needed to improve the article content. I did not analyse 1997 paper, just pointed at two obvious facts: notability of a co-authored article cannot be equaled to a single co-author notability and, then, if the 1997 paper is the last Dr. Rubin's published paper, then Dr Rubin is not a 21-century mathematician. Both facts are about Wikipedia notions: notability and category. Certainly, if I see that I cannot improve this article I might propose its deletion. Now, let me discuss the addressed issues with this article with other internet users (random or not random). Thank you.--93.86.33.191 (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I share your concerns 93.86. I would have nominated this for deletion a long time ago if I didn't think it would cause a whole lot of drama. David - which sources do you think demonstrate notability? If it's just one highly cited paper then that's really not enough. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I note from the top of this page that no less than five deletion discussions have occurred already. If our IP friend has intent to propose deletion again, they should certainly look over those and take them into account. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference #10 is an article in the Los Angeles Times specifically about Rubin. I can't the text because it's behind a paywall but it appears to be a substantial amount of text. You'd have a hard time persuading people that this doesn't pass the GNG. Hut 8.5 17:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Jim Stingley in 1984, at 43. References #9 and #10 are almost the same article about the 18 year old college student, Arthur Rubin written by LA Times journalist, Jim Stingley (died in 1984, at 43) The article story was based on Rubin’s Caltech undergraduate advisor’s opinion about Rubin’s talent. We are talking here about the “20- and 21-century american mathematician”, not about 18 year old college student. Therefore, we have to find a purely academic overview of his contributions to mathematics contained in his 12 articles listed by MathSciNet, or just in a few of them, clearly separating his research from his mother’s research (co-authored 7 Dr A. Rubin’s articles) and other co-authors (Erdos, most notably). If such an overview just hints ‘this is a notable 20-century mathematician’ the job is done. Such overview certainly won’t be a single document, rather one or more of them like: notable academic award, notable academic institution membership, academic post, invitation to a notable conference, workshop, etc.

Such, not visible yet, information cannot be substituted by three references of the Putnam undergraduate student competition, three times referenced Dr. Rubin’s doctoral thesis, obituary of his mother, J. Rubin, and his unsuccessful run for a CA State Assembly member post.--93.86.33.191 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If an editor thinks the sixth AfD would have a different outcome that the first five, such an editor may nominate this BLP for deletion. Otherwise, I fear the colloquy above is essentially wertlos. Collect (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on the comments above I assume Eggishorn=Collect=Johnuniq= Arthur Rubin himself. On the account of the published articles, seven of twelve are articles of Rubin's mother, the article published with Erdos is tarnished by suspected plagiarism, two other do not belong to math, (timesharing, practical limits = computing, math modelling in engineering). At the end remained two other of no significance. For the last twenty years not a single math article was published, no affiliation with academic (research, teaching) institutions. As an "aerospace engineer" - thirteen years experience as employee of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon without any publicly available records of his professional achievements. So, how all this contributes to his career achievements (if any) notability?--178.223.64.26 (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That assumption is not only very wrong, it is an accusation of sock puppeting and such things are generally treated very seriously here. I am not any of those other listed users and having met one other, I can confirm we are different individuals. Please be very careful in the future when tossing such aspersions. Just because another editor disagrees with you is no reason to not assume good faith in your fellow editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, there is no suspected plagiarism in the list coloring paper that I am aware of. It was not the first to invent the concept of list coloring, but Vizing published in obscure Russian journals not available in the west at that time, so it is completely understandable that Rubin and his coauthors would not have been aware of that prior work. Reinvention is a completely different thing than plagiarism. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"there is no suspected plagiarism"? Hm! "Vizing published in obscure Russian journals not available in the west at that time"? Hmm! This link says that Erdos was a Hungarian Institute of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary employee. So, we assume the Hungarian Institute of Sciences did not have the "obscure Russian journal" (Diskretnyi Analiz) in 1980?. Really funny!--178.223.64.26 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a direct proof of availability of the Diskretnyi Analiz journal in the West in 1977 i.e. three years before the suspected plagiarism happen.--178.223.64.26 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If you persist in pushing this bogus "plagiarism" claim, I am going to have to warn you that WP:BLP applies both to talk pages and to articles, and that you may be blocked for your unsubstantiated attacks on Rubin. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:COI Arthur Rubin is a Wikipedia administrator therefore not allowed to edit or influence editing this article. Edited this article twelve times, advertised information about himself several times(archive: It’s about me, Me again, Youngest Putnam Fellow), himself voted to keep this article alive

The Awards and honors section is exclusively about high school and college student Arthur Rubin, not about Arthur Rubin - mathematician and aerospace engineer. Moreover, "his Caltech undergraduate advisor is quoted as saying that someone of Rubin's ability appeared in the United States" is just a private opinion, neither an award nor an honor. As a mathematician and aerospace engineer he does not have a single award or honor.

My proposal is to delete this article.--178.222.184.163 (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

My proposal is for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You are engaged in a one-editor campaign of disruption and you have been already warned several times about it. Deletion of this article has been thoroughly discussed and re-discussed no less than 5 times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The only new contribution that you have so far made to the points previously discussed has been to accuse your fellow editors of intellectual dishonesty. There is no reason to continue this line of argument. Please stop. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Note IP 93 correctly noted that mr Rubin did not publish a single work in mathematics in 21st century. Accordingly I've removed the 21st century mathematicians category from the article. Equally it's questionable to categorize him as a libertarian for just being once unsuccessful libertarian candidate (locally) in the past.--178.223.237.210 (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Article Content Issues

I see a few serious issues with this article.

1. Aerospace engineer. I do not see a single reference describing mr Rubin's aerospace engineer career. From his LinkedIn CV we could learn that mr Rubin was thirteen years employed with Raytheon and Lockheed Martin which might be classified as aerospace engineering job. Since LinkedIn CV cannot be referenced I propose deleting aerospace engineer from the article introductory.

2. Life and Career section. Create a new section called Trivia and move the sentence about his unsuccessful run as a libertarian candidate during 1984 California state elections. If there is no additional references about his political activities, please, remove categories California Libertarians and Members of Libertarian Party.

3. Erdos number is not a validation nor a ranking tool, it belongs to folklore. Move "giving him Erdos number of 1" to "Trivia" section.

4. Change Awards and Honors section title to College and Secondary School Student Awards and Honors. The reason is - as a mathematician mr Rubin is not awarded or honored ever by anyone.

5. Redundant references. Reference [3] does not add anything new to the article if compared to reference [10]. The same issue is with references [5] and [7] if compared to reference [6]. My proposal is to remove references [3], [5], and [7].

6. Remove "21st century American mathematicians" category. Mr Rubin has no research works in mathematics in 21st century.--178.223.237.210 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. This IP editor appears to have some animus against Rubin. Please see the long discussions above, and also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive (see Special:Contributions/178.223.64.26 for why I think this SPI is relevant). The IP's suggestions can be more fairly described as (1) deleting any mention of the subject's main career, (2) explicitly discounting his documented political activities (the part of the article that currently carries the most conventional notability — as we can document it from reliable sources, although by itself it would not pass WP:POLITICIAN) by calling them "trivia", (3) doing the same for what is by far the subject's most significant academic accomplishment (not so much coauthoring with E, but what they coauthored), (4) adding weasel words to minimize the subject's awards, and (5) removing the reliable and independent published sources we have in place of a dead web site and one of the subject's own publications. It is difficult to take these as good-faith suggestions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: I have removed the RfC tag, because this thread is in no way an WP:RfC. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• I edit conflicted after also removing the tag. Here is my comment that went with it. There is no way we are going to have someone with a grudge use an RfC to bludgeon the talk page of a WP:BLP with their disdain. If anyone has a genuine concern about the article, they should try their luck at a noticeboard such as WP:BLPN. Using Wikipedia in an attempt to make a point is a waste of everyone's time and will not be successful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eppstein Adding weasel words to minimize subject awards!? What else these awards and honors are if not a college and a high school student awards? How about 21st century American mathematician? What exactly mr Rubin contributed to mathematics in 21st century?--178.223.237.210 (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• The IP-hopper is an WP:SPA, and has gone well beyond wasting people's time. Clearly this IP-hopper is not here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• @David Eppstein and Johnuniq: At this point, it's clear to me that the IP hopper is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive evading his block and that we can simply revert any and all of his edits and threads, for block evasion. Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  Edited to add: I'm going to archive them instead, starting with the top one. Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• This may need escalation to get the user banned so the issue can be handled without the hassle of keeping an archive of their attempts to poke an opponent. Vujkovica brdo (talk · contribs) has made two edits to Talk:Arthur Rubin and none to the article. The two edits here were on 14 November 2016 to add a comment (diff) to complain that User:Arthur Rubin had reverted some edits by Vujkovica brdo (the comment was obviously intended for the user's talk). In other words, all the spurious nonsense about this article is due to the fact that Vujkovica was reverted on another article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

He's already indeffed for socking, so editing as an IP is block evasion and subject to reversion per WP:BE. If you like you can report the various SPA IP-hopping evasions directly to Bbb23 (I just haven't had the time). For reference, here is a compilation I made at RFPP: 178.223.237.210, 178.222.184.163 and 178.223.64.26 (also had to be revdelled [6] for serious BLP violations: [7]). He also previously edited as 93.86.33.191. Given the location and edits, I agree with David Eppstein that this is undoubtedly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive evading his block.-- Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm also short of time atm. The reason I posted the diff above was to keep a record of it here (or, later, in the archive). Along with the information you posted, that can be a basis for further action if needed. I may get around to checking all the contributors here to list the SPAs with a similar quack so it will be easier to get action in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Herman Rubin

My father, Herman Rubin, died a few hours ago. (I don't know if it was April 22 or April 23.) I'm not going to be updating the article with the information when it becomes available, so this is a request for update. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Birthdate

My actual birth date was obtained from the dark web a generally reliable source, and someone asked me to confirm it. I did so here. It's probably somewhere in the Newsweek article, if you really need a citation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Link to article? Enigma^msg 17:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Vanity Cite

This is such a vanity cite for a former volunteer at Wikipedia. It needs to be taken down. 173.46.66.82 (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, he’s one of only a handful of people to be a four-time Putnam Fellow. Not sure that alone makes him notable, since it’s a student award, but it isn’t nothing.

What has he been up to since the 1980s, though? Everything in this article seems to talk about things he did prior to 1985. Isomorphic (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So what? Someone doesn’t have to be continuously a celebrity for their entire life to be notable enough to fit into Wikipedia. For example, every single entry in the list of one-hit wonders in the United States is definitionally famous for only one song. –jacobolus (t) 22:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This is just a vanity site. Aside from apparently being some sort of wunderkind as student 50 years ago, there seems to be nothing noteworthy here. SimpsonDG (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree: The man has an erdos number of 1. THat alone would justify this article, leaving out some of the stuff at CalTech. Full disclosure: I know the subject personally. We disagree on many political things, but he strikes me as somebody who will listen to reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoldnyxnet (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The whole idea of Erdos number is just silliness itself. It certainly doesn't justify a vanity article. SimpsonDG (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)