Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (2nd nomination)

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 & salt. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Blass

Still doesn't seem to meet notability guideliens. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable failing candidate. He might be notable some day, but not now. Fails WP:N. Undeath (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this should be the fourth nomination, not the second. Also,this was deleted in the first and second AfD. Undeath (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt or leave as stub. In the past this has been a problematic article, the subject has edited the article himself adding lots of positive spin, there is also quite a lot of negative press about him (see deletion log). There are sources aplenty see for example [1]. Mathematically he is borderline notable for his work on Zariski surface, being editor and translator of influential Elements of Algebraic Geometry Five by Alexander Grothendieck, an being involved with an early online mathematics journal Ulam Quarterly. Balancing the negative press and the subjects account would be a tricky task and the only stable state for the article seems to be a stub. --Salix alba (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt history is quite clear here. --Buridan (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment. I am not sure about his notability as a politician (the older version [2] does cite quite a few sources) but academic notability under WP:PROF is passable but weak. It is true that he was the editor-in-chief of Ulam Quaterly, which may indeed have been the first online math journal. However, the journal's existence was fairly brief (1992-96) and it never really managed to get off the ground. Notability from editing Grothendieck's notes is derivative. In terms of his own work, MathSciNet shows 33 papers (the last one in 1996), none are widely cited. WebOfScience shows top citation hits in single digits for his papers. Similarly, little in terms of citability in GoogleScholar[3]. However, his book with Jeffrey Lang on Zariski surfaces is widely held in academic libraries per WorldCat[4]. Still, for a mathematician, I would want to see some more direct evidence in terms of citability. If judged purely as an academic under WP:PROF, I would probably have !voted "weak keep". I am not sure about the political activities and the past problems with this article on WP. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question I remember this article from previous AfDs (this is it's fourth). The DR decision to unsalt was based on "Significant new information has come to light since the deletion." but reading this new bio, I see no new information, no claim to notability even (failed candidates for local office fail WP:POLITICIAN, and a weak claim to pass WP:PROF). Does anyone know what this "new information" was? Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was [5] which was a complete rewrite differening markedly from the deleted version [6] (I've just restored this for comparison). --Salix alba (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable in any way. Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:PROF, fails WP:POLITICIAN, fails. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I think his political activities fail WP:POLITICIAN (local gadfly of WP:NOT#NEWS variety, no eternal historical impact), and fails WP:PROF (main claim to notability as I see it is via book co-authored Jeffrey Lang, and the most common blurb I see for the book mentions it containing Lang's dissertation work). Given the long history of this article, and the failure of it to show a consistent trend towards accumulating stronger claims to notability, I suggest a re-salting is appropriate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The version linked to by Salix Alba contains one possibly notable claim: an on-line mathematics magazine (unnamed) from 1987, and a write-in campaign for governor of Florida in a race for which our article lists 147 total write-ins. I don't think that's enough. Weak delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 22 August 2008 (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.