| Revision as of 22:18, 31 January 2007 editPete.Hurd (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers8,828 editsm Tagged as a Academics and educators-related deletion.← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:27, 31 January 2007 edit undoMarkBernstein (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,219 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| *'''Keep''' per Dhartung. ] 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per Dhartung. ] 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per Pleasantville. -- ] 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per Pleasantville. -- ] 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per DavidCBryant. I can't imagine how this was eligible for speedy deletion. My faith in the assumption of good faith, already weakened by the recent Dave Winer deletion episode, is now gone. ] 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> -- ] 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> -- ] 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:27, 31 January 2007
Ed Pegg, Jr.
This article got created on Jan 25, 2007 by Pleasantville. It was speedy deleted in a day or two by Slimvirgin per A7 (not-notability). Prompted by Pleasantville herself, and also by KSmrq, I restored it to have it go through the usual AfD process. Here are the arguments by these two people I have seen. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- (from Talk:Ed Pegg, Jr.)
- ... Misplaced Pages cites the guy twelve times or so (I made some links but his name was tehre already.) That's why I made him an entry. He's notable enough for you to use his work and cite him freqently, but not notable enough to have an entry? .... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 2007-01-26 03:37:57 utc (UTC)
- (from User talk:Oleg Alexandrov)
- I haven't seen the articles, but I'm slightly familiar with the name of an Ed Pegg, Jr., who is fairly well-known for puzzles, such as this MAA collection. If you restored his article I would ask to keep it. Three years of regular puzzles for a solid mathematics organization, by itself, establishes notability; and a little searching should show more, since '"Ed Pegg"' (in quotation marks) turns up tens of thousands of hits. --KSmrq 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
(These comments do not preclude Pleasantville and KSmrq from commenting again below, of course.) So I wonder what the community at large thinks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think this was a valid deletion for having "no assertion of notability." Of course, if people know the person to be notable, and flesh out the article to explain why, then the situation would be quite different. Insofar as the users above think he ought to be kept, and noting the fact that he appears in various other articles, I hope that this happens over the course of the present discussion. -- SCZenz 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I got 19,400 hits on Google by entering "Ed Pegg Jr". That's a lot of hits for a very precise string like that. I looked at a dozen sites or so ... they all look pretty legitimate to me (i.e., not self-puffery, but posts by other people who are interested in his work). He's not just into recreational math, either. He apparently helped Stephen Wolfram write his book A New Kind of Science, and he's involved somehow in the Mathworld web site. If I can find enough time to dig into it a little bit, I'll add some stuff to the existing article, to address SCZenz' comment. DavidCBryant 17:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, 49 results on Google News Archive including significant publications such as the NYT. --Dhartung | Talk 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Per my comments quoted above. Now that I have had a chance to see the article as deleted, it seems clear that it was missing relevant facts. But then, it was marked a stub. I have expanded it slightly, which I hope will suffice for now. --KSmrq 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't see a lot of value in some of the external links (MathWorld, MKS, NKS forum) in the article as it stands, without a description of Pegg's role in those links. MathPuzzle and Math Games are ok because Pegg is the primary contributer to them, but "contributes online to the associated forum" could be said about millions of non-notable people for various internet forums. I think the standard of notability for a non-professional mathematician such as this should be, not WP:PROF which doesn't make sense for this kind of person, but the general standards of notability for any person, in which we seek reputable publications that have written articles about Pegg. I see several such articles in Dhartung's search and think some of them should be added as references to the WP article. —David Eppstein 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Dhartung. Krimpet 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Pleasantville. -- Dominus 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per DavidCBryant. I can't imagine how this was eligible for speedy deletion. My faith in the assumption of good faith, already weakened by the recent Dave Winer deletion episode, is now gone. MarkBernstein 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)