Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Rami Grossberg

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: weak opinions all round roughly split either way, no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Rami_Grossberg

does not seem to be important 151.201.60.121 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment anon created this page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rami Grossberg, as anons can't create pages. Moved here to complete the nomination. No vote. -- Vary | Talk 06:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF, but I'm not sure as I'm not familiar with his area of research. I really don't think 28 publications a notable personage make. I imagine this fellow is non-notable, but... I'm not sure, so I'm voting for a weak delete. If someone can come by with some information to back his notability in his field, then I'll switch to keep. --FreelanceWizard 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the above. By the way, even though I'm a mathematician, model theory (the area Grossberg works in) is on the opposite end of the area I work in and I don't know anything about it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain after reading Arthur's comment below. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I've done some work in model theory, but not much in infinitary languages, such as ${𝐿}_{{\omega }_1,\omega }$. (I know what it is, but couldn't tell you what's generally known in the field, not even talking about what the important conjectures are.) Perhaps we can ask Saharon Shelah if his work is significant (WP:PROF 4) or if he is important (WP:PROF 2)? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Changed vote to Weak Keep. After correspondance with the subject (who expressed annoyance, irritation, and embarassment), he pointed out his work was featured at a recent conference. I couldn't verify that exactly, but he's a co-organizer [1] of that conference, which seems nearly adequate for WP:PROF if he's not on the faculty of the host facility or an officer of one of the sponsors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  He's at Carnegie Mellon; but the conference is in Palo Alto. He doesn't appear to be an official of AIM, and an NSF officer is more notable than the average professor anyway. Septentrionalis 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep his doctoral advisor was, in fact, Shelah. So while notability isn't contagious and I don't understand more than two consecutive words of the article, it seems likely he is working on significant problems [2] Dlyons493 Talk 12:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The question, I think, is whether his work is getting anywhere on the significant problems...Septentrionalis 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if expanded. —Xyrael 15:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to me that the encyclopedicly notable person who mertis an individual page on Wikipedia is Saharon Shelah, not Rami Grossberg who's just trying to proove Shelah's theories. Maybe Grossberg would become encyclopedicly notable if he did indeed proove one of Shelah's theories, but that's not the case right now. Zaxem 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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.