Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroshi Haruki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshi Haruki

Only notability seems to be Haruki's theorem and Haruki's lemma (neither yet created). Perhaps an article for Haruki's theorem should be created and this article merged into it, but if neither of those deserves an article, neither does he. -- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. (I can never remember whether I'm supposed to but the vote in the opening)Weak Keep. See comment below. I don't know if it's proper to withdraw the nomination, but I'd like to do so, if allowed. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. He is very notable - List of publications gives 81 publications on the American Mathematical Society. This means he was involved in the derivation of 81 new theorems. This needs to be expanded. Blnguyen 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't have access to MathSciNet -- however, although 81 publications is an indication of notability, not all publications indexed in MathSciNet are actually referreed, nor does a publication in a referreed journal necessarily have a new theorem. However, I'll accept Honsberger below as a strong indication that the theorem is, at least, notable. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: For someone as old as he is, it's not surprising that he has that many publications, especially when one considers that there is some duplication of work and additional expository articles on that work. I find that looking through his publication list, it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy although the fact that he has kept up production is a testament to his work ethic. On the other hand, he has published in some respectable journals (although not so prestigious to make it an automatic keep). I will abstain, but my inclination is that unless the results cited in the nom are of such significance and/or his other activities (perhaps as educator, influential figure, etc.) are significant, I don't particularly feel compelled to vote keep. --C S (Talk) 12:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He's got a write-up here: Honsberger, R. "Haruki's Cevian Theorem for Circles." §12.4 in Episodes in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Euclidean Geometry. Washington, DC: Math. Assoc. Amer., pp. 144-146, 1995. --Ruby 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable mathemetician as per B. L. Nguyen. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep. Monicasdude 14:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but the article must be expanded, of course. --Neigel von Teighen 14:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. Siva1979Talk to me 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. --Terence Ong 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Haruki's Theorem. Multiple references - just do a Gsearch <Haruki theorem mathematics>. —ERcheck @ 00:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Request: With the nomination being withdrawn by original nominator and no delete votes, can this be made a speedy keep? —ERcheck @ 01:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable in his field. WesternMustang 02:48, 18 February 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.