Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hurwitz

:{{la|Alexander Hurwitz}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hurwitz}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Alexander Hurwitz}})

Delete there is nothing in the article to indicate notability. Working for IBM does not make him at all notable. Discovering two prime numbers is pretty marginal by the standards of research mathematicians. The only reference is to a blogspot page. No evidence of meeting any of the notability guidelines. (Prod was removed with no explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or maybe redirect to Titanic prime, where he's mentioned. There doesn't seem to be anything else to say about him, and Blogspot is as always a terrible "source". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Mersenne primes are very significant in the history of number theory, and, as their main article points out, were seen as mathematically significant as far back as Euclid. Fewer than 50 have been identified; they're not "just" prime numbers, which are a dime a dozen dozen dozen. . . . Hurwitz's results would have receive significant professional coverage at the time, as Google Scholar results evidence even though much of that coverage will prove difficult to track down. I've added a clearly reliable source on the main points, since the blog isn't an acceptable BLP source. Be interested in comments from somebody who knows what's purple and commutes (arcana warning). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

:*I agree 100% that Mersenne primes are more significant than just any primes. Nevertheless, discovering two of them is not, on its own, a very major claim to notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: Does not pass WP:PROF. Mersenne primes are notable but that does not imply that everyone connected with them is notables. The discovery of large Mersenne primes is a matter of having a big computer and being able to program it; the algorithm and the theory behind it being the Lucas primality test. The subject deserves a mention in Mersenne prime for doing this, but I don't think this alone is enough to satisfy the criteria. The second paragraph is full of personal information with no sources given which raises a red flag for me at least.--RDBury (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Being mentioned in numerous blogs about fifty years after one's discoveries is a clear sign of notability. All blogs are not created equal. The MAA is reliable. Besides, I've added two books. Giftlite (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per arguments of JamesBWatson and RDBury. This is essentially a case of WP:BLP1E (the event being discovery of 2 Mersenne primes), and sources given do not cover the person enough to establish notability beyond said event. Could certainly be mentioned in the Mersenne prime article, again, per one-event policy.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Titanic prime. Article currently provides little evidence for his notability. Discovering a large prime is an nice accomplishment, but not enough to meet the necessary criteria. Perhaps, the Titanic prime article could expand a little on Hurwitz' related work. Jwesley₇₈ 06:30, 19 March 2010 (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.