Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Engel (mathematician)

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Engel (mathematician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of why he's notable, no reliable biographical sources supporting notability. Even the minimal facts in the article aren't given in the sources but inferred: he's listed as the author of a maths book so is a mathematician; his address is listed at a university so he must have taught there. No actual biographical sources; if he were notable then someone should have written about him. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to be notable, but more needs to be done when it comes to sources. However, this article was only created 3 days ago, and the Maths Wikiproject were contacted yesterday - I think it's too early for AfD. Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why so anxious to write this article if there is such difficulty in finding sources — and why so sure he would be notable? In any case, we need sources not to satisfy some arbitrary rule called notability, but so that we can write a verifiable article. If there are no sources then there is nothing that we can say about him, and there cannot be an article. Deltahedron (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If more work needs to be done it can be userfied. That's what I've done when writing articles, started writing them as userspace drafts and only moved them to mainspace when I think they're finished, which includes fully sourced. It's also worth noting the criteria for biographies of living persons is much stricter; everything needs properly sourcing and unsourced content can be removed and deleted. Then again it's not even clear if this applies, whether he's still alive – with no dates for birth, death, his own (presumed) PhD it's impossible even to guess.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is still alive. He was born in 1928 and his university website lists him as Ehemalig. See also viaf.org/viaf/161228347. Deltahedron (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I see you've added a potted bio to the talk page, thanks. The birth date is most useful, gives a much better idea of when his career probably was, though it if anything muddies the BLP issue: it could easily be either. Probably he's still alive or it would surely be possible to find an obituary. I found the David Hilbert medal when searching for sources, but he didn't win the full medal:

It should be noted that 1991 Awards under the name of David Hilbert were presented on the basis of quite different criteria, that of having written the most interesting articles written in the previous years' volumes of the WFNMC Journal "Mathematics Competitions".

[1]

The Order of Merit seems like quite a common award: the article lists it as being awarded to 200,000 people since 1951.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the back cover of one of his books, [2], it looks like the same one the potted bio was based on. I think the bio includes the main points but the extra detail may be useful for e.g. initiating further searches.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there's another Engel who was involved in IMO competitions, Wolfgang Engel, also born in Germany in 1928, died 2010. Here he is writing about Arthur Engel: [3].--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching finds no evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and (as noted above) the award is given too frequently to confer notability. -- 101.117.3.144 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Probably notable as an author of textbooks, some of which which were translated into several languages (French, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish). Not easy to find anything on him, though. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Mathematics is in general a low-citation subject but what little I can find looks more pedagogical than research-oriented, so research impact (criterion #1) looks unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the Federal Cross of Merit is awarded in a number of different grades. We need to know what grade he got, as the higher grades (probably Commander and above) will attest to his notability under criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a fair assumption he has one of the lowest/commonest grades. Not only is this statistically most likely but the information's from a promotional blurb, which I think would mention it if he obtained an especially high and prestigious variety of award.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. According to German Wikipedia, he received the Verdienstkreuz am Bande, the second-lowest grade, well below the threshold for notability under WP:ANYBIO. Under the British Honours System, we have always considered a CBE as the lowest grade to meet criterion #1. I would say this one equates approximately to an MBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks acceptable to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a partial bibliography. The subject has done original work on Markov chains, but is primarily notable as a prolific author of textbooks. The number of books with reputable publishers, and the fact they have been translated into various other languages, shows clear notability as an author. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no evidence in the world to support the idea that he is not notable, which is the way I choose to interpret these particular "rules" (and every "rule" there is) in case of doubt. An author being translated to foreign languages is decidedly not not notable because somebody noted him and it was believed economically sound to proceed with a translation. YohanN7 (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an expert in mathematical education and the author of widely used textbooks. For an academic, the awards are significant recognition--they never do get the higher ranks of general national awards , which are almost exclusively for industrialists, politicians, and bureaucrats. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 3 May 2014 (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.