Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada Dietz

Non-notable math crank not recognized by professional establishment. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ or rebuild from the ground up. Dietz claimed that one could use polynomials in multiple variables to represent weaving patterns. This is hardly crankery. On the other hand, the article's substantive claims (such as that Dietz was "famous as a rebel against the mathematical establishment") are simply false. ~~There does not appear to be enough solid information available to turn this entry into at least a stub.~~ Michael Slone (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. Although she may not have been primarily an academic, the article claims notability on the basis of her academic contributions, so I believe this is appropriate for that list. —David Eppstein 03:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The fact that a professional mathematician requested PlanetMath to add an entry on Dietz shows that she is notable in the field of mathematics. Of course the establishment will always be slow to accept those outside the mainstream. Just look at Kurt Heegner's life story. Let's not forget that this is Wikipedia. When a single line is "simply false," we can just delete that one line. Information on Dietz'z life story is a little hard to find, but I think we can get the ball rolling without running afoul of the "no-original-research" fanatics. PrimeFan 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think my requesting an entry on Dietz shows that she is notable in the field of mathematics. I stumbled upon a few pages on Dietz online and requested the entry because I was hoping someone might have some information on her or her method of using polynomials to design weave patterns. I do not believe that Dietz is notable as a mathematician and can find no evidence that Dietz herself made claims to being a mathematician. Michael Slone (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I really think we need some information than the entry request, though I suppose we could link to even that at

[1]. If you know about her, you must know about her from somewhere.DGG 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep ,rebuild from the ground up, and she's not an academic so why is she listed here?. It's unfortunate that she is listed as a mathematician because her enduring contibution seems to be a novel method for coming up with weaving patterns. As per the sources listed on the page she obviously had some math background, but her accomplishments are recognized primarily by weavers and her methods are still in use a half century later. The nomination claim that she is a "math crank" suggests that little effort was made to contextualize her work. This woman never made claims to revolutionize math, she simply combined her education with a hobby to design novel woven patterns. Irene Ringworm 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless substantial sources discovered to verify that she meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

See recent edits which offer multiple periodical sources as per WP:BIO. An annotated volume of her work is still in print a half-century later. Irene Ringworm 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. As Irene Ringworm has said, this seems to meet the demand of WP:BIO for multiple independent published sources. And I think the article clearly documents her notability as a pioneer of the connection between mathematics and weaving patterns; see e.g. Grünbaum and Shephard, Satins and Twills, Mathematics Magazine, 1980 for a discussion of the sparsity of works on the mathematics of weaving (unfortunately ignorant of Dietz' work). —David Eppstein 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)