Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woldemar (Peter) Petri

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 was delete. No prejudice against recreation if more sources are found. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Woldemar (Peter) Petri

Woldemar (Peter) Petri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I see evidence of patents but no evidence of his bridges or having written about them. A google search with either name doesn't turn up any evidence of his work either. Fails WP:V and WP:N unless sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Needs to be more notable than this. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep given the information in that obit, there are in fact independent sources though they havent yet been specified; in any case, his engineering work would be notable. He was incidentally not notable as a researcher--he was an adjunct professor, but as an engineer. Google of course is irrelevant for an engineer working in the period 1953-1977. It's time people learned to stop nominating using that basis. DGG (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment, it's not irrelevant. If his name were connected with a bridge it would probably still be mentioned. Example: Brooklyn Bridge, Verrazano Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge. There's nothing other than the obit as an engineer or with bridge. What makes this engineer notable? We're supposed to take the obit claims on merit? Obits are often written by someone close to the deceased unless it's a famous person and there's not necessarily significant fact checking. WP:V is an issue. This search] is a little better, but not much. Without verification, there's no proof the claims are true. The onus is on the article creator to source the claims, and an obit connected to the university isn't necessarily independent. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 21:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
WP is not yet complete. absence from mention in a WP articles is not proof of non-notability. Adding articles like this is how we will correct the situation.DGG (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Bridges and civil engineering get written about a lot. Nothing on the web doesn't surprise me. Nothing in Google Books, Google Scholar, or various other searches of academic databases I've done does surprise me, though. IMO if he'd done anything notable in engineering there'd be stuff somewhere. Heck, the guy was an adjunct professor; being in academia, I'm sure he could have even written stuff himself, but I see absolutely nothing. Note that there is an economist by the name of Peter Petri, who I'm sure is not the same person - most search results that find under that name are for the economist. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - his full name appears to be Woldemar Reinhold Petri. I can find what seems to be 4 patents through google scholar. He has a prize named after him now but this is not a great claim as it was from a bequest in his will. There is probably more than this but his surname is common, there are other scholars called Petri out there (one is WR Petri in chemistry), and the kettle has just boiled - Peripitus (Talk) 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - per DGG. --David Shankbone 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No clear assertion of notability per WP:BIO & Morven's comments above. Eusebeus (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete "Article" is devoid of any non-trivial information. Fails WP:V. — BQZip01 — talk 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - all roads lead to that one, unsigned obit. I take DGG's point about the limitations of Google for years gone by. However, if the guy had done all the things the obit claims surely someone would have written about him subsequently? For me, there is a failure of WP:V. What is probably needed is a local, library search. The page can be recreated if sources are subsequently found. TerriersFan (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (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.