Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aleksander Malnič
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Aleksander Malnic
non-notable biography CH (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- delete (or else expand biography to explain or at least describe a major result or other mathematical achievement). Malnic has no preprints listed on arXiv and I've never see any papers by him, although I am a mathematician who occasionally reads papers in this field and has studied two standard books. In contrast, I moved Tutte's biography into Category:Algebraic graph theory, his name wasn't mentioned. If Tutte isn't notable in this field, who the heck is? ---CH (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- I should clarify something--- of course I agree that just because I don't recognize Malnic's name on the basis of my somewhat limited (but nontrivial) reading in this area is not grounds for non-notability. I mentioned that precisely to indicate what I know or don't know, but I didn't express myself very clearly. Again, what I am really trying to say to whoever wrote these three articles is: please either tell me something interesting this person did in mathematics, or in some other walk of life, or else let us delete it.---CH (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Let me clarify something else--- I agree with Paul August and DS1953 that of course Wikipedia growth will be haphazard and therefore it will frequently happen that some towering figure in field F has no biography while lesser figures already have theirs. Of course, the solution then is to write the missing biography! But again, I think a good biography should not leave the average reader with serious doubt about whether or not the subject of the biography is suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia.---CH (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Now, just because you occasionally read papers in the field and did not see his name is no standard for no-notability. :) This author has 22 papers listed at MathSciNet, but that is I guess typical of a lot of professors. Overall, I would think that there are many much more worthy mathematicians which don't have a page on Wikipedia yet, so I would vote to delete this one. Oleg Alexandrov 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I would like to point out that the lack of "much more worthy mathematicians" is not a very strong argument. Nowhere does it say we should (or will) write about the most important people first! ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
-
- OK, let me put it that way: there are much more worhty mathematicians (like my PhD advisor let us say) who have more papers than this guy but who still don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. :) Oleg Alexandrov 01:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ok that argument makes sense. Paul August ☎ 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, let me put it that way: there are much more worhty mathematicians (like my PhD advisor let us say) who have more papers than this guy but who still don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. :) Oleg Alexandrov 01:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Paul, are you abstaining or did you forget to vote? ---CH (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes I guess I am abstaining. I agree this guy (probably) isn't very notable, but I am reluctant to delete based on a lack of notability. For some background on this see: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Importance, and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. If I were writing for a paper encyclopedia I would have a different view but of course, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. While some are worried (not unreasonably) about the possibility of Slovene "boosterism", I'm also worried about the possibility of first world parochialism. If you forced me to vote I'd probably have to vote keep. Paul August ☎ 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I would like to point out that the lack of "much more worthy mathematicians" is not a very strong argument. Nowhere does it say we should (or will) write about the most important people first! ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi, Paul, just to clarify: my concern is not really with possible Slavic boosterism (no-one has exactly come forward to explain the origin of the List of Slovenian mathematicians, but comments from a few users seem to support my guess that some math person active in the Slovenian wiki decided to tranlate a list there into English and port it to this one, without really thinking through the implications), but with making the math pages less useful as an encyclopedia. The discussions you pointed me at leave me unimpressed; I simply don't think they are relevant to the special needs of the math students (at all levels) whom these pages exist to serve (in my opinion). Wikipedia is not paper? The point is, Wikipedia can be better than paper (as an encylopedia), in fact, it could be so good (as an encyclopedia), that it's worth trying to make it as good as it can be!---CH (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see how the existence of one article, makes any other article less useful. Paul August ☎ 13:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, Paul, just to clarify: my concern is not really with possible Slavic boosterism (no-one has exactly come forward to explain the origin of the List of Slovenian mathematicians, but comments from a few users seem to support my guess that some math person active in the Slovenian wiki decided to tranlate a list there into English and port it to this one, without really thinking through the implications), but with making the math pages less useful as an encyclopedia. The discussions you pointed me at leave me unimpressed; I simply don't think they are relevant to the special needs of the math students (at all levels) whom these pages exist to serve (in my opinion). Wikipedia is not paper? The point is, Wikipedia can be better than paper (as an encylopedia), in fact, it could be so good (as an encyclopedia), that it's worth trying to make it as good as it can be!---CH (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
-
Delete. I agree with Oleg that not recognizing his name (from having studied a couple books) is not a real compelling reason. But the fact that no accomplishment of note is listed and there are indications that this is a result of Slovenian boosterism suggests to me that deletion is appropriate. --C S 18:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Keep. He has published some results with Marusic (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dragan_Marušič) which indicate some notability. --C S 03:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless some indication of notability is given. The only accomplisment listed in the article is a PhD. Well, everybody can do that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no indication that he passes the "average professor" test, although I also agree with Paul August that we don't delete someone just because more notable people have not had articles written on them yet. If someone can show me that there is something notable about him, I am happy change my vote to 'keep' even if there are many more worthy mathmeticians awaiting their own articles. -- DS1953 23:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability. Dottore So 18:09, 23 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
