Talk:Stephan Schulz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

What means "bio" as a reason fo deletion, please? Could we talk English - not everyone here is expected to be an experienced wikieditor. The page is an initial stub of an established computer scientist. Thanks, Josef

This means that the article is a biographical article which does not adequately assert notability of the subject. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Anthony. Does this mean that I have to further explain why is an author of a high performance theorem prover (with a several years old wikipedia entry) a notable person, otherwise he is deleted? I am not sure, but I added the link to his publications - he is certainly notable in his field. JosefUrban (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have checked "CSD A7", and it says: "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." It seems to me that saying that someone is an author of a high performance theorem prover is a "reasonable indication of why it might be notable". So I am sorry, but I do not understand the reason why this was put into speedy deletion. Can you explain how you do this? JosefUrban (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware, biographies of living people are held to a very high standard of notability requirements. Please note that you have the right to remove the {{prod}} tag if you object to the deletion. This will avert the deletion, unless someone subsequently proposes it via AfD. Anyway, I recommend that you add at least a couple of references that meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria, and than the article shall be safe. If you are unsure you can do that anytime soon, please add the {{construction}} tag to let others know this will take some time.Sebwite (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-english sources[edit]

While I think the creator aught to have declared his COI, I expanded the article a little. I have not de-PRODded as I'll leave that call for someone more familiar with academics. There's more available in German, which I unfortunately don't read. TravellingCari 01:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "de-PRODing". I think that the DBLP publication record should be very high on your list of "reliable sources" for CS people, and enough to make them notable (at least for funding agencies it is). As for my COI: yes I know Stephan because we work in the same field. His system is one of the best, hence I (like many other people in the field) use it. Is that COI that I should have stated? I appreciate the admins' attempts to keep WP nice, but you shouldn't shoot so quickly with the deletion proposals. If I cared less, the article would be deleted now. JosefUrban (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't de-PROD, another editor did. I left it for someone who understood the field better. What I'd ask of you since you seem familiar with his work is to put the information in a more user-friendly manner. As I tried to explain to Sebwite, I'd have liked to expand this further but his work in the field is written about in a very technical manner. Can you try to bring it down to a more accessible level. I don't even understand the award he won or the subject hew writes on because they're not very lay-friendly. That's not to say they can't be inclded, just that they need to be brought down to something understandable. COI is always good to declare because it will come out -- I found that you were a co-author of Schulz' in about 20 seconds. TravellingCari 02:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not his co-author: we have co-chaired one workshop, and consequently are co-editors of its proceedings. It is always good to have articles as expanded and lay-friendly as possible, and the article about E prover can be traced quite deep in WP, and you can learn a lot if you want. If I were a lay wikiadmin, I think I would do it, before twice suggesting to delete a stub about the prover's author. This does not seem to me to be a good strategy how to make domain experts interested in adding to WP. JosefUrban (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

r

Being polite goes a long way. I didn't mark yours for deletion. I said there was enough notability to avoid a speedy and then expanded it slightly. I tried to keep it from deletion but right now notability isn't clear because it's far too technical. Co-editor and co-author, similar COI. TravellingCari 17:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a {{notability}} tag to this article. The subject has published (and DBLP is a reliable source, I think), but that is something that all academics do and not enough to satisfy WP:PROF. Please have a look at those guidelines and if possible improve the article to show notability. --Crusio (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree. I left the PROD in place and even said above, "Notability isn't clear". That's the issue here. I think he is notable, but it's not shown here. You're free to take it to AfD, I just said there was enough to avoid a speedy TravellingCari 19:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Since I've discovered this page (and I do hope you decide that I am notable enough to keep it, and eventually remove the notability header), some suggestions:

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

This article is now only a stub, but still it will look better with additional trivial biographical information.--Gilisa (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephan_Schulz&oldid=1045989396"