Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Michael Hartl

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. v/r - TP 23:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Hartl

Template:La – (View log)

(Template:Find sources)

• Delete − The subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. This article has been written because of a single page on the BBC news website. He was not the subject of the article, he was simply interviewed for the article. The main WP:N notability criteria is that there is "significant coverage" about the subject, which means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and not just interview his once or twice with regard to another issue. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. A single mention on a single news webpage does not qualify as significant coverage. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Actually no, he's also been mentioned twice in New Scientist, and those are just the mentions I happen to come across at random. And his name was already in two different articles Tau and Pi. He seems to be just about notable, and he seems to be a fairly well regarded published author for Ruby stuff as well. -Rememberway (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to note that you are the creator of the article. Besides that, you have just hit the nail on the head: "He's also been mentioned in New Scientist". If you read our notability criteria then you'll see that we require "significant coverage about the subject, which means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Recent, one-time, by-association, news coverage is insufficient. (The BBC were using τ-day as a humorous aside, where Michael was mentioned in passing; as with New Scientist!) Michael clearly also fails WP:ACADEMIC which was the only real hope of inclussion. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. I have removed mention of the subject from tau as a clear violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. Just because someone or something makes the news, it does not make them worthy of an encyclopedia entry. As a new editor I recommend that you discuss changes involving this person and topic on article talk pages in future. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually on over 30,000 edits. This is my second account partly due to stalking issues with my old one. So I would appreciate it if you cut out the misplaced condescension. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't vote in AFDs you called yourself, and didn't go out of your way to turn articles into orphans just to increase the chances of getting them deleted. Generally these are considered bad things. -Rememberway (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Being, or not being, an orphan has no relevance to an article being deleted. It is a suggestion as to how to improve an article. The only aim is that thee article be cross referenced, i.e. woven into the Wikipedia web. But you know that as an editor with 30,000+ edits. Firstly, let me remind you that an AfD is not a vote. Secondly, let me remind you that any editor in good standing may comment on an AfD. I did as the creator of the AfD, and you did as the creator of the article. Why is it okay for you to comment, but not for me?— Fly by Night (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be because it's not a (true) vote, and because that's the AFD process; I suggest you actually read it before creating any more AFDs. You're not supposed to do that. -Rememberway (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please help me by linking to the section that you suggest that I read. I know that I should "…refrain from repeating my recommendation on a separate bulleted line" but I haven't done that; I've bulleted my original comment; not repeated it. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't get to use the bullet like that at all as a nominator. I suggest you read other AFDs. This is just making you look bad. -Rememberway (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see that he meets WP:ACADEMIC (he might do, but I haven't seen it). However his advocacy of the Tau / Pi issue seems marginally notable, even if it's something of a focus this week. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Subject does not meet the notability requirements. --Ozgod (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Note that the claimed AFD criteria is wrong, he's not an academic anyway. In fact his day job is as an author and educator. -Rememberway (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment − There is no such thing as an AFD criteria. There is an AfD discussion that uses Wikipedia policy to discuss the possible deletion of an article. The recent, by-association, press coverage (which has already finished) is not enough to pass WP:N. As an academic, the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Unless you're telling us he's an Ice Hockey player and he passes WP:NHOCKEY or that he's politician and he passes WP:POLITICIAN…? — Fly by Night (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge into Tau Sources do not show Hartl meets notability requirements. Some of this information is already covered in Tau. The coverage by CNN, BCC, and other sources seems to be exclusively about Tau Day / Pi Day debates, and not about Hartl himself. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment He meets Wikipedia:Author#Creative_professionals The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. he's coined the term 'tau' for 2 PI, and he's also written a significant essay on it which is all over the technical press at the moment, mathematicians are commenting on it etc. Note that they are all interviewing him about the idea. -Rememberway (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

People come up with original ideas every days. Is his idea notable? Has it won any significant awards? How has it impacted his field in any lasting way? --Ozgod (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would expect so. Although in a sense he has only coined a new use for an old symbol, he's written an essay and come up with a convincing reason to start using it, and he's avoided the problems that the previous guy who suggested using a completely novel three legged pi symbol would have created. He's also dealt with the major issues like Euler's equation. And it's not really just an immediate in-the-news-today thing, he's been appearing in the press for a good 6 months now, and I would expect people to start using it, as he noted this kind of change has happened before with symbols like h_bar. -Rememberway (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He decide to multiply π by two. It's only got into the news as a "…and finally" segment. It's funny, it's wakky, it's zanny. That's all. Even if it does go on to have a lasting impact on the mathematical sciences, it would take a good few years to judge the effect. When we have school children being taught that the area of a circle is $\frac{\tau }{2}{r}^2$, or academic papers using it as standard, then he'll have made a significant contribution. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No I find that it's already historically significant that he's proposed it, whether or not it's not picked up. Other people like Fred Hoyle have proposed pretty much the same thing, but don't seem to have captured the imagination in the same way, but we'll see whether this has, in the end, stuck. -Rememberway (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Notability has not been established. Article's subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. - SudoGhost™ 02:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Yup. It's moot. Neither does Queen Elizabeth II. Although he's trained as a physicist he's not working as an academic, so he wouldn't be expected to meet it, nor is it required. He's an author and an educator. He meets WP:AUTHOR. -Rememberway (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The significance of his idea has not been established, this article is WP:TOOSOON, at best. - SudoGhost™ 02:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems to me that the primary reason adduced for the notability of the subject is his introduction of the constant τ. The relevant guideline is of course WP:PROF, to determine if this is a lasting and important scientific contribution. It's a clear fail there, as the subject has a Google scholar h-score of only just two or three. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROF and WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, exactly as per David. Nageh (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd heard of him before. Sufficent media coverage. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as David Eppstein says, does not meet WP:PROF and per WP:BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability and the whole thing smells a bit of questionable promotion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Weak delete In addition to the tau day stuff he got a Ruby Hero Award in 2011. But the article we have right now is quite short and I'm not sure I see how it could grow into anything at all substantial, unless there are some biographies or other sources out there that noone has brought up yet. Kingdon (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You have to be kidding about the Ruby Award, right? I don't think that the Ruby Hero Award counts as "…a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.". From what I can see, Ruby is a programming language, and there's an online "Ruby community" where people, as a hobby, write open source programs, like plug-ins and apps, that they share and talk about. The Ruby Hero awards are then awards given to members of that community, by that community. Kind of like what a "Wikipedian of the year" award might be. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to agree with you, if you'd let me. Getting into an argument about how widely used ruby is, or how significant his awards or the ruby tutorials he's published are, is pretty far afield from whether Hartl is notable as a person. Which at least as I read the policies is very much tied to WP:V—we can't write a bio if there are no biographical sources. Kingdon (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment 'Besides that, you have just hit the nail on the head: "He's also been mentioned in New Scientist"' Uh no. Point of fact: he was actually interviewed in New Scientist, it wasn't simply a mention of his name or anything like that. And they have a whole page to do with tau day which he called, and was widely publicised. -Rememberway (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The link you posted doesn't mention him in the least. I'm sure one of the subpages may name him, but if there is I cannot see it. - SudoGhost™ 23:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you. "It's time to kill off pi, says physicist Michael Hartl, who believes that an alternative mathematical constant will do its job better" The article that it links to from there is paywalled though, but that's not my problem, it's still a verifiable, notable source in a science magazine, and plenty of Wikipedia's sources are inaccessible without subscription. -Rememberway (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not required to believe me. What is required, however, is sources that back up the notability of the article. He is not the subject of your link, the subject is Tau, and if this link you've provided is the best source, it falls squarely under WP: BIO1E, meaning that this article should not exist. - SudoGhost™ 05:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't fit general notability or WP:PROF. Also seems like one of those people covered by passing news events that only gets coverage for a few days (WP:EVENT), I don't see him becoming notable right now. --RAN1 (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand, he was interviewed in New Scientist magazine 08 January 2011, and he's come up again over 6 months later. He was also mention on Pi day in March, and a few days ago on Tau day and there's a pretty good chance that he'll be mentioned next Pi day. There's about 5 or 6 mentions in total in New Scientist, and then he's been mentioned in lots and lots of other technical magazines and lots and lots of newspapers, blogs etc. as well. The previous guy Parais who published in the Mathematical Intelligensia has also talked about him, and supported his idea of using Tau. By any sane standard he's already notable, just because he's been noted by so many reliable sources. -Rememberway (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't heard of Hartl until today, and what you've given me still does not cover WP:PROF. New Scientist is a magazine, and whatever few mentions there are in there over the span of a few months doesn't cut it for me since it's not actually a scientific journal or anything of that magnitude. A bunch of mentions in regular magazines also doesn't fit since he's more of a related person and not the actual focus of the articles. You can see the policies I mentioned above, but that's about it. I stand by my vote. --RAN1 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:PROF is about professors. He's not, and has never been a professor. He arguably may have been a minor academic at one point (he published a few papers on General Relativity) but he's not currently an academic either; he is and was an educator, and has won awards for that, and has written book on learning a computer language. WP:PROF doesn't cover educators. Being a teacher means that he's only subject to the general notability guideline for people: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". The fact that he's been listed in half the papers in the Western world and written a manifesto would seem to fit that, right? -Rememberway (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit dramatic. The answer, however, is still no. - SudoGhost™ 05:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To reinforce what SudoGhost said, no. The guy is making a claim that tai should be used as the circle constant, which falls under academia. I already mentioned this in my last comment, but mentions are not enough for me. As with my last comment, I stand by my vote. --RAN1 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. I should also mention that the whole tau stuff is the only thing that makes this guy have any potential for notability, which in itself falls under academia; hence why I refer to WP:PROF instead of general notability guidelines. --RAN1 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he's notable for having proposed it, whether or not he's an academic. And he's not notable for the event, tau day, he's notable for writing his Manifesto, which has now been referenced from all over the place over a period of at least several months. -Rememberway (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if tau does not fit notability, neither does his manifesto and then Hartl doesn't either. About the manifesto, if I haven't heard about, it probably hasn't been referenced all over the place. I'm not going to argue my point further on this, this argument is getting nowhere. --RAN1 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, if tau is not notable. But in fact, for example, it's mentioned in Pi#Criticism and it seems stable there, so it's notable in that context, and referenced. -Rememberway (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:PROF. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Fails WP:GNG. Since Rememberway is determined to individually argue every single delete !vote on this page, I'll be sure to check back to see what he has to say about it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly haven't, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't engage in personal attacks. It's bad enough when Fly by Night does it (and he's been doing it an awful lot). -Rememberway (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Rememberway, please don't engage in personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. As you ask others to do this, please extend them the same courtesy. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 06:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Subject seems unnotable by all BLP criteria. Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Even if this tau stuff is notable, notability is not inherited. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that this is not notable and I think since the creator has been indefinitely banned for vested interest in the "tau" topic there is little reason to keep it. Quandle (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Rememberway has not been banned. He has been indef blocked. There is a difference, and it's a significant one here. Removing good articles because of the involvement of banned users is a favoured way of WP cutting off its nose to spite its face, even though it's obviously a poor way to build encyclopedias. Even then though, it only happens with the most egregious of bans and Rememberway's conduct here is a long way from that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question for those citing BLP1E - how would you react to an article renamed to reflect the tau/pi debate?

BLP1E is clearly an issue here, WP:ACADEMIC doesn't appear to be met and the Ruby connection is trivia. Any notability (which clearly exists to some degree, even if there is a question as to its adequacy) is about the tau/pi campaign. Now this, IMHO, seems like an encyclopedic topic where readers looking for an objective background article could come here looking for one (and bollocks to WP:N. WP:RS and the rest, that's why we're here). We should, as an encyclopedic duty, offer an encyclopedic explanation of 2π and its virtues and historical context. We should explain the Planck constant as h or ħ to the geometers, and e^iπ = -1 to the physicists.

There seems to be a lot of call to delete this article because tau is seen as a silly bandwagon, and the notability of one person is being used as the stick to beat Rememberway with. At the same time, even if tau is silly, the concept and the campaign has generated sizable coverage and there is a reader-based need to explain what's behind it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Answer − if the τ issue sticks around, then it would be a good idea. But at present, it's more of an "…and finally" part at the end of the news. It's a little mathematical titbit that the population can grasp. But that's the point: this τ thing only really exists in the popular media. There are almost no mathematicians taking it seriously. That means that very few mathematicians will use it, and the chances are it'll just fizzle out. I, personally, would say that it's too soon, and it's a case of recitism. Having said that, there's already an article about Tau (mathematics), and that's going through an AfD. It's a close run thing. It seems that most of the delete !votes are coming from maths Wikiproject editors, while the majority of keep !votes are coming from less specific, more general interest editors. But the Tau (mathematics) article and its AfD are the places for this discussion, not Michael Hartl's BLP AfD discussion. We're in danger of discussing several articles in a single AfD. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• "We're in danger of discussing several articles in a single AfD."

I think that would be a good thing. I feel that we need one article on this issue, and I really don't care if it's called Tau (mathematics) or Michael Hartl - the content would be one Ruby book away from identical. Having no articles though is a diservice to our readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion, and the overwhelming consensus to delete Michael Hartl is a strong indicator that the community doesn't think an article about Michael Hartl should included. If you want an article about τ-day and the π/τ debate then Tau (mathematics) is the place to discuss that. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to Tau (mathematics), assuming that article gets Kept. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or failing that, as Cybercobra suggests a Merge is a good idea. Dr Hartl is certainly notably the main force behind the Tau/Pi debate, even if he gallantly credits another for the first idea. AFAICS all present agree that the Tau page is worthy of a page as not merely "news fodder" mathematics but as a thoughtful socio-historical campaign about how we view established terms and constructs. A Mathermatical (Michel) Foucault with humour. And it has a fairly decent traction among the public, and academics, who generally like both the humour and the logic. Hartl deserves some credit for this, so if you are going to insist on a deletion, then some better mention on the Tau page would be worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.247.163 (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — 82.35.247.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, no. Not everybody agrees that the Tau page is "worthy of a page". As you've commented on the Tau deletion article, you should know that. - SudoGhost™ 19:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes Sudo, you're right there: I was coming back to change my erroneous assertion on that point after I went back that page and realised I was wrong on that count. Computer crashed, forgot etc. happens. Still, I believe the argument has sufficient merit and traction to be contained either on a Hartl or a Tau page.

• Delete Not notable. An attempt to promote his idea about tau. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect. Notable in being an advocate for Tau.--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2011 (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.