Talk:Paul Zimmermann (mathematician)

Proposed deletion
This article fails Notability (academics) and Verifiability, because there is no secondary source and I can't see any conditions met (meeted ... hm what's the word) fulfilled. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Met" is correct. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Might be notable' ? What about {blp} ? Nevertheless, I tag this for {notablility} and {originalresearch} and now my case is closed. Thank you and happy editing. Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see BLP concerns here since no material in the article is contentious or controversial. I am not sure if the subject is sufficiently notable to satisfy WP:PROF but it is possible that he does. GoogleScholar does show several papers of his that are reasonably highly cited and WoS gives similar results. GoogleBooks results (even after filtering) are fairly substantial. I see that Zimmermann's team won some kind of competition on exact real arithmetics. I am not sure if the article would survive an AfD if nominated, but the case is not clear-cut and that is why I removed the prod. You are welcome to nominate for an AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He has a few well cited publications, according to math reviews, and is responsible for several of the important algorithms in GMP. I think this tends to qualify him under significant impact, WP:PROF#1.  To strictly qualify, one has to have a reliable source to back this up.  I suspect the SAGE project has probably published something to this effect.  Certainly not an article at top priority, but notable enough for inclusion. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Zimmermann's best work is behind him and does not warrant this site. There are other less capricious people out there with far more impressive results that do not have wiki pages.  I agree with the initial proposal that this site should be deleted.TonyMath (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)