Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Schulz


 * 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   merge to E equational theorem prover. This AFD is quite tarnished, however there is a consensus. Article was tagged for ARS on 13 December 2009, and no edits have come of it. Consensus is to merge, and that's how this is getting closed. Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 12:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Note Nominator has been banned as an abusive sockpuppet, and his nominating comment removed per WP:BAN. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

*Delete Non-notable. Simply a Vanity Page just like his friend's: William Connolley. At this rate, Wikipedia is going to end up being a directory of the Bio's of really boring non-entities - "who just happen to be Wikipedia Admins." ~ Rameses (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (indef. blocked)
 * Redirect to E equational theorem prover (he is sort of WP:1E) though I have no idea if that topic is notable. Springnuts (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's up to the community to decide this. My major claim to Wiki-fame is WP:PROF#1, verifiable via Google Scholar (as of now, the first page is all mine, the second has one article by another Stephan Schulz). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. William has achieved something in academia. So, if we get a lot of these so-called "boring Bio's", then that is perhaps a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is by definition not a vanity page, nor is Connolley's. Neither wrote their own page. Connolley's was written by User:Ed Poor, and Shultz's was begun by User:JosefUrban, and he has never edited the page. You may wish to correct your statement. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no outside articles seem to support the idea of notability here. Article does not meet Notability guidelines. ~ UBeR (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you find this AFD? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter? ATren (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The closing admin will be made aware that Uber was inappropriately canvassed to come here. I wanted to give Uber the opportunity to come clean. It's a shame you took that away from him. Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It would be nice if there were references from reference works — boring or not, IF this guy shows up in multiple reference books, then he's notable.--NBahn (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (without deletion)/weak keep as per User:Enric Naval. If more references can be found, then by all means resurrect the article.--NBahn (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with E equational theorem prover if no more sources are provided. (Please, do the actual merge, copy the content from one article to another before deleting it, make a new section called "author" or something) P.D.: or simply make a redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect (without delete) per Enric and Springnuts above. Enough notability and relevance, and short enough, for coverage in the E equational theorem prover article. Verbal chat  16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think Stephan Schultz has enough notability in the academic world to be allowed to have a wiki page devoted to him. Count Iblis (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. An academic too junior to have a permanent position, his research does not yet seem to have the impact needed to pass WP:PROF: there is one highly-cited paper, "E, a brainiac theorem prover", but the others have too many authors or too few citations to really convince me. Also, I think WP:BIO1E applies. And of course, his Wikipedia work is praiseworthy but not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, certainly not notable as an academic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's the sort of thing I'd like to be able to use WP to look up, if I was interested in this chap or his work. I think he seems to have worked on enough bluelinked stuff to be worth leaving in. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another case of someone who might be notable in the future, but is not notable now. I argue that the basic issue here is that this person's notability claim rests essentially on a single published idea: the "E theorem prover", so WP:BIO1E does seem to apply, as David Eppstein has pointed out. What is the evidence for this line of argument? First, outside of this single paper, the subject's overall publication record appears to be pretty marginal. This particular case is not entirely straightforward because of the commonality of the name, but this query from WoS ("Author=(Schulz S*) Refined by: Institutions=(TECH UNIV MUNICH) AND Subject Areas=(MEDICAL INFORMATICS OR COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OR COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS OR COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI") shows papers with a citation list of 55, 10, 8, 5, 0, 0... (The 55 citations is for the E theorem paper.) Second, if you check the "bluelinked stuff", you find a bit of a walled-garden (WP:WALL) here. Specifically, Stephan Schulz and E equational theorem prover do not have many substantive external links besides the ones to each other. Third, you don't really find much general info about the software besides the usual open-source-software type web distribution sites. For example, it returns 0 hits on G-news. So, although the e-prover software might be useful, it is probably not any more notable than the average open-source package. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. Google Scholar is more reasonable than WoS in computer science. The "E" paper has 173 citations, but there are also other papers with 60, 49, 42, 41, 38, 36, 36, 35, 33, 33, 32, ... citations. You can try something like "author:Stephan-Schulz (theorem OR satisfiability OR prover OR reasoning)" in Google Scholar – I think most of the hits are about this particular Schulz. That said, I agree that an average non-notable professor tends to have similar or better citation counts in this field. — Miym (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to echo what Miym says: WoS is a bad source for computer science. There's even a reliably sourced note in WP:PROF that says so. But in this case the Google scholar numbers don't really show a different pattern. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per David Eppstein and Agricola44. Nsk92 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect for arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Merge to E equational theorem prover. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: the nominator has been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet and User:Rameses engaged in canvassing, but this discussion seems to have gathered uninvolved participation. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per 2/0 and Enric. I think notability is ok for an article but there is not yet enough verifiable content for a separate article. If the rescue squad can find 250 words worth of content I would change this vote to keep (or demerge if later). --BozMo talk 14:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - my bar for notability is pretty low, and I think Stephan exceeds it by virtue of the work he's done on automated reasoning. ATren (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps your bar is low, but how would say he measures-up against any of the consensus criteria that might actually be relevant here, e.g. WP:PROF? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep He has won notable awards, such as the CADE ATP System Competition. If an individual excels in his profession, and/or wins awards considered notable in that profession, then they are considered notable by Wikipedia standards.   D r e a m Focus  19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you check the history of that article – surprise! – you find it was created (and only edited) by none other than Stephan Schulz – the WP:WALL in this garden is growing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC).
 * My dear Agricola44-- When you add parenthetically "and only edited", you are — wittingly or otherwise — falsely implying that there are a number (plural) of edits to the article and that is simply not the case. The topic may or may not be notable; (I neither know nor care.) if you feel that the said article warrants an AfD, then by all means please nominate it for one.  I find this shadowboxing to be quite tedious.  If you feel that User:Stephan Schulz created that article in order to help lend notability to himself, then please say so.--NBahn (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess. It is a fact that he was the only ed at the time and I think my wording did indeed clearly make the "notability lending" point that you just re-iterated. Likewise, I do not know if the other article is notable. It doesn't matter at the moment, since we're not debating that one here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
 * I didn't read your original message similar to NBahn. But just to clear this up: I have neither created not edited Stephan Schulz, and I didn't even know it existed for a substantial part of its life time. I did and do edit create articles in my field of specialty, which is logic and deduction, and in particular implementations and practical aspects of logic and deduction. CASC is notable among experts - it's one of the main attractions of the major conference on deduction, its covered in several journal articles, and its referenced over and over in the literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not so much an award as a prize for winning a competition. And the winner of the competition was not Schulz personally, but E equational theorem prover, his software. So even if one argues that it's a notable prize, I think WP:BIO1E and perhaps also WP:INHERITED still apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to E equational theorem prover. I think he's not yet notable enough to have his own article separate from his best-known work, but there's sufficient notability to add his bio to his work as its developer. Galatee (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This E equational theorem prover is itself not notable. It has not moved beyond its little group of proponents, as can be seen in its Google Scholar search. Notice that most of the articles are either by S Schulz, or are not peer-reviewed. I could not find any that were review articles. Since Schulz' entire claim of notability is based on this one invention, his article cannot be kept. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong search. The system proper is just called E - an inherently ungooglable term. The long phrase is only used for clarity. The main reference for E has more that 170 hits, and other papers describing things in E up that by a factor of two or so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide third party, peer-reviewed, review articles that are about E. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a much stronger standards than WP:N requires. But answers provided at Talk:E equational theorem prover, where they are more apropos. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles written by you are not independent, and primary sources are also not appropriate. A paper in which somebody uses E as part of their Materials and Methods, for example, would not be considered appropriately analytical. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: For exactly the same reasons we still have Elonka Dunin.  And prior to the shrill cries of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS parse the sentence correctly - its for the same reasons - go look them up.  Shot info (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Badgered and couldn't be bothered with the endless arguing...  Shot info (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus at the most recent AfD for Elonka seemed to be that her notability had nothing to do with her Wikipedia editing, but stemmed from the fact that she was well-covered by multiple stories in major media outlets and thereby passed WP:GNG. Are you claiming that the same is true for Schulz? If so, then where is this supposed major media coverage? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "seemed to"...I'm convinced! Shot info (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, then you tell me, specifically, what the argument for keeping is, rather than just making vague allusions to another case, assuming that people will read something into it that makes sense, and then making sarcastic remarks when they don't get it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article meets WP:BIO for the low level of WP:N that Wikipedia has. Naturally certain editors like certain articles and not others and will attempt to demolish all and sundry opinions contrary to their own. Article needs probably improvment but it meets WP:N - curiously the same arguements elsewhere in WP for BIOs.  Rather than support the bad faith nomination, how about you try and improve the article?  Shot info (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO requires that the article contain multiple reliably published sources, independent of the subject, that provide nontrivial coverage of the subject. So, since that is the basis of your keep argument, I ask you again, where is this supposed coverage? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it meets policy - you don't - that's all perfectly fine in the great and wonderous encyclopedia called WP. But heck, feel free to add a notch to your "arguements you just had to win belt" - Kilgore had something to say about victory :-) Shot info (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would be happier to lose this argument: my bias is, in general, to keep rather than to delete, and if sources showing him to be notable can be found and added to the article, that's an improvement to the encyclopedia. So I'm encouraging you to convince me, rather than repeating slogans as you have so far. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - notability not established by references on the page. Racepacket (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2009 (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.