Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Till Tantau


 * 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. Without prejudice againsrt recreation should suitable reliable sources be located at a future date --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Till Tantau

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Software developer with no claim of notability and no reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Oneiros (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Oneiros (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has created two packages that are among most used LaTeX packages. PGF is even among few LaTeX packages that have an entire website dedicated to collecting the work made using that package, see http://www.texample.net/ (it's down as I write this, but will likely get up soon). --Rivanvx (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to show that he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources" (Notability). Are there any articles on him or other published coverage? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest trying WP:AUTH instead. There are very few articles on authors of free software, even if that software is used by many people.--Oneiros (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple independent sources found by a Google Books search--Oneiros (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind showing which ones have information on Till Tantau (apart from showing that he exists)? Also, see the quote below about the need for sources even if the person is notable. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF, point 7: He is tenured professor, and his Beamer software has made substantial impact outside theoretical IT. The sources are thin but here is a reasonably reliable secondary source where all claims can be verified - the assembly of all German universities teaching IT (a very bold translation of "Fakultätentag Informatik") found it appropriate to put him on a list of top-IT people, along with Konrad Zuse, Ada Lovelace, and Edsger Dijkstra. --Pgallert (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Their lack of perspective is disconcerting. It only goes to show that the sources aren't credibly independent from the subject. I could recall an equally inappropriate comparison made at a conference that caused the audience to burst into laughter, but I don't want to clutter this AfD more than I have to. Pcap ping  11:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this remark of "lack of perspective".  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But the central passage is this one: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability." The three articles you mention all have several reliable, published sources. This article has not a single published source so far, just a web interview. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I created the article on PGF/TikZ, but "Beamer software has made substantial impact", c'mon, we're talking about a TeX slides package here, perhaps the most successful one, but that's hard to confirm, and even if it's so, we're talking of a software used by a small portion of academics. If PGF/Tikz reaches the level of notability of Postscript or even Metafont, then yea, could say that, but right now it's too early to say, and it's your personal judgment, you've not cited any sources that his software has made a significant impact. In fact, I had a fair bit of trouble finding secondary coverage for the software in what passes for wp:rs here. So, I don't think one can say that he automatically qualifies because of the software he authored. I know he wrote a multi-volume math book, but I don't think his research is well-known. Pcap ping  23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  23:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  due to WP:PROF, point 7 in addition to being a significant mention on more than one standa-alone articles (see ). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF argument shredded by Pcap below. Merge and redirect to PGF/TikZ, if not Beamer (LaTeX).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't think he passes WP:PROF. Being a tenured professor is not a criteria for inclusion. Never mind that the German academic system is different enough that "tenured" isn't really a good translation for Universitätsprofessor. He never held an assistant professor postion. Being tentured right after getting a Ph.D is a bit strange, don't you think? Even being a full professor is not a criteria for inclusion. He does not appear to have his habilitation, which probably means he cannot lead Ph.D. students yet. His h-index is about 8; his most cited paper has 16 citations. His TeX work may be known to some, but both his TeX packages have a hard time finding independent coverage. They're not included in the usual TeX books. Although I think they have significant technical merit (I created the TikZ article, as I indicated above), that's just my opinion for now. The next thing somebody is going to add to his bio here is his civil union, 'cause that's pretty much all that's in his CV. Expecting "teh gay" vandalism shortly after that. There just isn't enough material here for an encyclopedic entry. (Yes, I know he got a MFCS best student paper award, that he spent a year in Karp's group as visiting scholar or postdoc maybe, can't tell from the telegraphic resume.) Pcap ping  11:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The german university system has changed. He is a full professor (C4); you don't need a habilitation anymore.--Oneiros (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're right, (the habilitation article indicates it's true only in some lands), that's even more reason to ignore his title for the purpose of this AfD. Someone practically straight out of Ph.D. becoming de:Besoldungsordnung C 4 is a good reason to ignore such a title. Besides, being a full profesor in itself is not a criteria for inclusion anyway. See Articles_for_deletion/Tadao_Takaoka for instance. Pcap ping  23:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary—if he's got his Prof this fast, he must be extremly good.--Oneiros (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pcap. The subject is insufficiently notable on purely academic grounds to meet WP:PROF.  Notability of a LaTeX package does not automatically confer notability onto its developers, so I find arguments from WP:PROF#7 less than convincing.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: OK, here we have the aticle creator of PGF/TikZ, claiming the software is notable but the creator is not. It seems that also in the case of Beamer (LaTeX), the software is notable but the creator is not. And further, we have a misunderstanding of WP:PROF (The nutshell, item 2), three of the German university system (they do not have a position of assistant professor, all professors have a lifetime position, profs at a university, as opposed to a Fachhochschule automatically have the right to conduct examinations, including for PhD), and a blanket accusation that the Fakultätentag Informatik lacks perspective when using Tantau as a face to promote IT. Anything else? --Pgallert (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole discussion about notability is moot if there are no published reliable sources on the guy. No sources = no article, regardless of his possible fame or importance. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Till Tantau" being quite an unusual name you may safely assume all 1800-something Google-hits are his. Now there is a lot of crap among them, but some sources (yes, including the one from the Fakultätentag) are reliable, may they lack perspective or not. BTW, he's currently "Studiendekan", something like Vice Chancellor: Student Affairs check, maybe that adds to his case. --Pgallert (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of independent biographical sources. Sourcing is non-negotiable in biographies. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to complete lack of reliable sources that establish notability. The article may make mention that the subject fulfills one of the criteria of WP:PROF, but there is no reference to support this. As users above have mentioned, an article with one single notability claim must have a source for that claim. -- Pump  me  up  14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: What would qualify as a source that proves that beamer (or tikz/pgf) is notable package? Links to 20 beamer tutorials? Links to videos that prove that beamer is often used at conferences? In TeX community, afaik, there is no list of "top 10 packages", but there are indeed some that are more frequently used than others. --Rivanvx (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2010 (CET)
 * The question here is the article on Till, not those on PGF/TikZ and Beamer.--Oneiros (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns no nontrivial results. This article fails Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2010 (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.