Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Till Tantau (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Notability is not inherited from the LaTeX packages he created. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Till Tantau
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

To repeat what I said two years ago: the subject fails to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. There appear to be no useful biographical records of the subject in secondary sources; present sources only contain short mentions acknowledging the use of his software. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as Too Early. A GS h-index of 12 is not enough yet in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete -- I've read through the good arguments on both sides from the last two AfDs, but the number of citations seems too little for a professorial standard in computer science and other details can be merged into the Beamer article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since we're going back to 2-year-old arguments, I guess I'll repeat what I said, as well. Without waxing too much, we have numerous articles on significantly more obscure figures in the programming language community that have handily survived AfD, like Mark Jason Dominus or Audrey Tang. The previous AfD resulted in some good RSs that mentioned him and his work by name. It's easy to check the German media and find lots more commentary on his activities as a researcher and educator, for example the national daily Die Welt and the Lübecker Nachrichten both have articles on Tantau's educational program at Lubeck. I've added these. Agricola44 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree that an h-index of 12 is a no-go in this case. But a different argument has been put forth since then. Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the sources are just tangential references to a LaTeX package that he wrote. The package may be notable, but that doesn't make the creator notable when they are just mentioned as the author and nothing more. The sources of him being noted in the German media are just one-liners of him making a comment on a course. Nothing that contributes to the subject's own notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The articles are not "one-liners of him making a comment on a course". Rather, they are about educational programs of which he is the director that have won large funding grants, which is noteworthy in Germany. Coverage of such notable activities/results/developments render the person responsible for those things notable per se. (If you doubt this, then do a little thought experiment: WP:PROF c1, undoubtedly the most frequently-used notability criterion for academics, works on the principle that a person's work is noted/cited, not the person herself. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, i.e. article stubs, there is no standalone, published biographical material whatsoever of the person. Under your philosophy then, citations would still not be enough to demonstrate notability. But, in all cases where there is a sufficient "citation" collection of sources, the article is kept.) Further, Tantau's educational programs are covered in high-level secondary sources. For example, Die Welt is a national daily, akin to something like USA Today or WSJ in the USA. I can't help but to illustrate the difference in sources for Tantau versus some of the other obscure CS language bios mentioned above that have handily survived AfDs. Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC).
 * The distinction that needs to be made is whether the subject's work on the subject is notable, or if it's the subject's involvement in the work is notable. This subject is covered as being involved in some notable topics, but it is more passing mention rather than a focus on the subject. Until the notability shifts to the BLP itself, it's best to just mention Tantau where relevant under WP:DUE in articles on LaTeX, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not the nature of the mention here that matters. It is the fact that national-level secondary sources discuss educational programs implemented/led by Tantau in detail (explicitly acknowledging his role). These are gigantic "citations of his work", if you like. At the very least, these sources render him notable under GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC).
 * The sources would need to demonstrate what you claim. Right now, Tantau only gets tangential mention at best in the currently used sources, which is far for gigantic citations of his work. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. For this area, the most accurate representation of his research publication record is the one in DBLP,, although it doesn't have any measure of impact such as citation counts. I stand by my delete in the previous AfD: citation record not yet strong enough for WP:PROF and no evidence of WP:GNG-based notability for beamer. Re Xxanthippe's comment about this being a highly cited field: yes and no. The field is on the border between mathematics and computer science, and is much more highly cited than pure mathematics, but not quite as high as more systems-y computer science. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Agricola44 and passing WP:GNG. Also Qwertyus nominated the last AfD on this article & needs to learn to let go of grudges. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take Qwertyus's nomination here in good faith -- the last nomination was two years ago and no consensus after a previous delete, so I don't think one needs a grudge to want to bring this back up. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My comment, unfortunately, is not based solely on this one event. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 16:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Assuming the article is accurate, why wouldn't merging to Beamer (LaTeX) be preferable to outright deletion? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there would be anything to move really. It would just mention the subject as the author, and that's really about it. That's why I'm looking at a delete instead of merge at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2016 (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.