Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Berger (mathematician)

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Berger (mathematician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically a pure WP:BIO1E case. A mathematician who published exactly 1 paper (his PhD thesis) and then appears to have left mathematics. All the relevant info about the result of Berger is already contained in the aperiodic tiling article. There is no more bio info to add to this unsourced WP:BLP and there is not enough verifiable data here for a stand-along biographical article, and not enough to pass WP:PROF. I originally redirected the page to aperiodic tiling but the redirect was reversed by User:Lunch. Therefore I am bringing it to the AfD now for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to domino problem or aperiodic tiling, which have overlapping content. I could, and otherwise would argue notability under WP:PROF#1, the thesis/book is cited by 600 academic sources as per GScholar and the "aperiodic tiling" has a significant range of coverage in lay mathematical sources as well, e.g., [1] If we didn't have the other articles, I'd be arguing keep. However, two things make me think the best way to deal with this is different. First the "1E" argument. Second, just thinking about what happens for the reader--a reader who gets redirected to domino problem gets what we know about Berger *and* more about his mathematical work. Without the redirect, the reader doesn't get the latter. For these articles, I believe the reader is happier in the former case. Barring additional non-trivial and sourced biographical information about Berger, I lean towards redirect rather than keep. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as argued above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. For starters, that "one paper" was a significant result: the demonstration that there are indeed aperiodic tilings -- such tilings were previously unknown (and unanticipated) in the history of mathematics. WP:BIO1E reads in part, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Further, this is "one paper" is a highly cited article; since someone took the time to look at MathSciNet, surely they know this. Last, Wikipedia is not paper. This isn't blog-like or self-promotional; it isn't an entry in a directory; it is a stub that merits further expansion. Lunch (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per well-argued nom. --Crusio (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's two significant things he did: 1) proved the domino problem was undecidable, and 2) was the first to create an aperiodic tiling. Both are fairly significant. The fact that the aperiodic tiling has been greatly improved upon does not detract from the fact that he was The First. If we do decide to redirect, then (at least) one of these two results will be less well served. --Matt Westwood 23:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be a reason for having an article about Berger's tiling - but not a biographical article about him. There is simply too little information available about him personally, and that is not likely to change. Nothing verifiable about where he is from, when he was born, where he got his undergraduate degree, what happened to him after he finished his PhD and left math, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be a shame to lose this page, but the information has been kept alive in ProofWiki:Mathematicians/Robert Berger. Yes I know that's not Wikipedia, it's not supposed to be. --Matt Westwood 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, ~~merge, or redirect~~—i cleaned up the article and added a little material in preparation for arguing a keep, but after reading the article, the article on the domino problem, and the arguments above, i've become solidly undecided (apropos under the circumstances), except that i am strongly opposed to deletion. i think it's correct that berger passes prof#1 merely for this result, which makes me want to keep. on the other hand, Joe Decker's argument for a redirect is quite convincing (to me, if not strongly to Joe Becker). on the other other hand, the reader who does not get redirected could choose to click on the link to the domino problem article, so i don't actually think much harm will be done by favoring keep over redirect. also, i don't want my own brilliant sentence to be lost, thus the value of a merge (i'm (mostly) kidding).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.—the level of biographical detail in this article doesn't seem out of line with a lot of people who are notable under wp:prof#1, as can be seen from some of the other mathematician bios linked to in the very article, e.g. like Julius Richard Büchi. just a thought.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, for academics qualifying under WP:PROF#C1 there is more information available about their academic careers and there is usually a greater publication track record than a sigle publication, even a well cited one. Nsk92 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps, but i will go to the wall to argue that this guy meets prof#1 on the basis of this result, regardless of whether he'd never published another thing. the number of publications has got to be irrelevant, given the impact that even a page of mathematics can have on the world, if it's the right page. is irrelevant, though, as a redirect or merge would be fine with me in this case, but because of the lack of biographical data, not in any way because of the one publication. otherwise you'll find yourself arguing that Galois's got to go.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found an author biography on a 1989 publication that shares enough detail to connect the Berger of this article (the inventor of the first aperiodic tiling) with a Robert Berger who has been working on integrated circuits at the Lincoln Laboratory for many years, and added some detail from it and from some related searches to the article. Despite a couple of minor awards I don't think the new material adds any real notability (that still rests on the tiling discoveries) but it at least counters the argument that we can't say anything about him beyond the tilings. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—David Eppstein's new information tips me to the keep side, since that material doesn't belong in any of the suggested redirect targets. i still don't think that notability should be an issue due to the importance of the one result.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a good call to bring this to AfD, and it is great that improvements have been made to the article as a result. It is no longer in question to me that we can have an article on Berger: his results on the Domino problem and aperiodic tilings make him sufficiently notable. The question is whether we should. In this respect, the additional biographical material makes the article much more informative and interesting than a redirect or merge could be. In particular, it is useful encyclopedic information to know that after his seminal work in mathematics, he went on to do other things. Geometry guy 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.