Talk:Paul Zimmermann (mathematician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed deletion[edit]

This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia: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)[reply]

"Met" is correct. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'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)[reply]
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[1] and WoS gives similar results. GoogleBooks results (even after filtering) are fairly substantial[2]. I see that Zimmermann's team won some kind of competition on exact real arithmetics[3]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]