Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Schügerl

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. JForget 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Schügerl

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

No sources identified to verify points apparently establishing notability made in the article; WP:GNG therefore applies. Scoop100 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research not verified by reliable sources. Possible candidate for speedy deletion as a non-notable person. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See this reference and this one. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, your second reference is a copy of the the Wikipedia article and it is expressly attributed to Wikipedia at the bottom of the page. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also this Google Scholar search. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The CV from the University page looks like a citable source.--Stone (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did find an extra source:[1], a biographical article about him in the journal Bioatomation. Nsk92 (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to this biographical article about him[2], he is a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and of the New York Academy of Sciences. I think that is enough to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This[3] also indicates that in 1992 vol. 46 of the book series Advances in biochemical engineering, biotechnology was dedicated to his 65-th birthday. The volume contains a detailed biographical article about him full text of which is available here[4]. I have added this info to the article. Also, the Bioautomation article mentions that he has been an editorial board member of a large number of journals: Chemie-Ingenieur Technik; Chemical Engineering and Technology; Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology; Journal of Biotechnology; Analytical Chemical Acta; BioEngineering; Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology; Biotechnology Monographs, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was also awarded the DECHEMA Medal in 1997. I added a mention of this, with a ref[5], to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS cites 89, 39, 28, 21, ... h index = 10. Borderline case for WP:Prof #1 on this basis but he did much of his work before the web existed and may not be well represented there. WoS data would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that GS does not always list the articles in the decreasing order of the citation hits. In this case, the GS search[6] on page 2 lists publications with citation hits 92 and 47, for example. And, as you said, for somebody who did most of his work in the 70s and the 80s, GS is not very good at fishing out citations (plus the rate of publication was slower then). Citability is not the only way of satisfying WP:PROF and in this case there are other factors, such as the academy memberships, that are better indicators of academic notability. Nsk92 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aufgrund der Akademie der Wissenschaften mitgliedschaften. Andrea105 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad translation: memberships because of the Academy of Sciences Ikip (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... that's Google's machine translation producing garbled English :) In lieu of getting a native speaker of German to review this, let's try breaking down the sentence, and feeding it into the machine translator in manageable, bite-sized pieces:

aufgrund der => due to the

Akademie der Wissenschaften => Academy of Sciences

mitgliedschaften => memberships

Yes, human fluency in foreign languages is still important :) Andrea105 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's messing up Google's translator? Because "mitgliedschaften" is a noun, the translator expects it to be capitalized (the German language being one of the few that adheres to this convention). Yes, their translation system seems to choke on anything that isn't textbook German -- it's not like English-speaking internet users would ever omit capitalization :) So, if we submit "aufgrund der Akademie der Wissenschaften Mitgliedschaften" to the translator, the result is "because of the Academy of Sciences membership" [7]. No, this still isn't quite correct, because "Mitgliedschaften" is supposed to be plural, right? As a review of German_nouns#Declension_classes should make clear, however, there may actually be no way to tell the difference; correct translation requires inference from context. Andrea105 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would translate the sentence in Keep because he is Member of several academies of science.--Stone (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets minimum notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a CV and a wiki mirror are by definition unreliable, almost anyone can join the New York Academy of Science - I am a former member - and I see nothing else to prove he passes WP:PROF. I can change my mind if convinced by multiple reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, has an honorary doctorate from Budapest University, and received the 1997 DECHEMA Medal; this info, with references to independent sources (not his CV) has already been added to the article. Plus here are two published biographical articles about him: [8] (scroll down to page vii there) and [9], the first one particularly extensive and detailed. Nsk92 (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be right about the New York Academy of Sciences (it is not clear if NYAS has elected fellows/members in addition to regular membership, and if yes, to which category Schügerl belongs). However, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences is a different matter and he is definitely an elected external member there. Here is a bio page about him at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences website[10] confirming that he is an external member since 1995. Here is another page[11] at the academy's website explaining the structure of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. This page makes it clear that all external (i.e. foreign) members of the academy are elected:"... can be elected to become external members if they pursue their field of science on a particularly high and creative level recognised by their field of science, and if they keep in close touch with Hungarian scientific life". Nsk92 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The dedication of the volume of Advances in Biochemical Engineering to him is a clear proof of notability. It's exactly the sort of recognition from outside sources that is often asked for. And so is the DECHEMA award. This is one article for which there is no need to analyse the publications, because it has been done for us by RSs in the subject. (FWIW, it has indeed been recognized in multiple afds that NYAS membership is indeed not a significant distinction for notability). Fortunately, he has enough other. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on above basis. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2009 (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.