398:. If this article is written by the professor himself, and not a relative or someone with the same name, then it is vanity, by definition. Knowledge (XXG) prohibits autobiographies/vanity. Maybe it shouldn't. What is actually wrong with vanity? If an article is about a notable subject and the information contained therein is verifiable, what does it matter if the person wrote it himself? If by some amazing chance, President Clinton had decided to write a Knowledge (XXG) article about himself (perhaps in conjunction with his book tour, or something), would we have deleted it as "vanity", assuming that it was NPOV, true, and verifiable? In fact, "vanity" is rarely provable; it is only a suspicion. We delete, as vanity, bragging articles by high school kids. But these are just as deletable for not being notable, not being verifiable, and being most probably false. Perhaps we should stop using unverifiable suspicions of "vanity" as reasons for deleting articles and stick with notability and verifiability. --
241:. "No autobiographies" is a good principle, but it's not a hard rule, and in this case, it seems the individual in question may be reasonably noteworthy. True, professors write articles. He's published roughly one per month since 1967, at least some of which are in scientific journals I recognize (and I'm not a physicist). Eight books seems like a pretty big contribution to his field. The article needs cleanup and expansion, but that isn't valid grounds for deletion.
294:: I am not all that convinced that userfying and rewriting may not be the best solution (as a way to eat the cake and still have it), but unless the rewrite is made by somebody expert in the field, it is not going to look much different from the present stub. Compared to the contributions in the same genre we get from some teenagers, this vanity article in its present brevity is downright modest. But as for notability, the
442:. Hear hear BM. I have often used the term vanity used for people who are notable in their fields but who the person using the term hadn't heard of. Sticking to comments of not notable and not verifiable for votes would be much better. While the article as it was gave indications that he had written it, it would be good news if a Professor of Physics at a notable university was writing articles for Knowledge (XXG).
152:
vanity pages and autobiographies are not wikipedia content. I have no problem if a future page gets written up, I'll deal with notability then. This page needs to be deleted because the snail's pace of
Knowledge (XXG), plus the general non-notability of this character means it is not likely to be cleaned up any time soon.--
368:
and having chapters in books and then books published under your own name would be going some way toward notability - but even then the books need to sell and, really, to be the stuff of some import. So, all in all, a weak delete. But if he is prominent in his field then I would change my mind to a definite keep. --
306:
can be assumed to pass this test with flying colours, even before making any independent assessment of the value of his or her publications, simply because the bar for getting a professorship is so much higher in
Germany than in the US. Had Kleinert been a baseball or football/soccer player, there is
88:
No. A very quick check seems to confirm that this is indeed an important university professor, the author of 8 books (most seem to be available on Amazon) and 350+ scientific articles. Heads a research team of 25 persons and has had a "festschrift" written to his honour by other scholars. Gets almost
571:
An interesting one. I would generally say that if the subject of an entry is the only one interested enough to write the article, then the subject isn't noteworthy enough to be included. Anyway, doesn't he have friends/students/admirers that he could have asked to write it? But, by now it weems to
367:
I don't know the field at all (Physics) and so the chap may well be notable. But I do know that writing articles - and having them published - is standard form for all
Professors over here (EU). In itself, therefore, that would not seem to make anyone particularly notable. Going beyond that stage
186:
Actually that statement position is incorrect. It's up to the person putting up the article for deletion to provide evidence why (non-notability, vanity etc.), not the keepers. Remember this is Votes for
Deletion - so technically anyone who abstains/no votes, is voting for its retention by default -
151:
How?? 5,000 google hits, 8 books and only 350 scientific articles is actually not that much. A lot of mediocre academics have acheived this and more. Someone is going to have to come up with a very clear reason why this guy is notable. This page at least needs to eb deleted on standard grounds that
498:
atom. Kleinert solved the latter. Much of his work is like this. A theoretical genius comes up with amazing mathematical frameworks that promise so much to come, but gets bogged down, and
Kleinert finds a way to push the method through. Very important work, but no revolutionary discoveries, no
231:. Writing hundreds of article is not necessarily a notability proof. We should look for quality, not for quantity. Where were these articles published? What impact did they have on the physics community? A professor writes articles all the time, most of them is soon forgotten.
321:. Writing eight books on physics as a professor of that subject in a major university suggests that this man is notable. I would also suggest that the average professor rule be recast as the average academic rule. to account for cultural differences as noted by Uppland.
535:
You are correct, I was out of line. I personally did not want to get involved, just supply the informative comment above, but having my words permuted into amateurish bad science left me feeling grumpy about having to get involved. That and fixing Cap's overstated
408:. It prevents the "Well President Clinton did it" response to any other would be autobiographers trying to add themselves to Knowledge (XXG). If someone is notable enough for inclusion, they really shouldn't have to add themselves. Hence why
159:
How is 5000+ Google hits and 8 books not notable? There have been people with fewer hits and publications that have biographies in
Knowledge (XXG). I'm not suggesting the article remain unchanged. As I said, it needs cleanup to make it NPOV.
252:
yields only two of these books in various editions. If these guy really is notable in the world of physics A) Soemone else would have written an article (or at least expanded on this one) B) At least one physics article might link to him
620:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.
179:- I have shown this to be correct. If you'd like to disagree with those then your vote might make sense. If those go through with a keep I really expect those who vote that way make an effort towards cleaning the article up.--
187:
its up to people who wish to delete the article to prove otherwise (non-notability, vanity etc.) by majority, not the keepers. Another thing is you've made a comparison between this academic and the artist
108:
in Berlin (if I remember correctly from when I looked into this). However, he is clearly notable enough for a
Knowledge (XXG) article, and in spite of the obviously autobiographical origin, I vote to
167:
The onus is not on me to prove non-notability, it is for keepers to prove notability. Thats how things usually work. This article has not be nominated due to non-notability. It has been nominated as
264:
We wouldn't? Name three musicians who had 8 CDs released by an independent label (let alone a major corporate one) who we wouldn't include, and I'll change my vote to delete. Kleinert's books are
257:
is for
Biographies not Autobiographies. This guy seems a pretty average professor - not wikipedia content. We wouldn't let a musician in just because they had 8 CDs of realtively unknown status.--
89:
5,000 google hits. Granted, his web design skills might be somewhat limited, but that alone shouldn't stop someone from getting into
Knowledge (XXG), should it? Obvious notability,
378:. I am a physicist at Harvard, and the amount of his publications etc. justifies a Wikipage. I believe that if the page is deleted, someone else will start it again, anyway. --
127:
is a principle worth defending even if we temporarily lose an article. (However, I would have no objection if this is moved to his user page nor will I object if someone
254:
249:
65:
06:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) If Dr. Kleinert was of real encyclopediac value (more than just being a real person) he would have more than "Clean ups" and "dead ends"
343:
I have toned the book list down to something more reasonable: 3 books, not artifically inflated by listing multiple editions or multiple volumes.--
112:
this. It would be good, though, if some physicist could take a look at the article and write a fuller description of
Kleinert's research. /
17:
38:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
388:. I have read a few Google hits, and this guy is notable in the usual sense, even if the current page is not that interesting.
191:. Chonk in no way has scored +5000 Google hits or written 8 books. So professor Kleinert is not in the same category as Chonk.
556:
I have removed the attention template--the article has reached a decent minimum. I am contributing regularly, and except for
332:
has had four editions with the latest two editions including financial markets. Has cowritten a paper with notable physicist
455:. In order not to set a precedent (and to get that matter out of the air) we could still userfy this article, and then have
300:"If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included"
205:
Just for the record, it's 3 books, by any realistic account. Multiple editions/volumes should not inflate the count.--
295:
228:
124:
586:, appears to be a professor of note. Unless, of course, we are running out of disk space. In that case, delete. —
473:
has a page!) The only issue is whether it's autobiographical or self-promoting. To that effect, a small warning
23:
499:
grabbing of attention. Kleinert was collaborating with Feynman during Feynman's last illness. If you look in
198:
CapitalistRoadster has done an excellent job in tidying up this article. My vote remains unchanged ie. keep.
609:
550:
515:
456:
452:
443:
337:
322:
248:
Writing books is what academics do. As mentioned previously, notability is in quality not quantity. A quick
49:
470:
572:
have been "de-vanitised" sufficiently, and it seems Herr Kleinert is probably notable enough, so why not
100:
As I pointed out on the talk page a while ago, it is almost certainly autobiographical; it is created by
549:
No hard feelings. I would welcome it if you obtained a username and started contributing more regularly.
389:
593:
561:
537:
522:
504:
344:
206:
560:, having fun. I don't want to get sucked into things too deeply, though, so I avoid having a name.--
503:, Feb. 1989, at the page of photographs of Feynman's last blackboards, you'll see Kleinert's name.--
494:
approach to quantum mechanics. But he was unable to actually solve it for simple systems, like the
101:
302:), obviously referring to the American conditions for reaching professorhood. I would claim that
45:
135:
76:. It therefore needs to be deleted. A lot of people seem to be quick to jump on articles link
232:
34:
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below.
487:
333:
613:
199:
192:
161:
145:
55:
557:
491:
413:
369:
358:
328:
Have expanded it somewhat to include details of written works. His most notable work
283:
258:
180:
153:
81:
62:
80:
for exactly the same reason, this guy gets off because he's an academic, smeg off.--
605:
577:
529:
460:
429:
379:
357:
He was my professor at university; believe me, he's notable enough (reasons above)
308:
269:
242:
132:
120:
113:
459:
cut-and-paste his own version to the article space. Anyone for this solution? /
477:
144:, needs definite cleanup and expansion. The professor passes notability test.
94:
432:
is taking responsibility for this article, which is good enough for me. --
495:
587:
433:
399:
307:
no doubt that he would have been considered notable for much less. /
330:
Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics and Polymer Physics
188:
77:
486:. Professor Kleinert's work is certainly notable within physics.
490:, for example, was absolutely brilliant in developing the
612:'s leads about globalizing the "average professor test."
514:
Thank you for that info. I have added it to the article.
66:
68:. This page is quite obvious self made and hence both
255:
Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for inclusion of biographies
24:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Hagen Kleinert
412:is a label, not a definition, in this context.--
451:The article has now been largely rewritten by
424:. Re-reading the comments, I'm going to vote
282:. More than sufficiently notable individual.--
123:'s conclusion that this is autobiographical.
104:, and later edited by an IP traceable to the
8:
521:Yes, and it came out all wrong sounding.--
298:speaks of an "average college professor" (
131:later writes an article about him.)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
125:Knowledge (XXG):No autobiographies
31:
528:Don't blame others for trying. /
1:
428:. Perhaps it is vanity, but
40:The result of the debate was
623:Please do not edit this page
36:This page is no longer live.
475:Kleinert, please stay away.
640:
51:13:24, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
598:) 09:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
245:06:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
616:00:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
553:08:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
532:20:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
525:20:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
518:14:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
436:01:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
402:01:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
340:05:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
325:08:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
272:20:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
261:07:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
202:00:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
195:01:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
183:06:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
164:06:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
156:02:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
148:01:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
84:00:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
580:07:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
564:16:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
540:23:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
507:14:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
480:04:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
463:10:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
446:05:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
416:09:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
392:20:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
382:19:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
372:12:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
361:10:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
347:20:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
311:06:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
286:06:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
235:05:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
209:20:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
138:00:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
116:20:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
97:17:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
471:Florentin Smarandache
304:any German professor
119:Delete. Agree with
604:, and follow up on
229:No auto-biographies
610:Capitalistroadster
551:Capitalistroadster
516:Capitalistroadster
457:Capitalistroadster
453:Capitalistroadster
444:Capitalistroadster
338:Capitalistroadster
323:Capitalistroadster
268:vanity-published.
106:Freie Universität
22:(Redirected from
631:
390:Charles Matthews
27:
639:
638:
634:
633:
632:
630:
629:
628:
627:
488:Richard Feynman
334:Richard Feynman
59:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
637:
635:
618:
617:
599:
581:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
509:
508:
481:
464:
449:
448:
447:
419:
418:
417:
393:
383:
373:
362:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
312:
296:professor test
288:
287:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
236:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
173:self promotion
139:
117:
98:
74:Self Promotion
58:
56:Hagen Kleinert
53:
39:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
636:
626:
624:
615:
611:
607:
603:
600:
597:
596:
591:
590:
585:
582:
579:
575:
570:
563:
559:
558:Wanda Tinasky
555:
554:
552:
548:
539:
534:
533:
531:
527:
526:
524:
520:
519:
517:
513:
512:
511:
510:
506:
502:
501:Physics Today
497:
493:
492:path integral
489:
485:
482:
479:
476:
472:
468:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
445:
441:
438:
437:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:
415:
411:
407:
404:
403:
401:
397:
394:
391:
387:
384:
381:
377:
374:
371:
366:
363:
360:
356:
353:
346:
342:
341:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
324:
320:
316:
313:
310:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
289:
285:
281:
278:
271:
267:
263:
262:
260:
256:
251:
250:Amazon search
247:
246:
244:
240:
237:
234:
230:
226:
223:
208:
204:
203:
201:
197:
196:
194:
190:
185:
184:
182:
178:
177:autobiography
174:
170:
166:
165:
163:
158:
157:
155:
150:
149:
147:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
115:
111:
107:
103:
102:User:Kleinert
99:
96:
92:
87:
86:
85:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
64:
57:
54:
52:
50:
47:
43:
37:
25:
19:
622:
619:
601:
594:
588:
583:
573:
562:192.35.35.35
538:192.35.35.36
523:192.35.35.34
505:192.35.35.35
500:
483:
474:
466:
439:
425:
421:
409:
405:
395:
385:
375:
364:
354:
345:192.35.35.34
329:
318:
314:
303:
299:
291:
279:
265:
238:
224:
207:192.35.35.34
176:
172:
168:
141:
128:
109:
105:
90:
73:
69:
60:
41:
35:
33:
536:booklist.--
365:Weak Delete
233:JoaoRicardo
91:strong keep
614:Samaritan
469:. (geesh
200:Megan1967
193:Megan1967
162:Megan1967
146:Megan1967
61:Vanity?--
496:hydrogen
414:ZayZayEM
370:Marcus22
359:Lectonar
284:Centauri
259:ZayZayEM
181:ZayZayEM
154:ZayZayEM
82:ZayZayEM
63:ZayZayEM
606:up land
589:RaD Man
578:HowardB
530:up land
484:Comment
461:up land
440:Comment
430:Lumidek
396:Comment
380:Lumidek
309:up land
292:Comment
270:Shimeru
243:Shimeru
133:Rossami
121:up land
114:up land
410:vanity
319:Expand
225:Delete
169:vanity
136:(talk)
70:Vanity
478:CSTAR
406:Reply
189:Chonk
95:Alarm
78:Chonk
16:<
608:and
602:Keep
595:talk
584:Keep
574:keep
467:Keep
426:Keep
422:Keep
386:Keep
376:Keep
355:Keep
317:and
315:Keep
280:Keep
239:Keep
175:and
142:Keep
129:else
110:keep
93:. /
72:and
42:KEEP
576:it
266:not
46:Mgm
625:.
434:BM
400:BM
336:.
227:.
171:,
44:.
592:(
48:|
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.