- 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. czar 19:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ernst Julius Amberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NPROF. He may have briefly been an assistant professor when Einstein was studying to become a maths teacher but this does not make him notable. As stated in his bio "It seems that he did not publish much apart from his thesis" Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @ Domdeparis:, @ Johnpacklambert:: When I wrote the article I was aware that notability criteria were very low. But the element already existed in WD... I will no object the deletion or the keeping.-- Ferran Mir ( talk) 17:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete. The notability guidelines for academics are more aimed at the present day than at mathematicians of the late 18th and early 19th century. And we do have one in-depth source on the subject [1]. If we had a second source, independent of that one and more in-depth than [2], I think he'd pass WP:GNG. He doesn't appear to be significant except as a teacher of Einstein, but significance is different than notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There were a couple of what look like wire-service stories about a letter of Einstein's that mentioned Amberg, when the letter was auctioned in 2017 [3] [4] (which gave enough detail to find the auction house's record). Still doesn't seem to be adding up to in-depth coverage of Amberg himself, though. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete per the above. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:52, 29 July 2019 (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.
- 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. czar 19:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ernst Julius Amberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NPROF. He may have briefly been an assistant professor when Einstein was studying to become a maths teacher but this does not make him notable. As stated in his bio "It seems that he did not publish much apart from his thesis" Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @ Domdeparis:, @ Johnpacklambert:: When I wrote the article I was aware that notability criteria were very low. But the element already existed in WD... I will no object the deletion or the keeping.-- Ferran Mir ( talk) 17:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete. The notability guidelines for academics are more aimed at the present day than at mathematicians of the late 18th and early 19th century. And we do have one in-depth source on the subject [1]. If we had a second source, independent of that one and more in-depth than [2], I think he'd pass WP:GNG. He doesn't appear to be significant except as a teacher of Einstein, but significance is different than notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There were a couple of what look like wire-service stories about a letter of Einstein's that mentioned Amberg, when the letter was auctioned in 2017 [3] [4] (which gave enough detail to find the auction house's record). Still doesn't seem to be adding up to in-depth coverage of Amberg himself, though. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete per the above. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:52, 29 July 2019 (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.