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. Mz7 (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Pirie (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication of satisfying WP:NACADEMIC. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am now content that notability is satisfied, at the very least technically. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. For someone who mainly lived in the 19th century, I think we have to go by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Adsmittedly, there is not a whole lot here, but there examples of substantive coverage. There is a published obit in Proceedings of LMS[1], a semi-obit in Nature[2], and another one here[3]. There are also two publsihed reviews (in Nature) of his books. Plus there are a few other brief mentions, and an honorary degree from the University of St. Andrews. Overall, I think that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:PROF is often beside the point for historical figures; its purpose is to help evaluate biographies of currently (or recently) active scholars whose achievements may be noteworthy even when biographical profiles are lacking. Here, as argued above, WP:GNG or WP:BIO are more appropriate, and the available sources are satisfactory on those grounds. (I believe the LMS obituary is here.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources provided by Nsk92 --DannyS712 (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's still the case that one can look at the article and think "what did he do to merit an article?". But I think the standard is met. Certainly we should be judging this sort of person by WP:GNG or maybe WP:AUTHOR, not WP:PROF. WP:PROF is really designed around the expectations for modern American research-level academics and even among those it doesn't work particularly well for mathematicians. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The obituaries are from major reliable sources, so WP:GNG is appropriately satisfied here. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NACADEMIC #5 in any case. In those days there was only a single professor per department, so he was the Professor of Mathematics at the University of Aberdeen, not just a professor. So "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon" applies, as it still does with all established (as opposed to personal) chairs at major British universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would support the well-made arguments above and think there is clear evidence that Pirie was a notable individual. Dunarc (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2019 (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.