Steve Bennett wrote:
> Actually I
think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual
> is encyclopaedically notable. If there are no sources for basic
> biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other
> words
> if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile,
> then I don't believe we can have an article.
>
I would see no problem with an article about a scientist which was
entirely about his professional contributions, and didn't so much as
mention a date of birth, middle name or anything vaguely personal. The
article should be primarily about their work, and that "biographical"
information is purely incidental.
I suspect that for very early scientists (eg, 1700s or earlier) we may
be in this situation anyway.
As it happens, contributors to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography
have done primary sources legwork for many of the earlies, digging
through parish and city records and the like. Result is kind of a
patchwork though, so for instance we know that a scientist was born in
one city, married on a specific date in another, and was later on a
university payroll in a third city, but we have no information on when
or why he moved.
Stan