> 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.
Steve