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. There is a clear consensus among established editors here that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. After reading this entire discussion almost none of the contributions arguing against deletion provide arguments based on wikipedia's notability guidelines. Unless and until those guidelines are changed by consensus they are what a closing admin has to consider when judging the consensus of a discussion. As such the consensus, based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is for deletion. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Andersen[edit]

Andrew Andersen (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)

Non-notable person. Jaqeli 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexanderkurov, the criteria is here: WP:N and here: WP:ACADEMIC. Please also read arguments to avoid. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid attacking other editors and assume good faith. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid attacking other editors and assume good faith. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pirveli, none of what you mention is a proper rationale for inclusion. Please read WP:N and WP:ACADEMIC for notability requirements.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability on Wikipedia is defined by being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, and not by unverified assertions that the guy's research is important in its field. If his work is really as important and influential as you claim, then it shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources which verify that fact — but he doesn't get to keep an article just because you say he's important, if reliable source coverage isn't there to support it. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why exactly is Revue historique des armées is not a good reliable source? It is "a quarterly academic journal and is the historical review of the French Defence ministry, as well as the communications vector of the Service historique de la Défense (SHD). Founded in 1945, it won prizes from the Académie française in 1954"... Can you explain why Wiki should contain an article on Drena De Niro, and not on Dr. Andersen? Why exactly a few roles in mostly 3rd rate movies are more important than the excellent review of the sovietization of Georgia? Because you said so? HAve you heard the story of Évariste Galois?Ikhulor (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Revue historique des armées seems to be a journal that published something Mr. Anderson wrote. What is required for notability on Wikipedia is that a reliable source publish something about Mr. Anderson. No one has yet shown that anyone has published anything about him rather than simply by him. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Article! I do believe that an article in the reputable journal is reviewed by the editors and peers, and that constitutes the implied endorsement of the author as a notable figure. If it's not enough, then there is citation index - if other researchers cite your work - it's notable. The criteria that "somebody" has to wright "something" about the researcher to make him/her notable - are utter nonsense. How many times did even NY Times and Oprah endorse something that was completely bogus? The existing rule only appears reasonable, but in some cases (like this one) make notability criteria extremely subjective and can be used for manipulation and suppression of information. How many times have we observed recently the attempts to distort the information by the "independent" media? The existing notability rules pave the way for inconsequential "entertainers" to fill Wiki with there pathetic bios and "accomplishments", because they somehow weaseled their way into "independent" media. While Dr. Anderson is being subjected to censure due to "rules". The enforcement of these rules is bordering on complete idiocy or hidden agenda. Dr. Andersen should not be suppressed because some glamour magazine did not do a piece on him, or because "academics" endorsed by Wiki administration don't care about the subject of his research.Ikhulor (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Once again Revue historique des armées is a reliable source, fully fitting Wiki definition. Sometimes a few pages in the reputable journal are more important that the tons of garbage produced by propaganda machines (like it was in USSR, like it is in Russia now)Ikhulor (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  1. The books listed as published by "Asteroid Publishing" can be found in Amazon or in libraries simply because they are sold through Amazon and are in a major libraries.
  2. The book "Abkhazia and Sochi: the Roots of the Conflict 1918-1921" was published by Asteroid as well.
  3. The articles of the person inquestion have been published in various journals including the major ones. E.g., la Revue historique des armées

In fact, it seems to me that this discussion itself is an indirect proof of the person's "notability" :) providing that there are thousands of way less "notable" persons included in Wikipedia and nobody bothers to delete them.
I am also surprised that editor Bearcat found the entry "unsourced". One should simply check the links to find out that it is "quite sourced" comment added by Baltvilks (talk • Baltvilks (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And are the links to his books sold on Amazon not reliable sources? Sorry, I do not get it. Baltvilks (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source is when a media outlet with which he is not affiliated gives him coverage. It cannot be met by his staff profile on the website of his own employer (if it could, we'd have to keep an article about almost every single person on the planet who has any job at all), or by a commercial/PR blurb on a product sales website (a writer does not, for example, get into Wikipedia just because their books are available on Amazon, nor does a band get into Wikipedia just because they have an album on iTunes, if independent sources haven't given them coverage.) Our notability and sourcing rules can be met only by newspaper or magazine articles about him, books (or book chapters) which are at least partially about him, and on and so forth: independent media applying independent editorial judgement in its decision to give him coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does not make any sense whatsoever! Publishing a few books and articles in reputable journals, having the research cited by others means less than an "independent" review in the "independent" media? What purpose does this approach serve? In my opinion, it helps to advance somebody's agenda masked by "independent" nature of the media.Ikhulor (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Wikipedia's inclusion rules are governed by the principle that we need to prevent this site from devolving into nothing more than a public relations database. If we didn't base our notability rules on reliable source coverage, then every person who exists at all would be able to demand that we keep a promotionally-toned repost of their own résumés, and then we'd just be LinkedIn and not an encyclopedia anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the existing notability rules are that they (rules) appoint a journalist/editor, whose motives for reviewing/not reviewing something are not transparent and may be heavily influenced by outsiders, as an ultimate arbiter of notability. If you had a threshold for researchers based on citation index, I would not have any problems. But "media judgement". Gimme a break.Ikhulor (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Well, I'm sorry, but that's just tough beans then. The rules are what they are, and they're not changing just because you don't like them. I sure hope you didn't think that "but my pet topic is special, and should be given a special exemption from the standard rules that apply to everybody else" was some kind of new and compelling argument that we've never seen around here before — because trust me, it's not. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of the rules or laws does not make them right. Otherwise, slavery still would be legal in some parts, and gay couples would be lawfully discriminated. If nobody has pointed before that the existing rules are nonsense, that does not make the existing rules right either. I'd like to do what's right, but it seems to me you just want to defend the existing rules. Tough beans, indeed Ikhulor (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's rules are not discriminating against anybody, so slavery and LGBT rights have no validity as a metaphor for what's going on here. It's reliable source coverage or bust, for everybody, period. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Wiki rules in the form they are now are discriminatory against independent researchers, whose topic of research are ignored or supressed by "independent" media and academia as they defined in Wiki rules. The existing notability rules pave the way for inconsequential "entertainers" to fill Wiki with there pathetic bios and "accomplishments", because they somehow weaseled their way into "independent" media. While Dr. Anderson is being subjected to censure due to "rules". The enforcement of these rules is bordering on complete idiocy or hidden agenda. Dr. Andersen should not be suppressed because some glamour magazine did not do a piece on him, or because "academics" endorsed by Wiki administration don't care about the subject of his research. Don't you see that under YOUR rules Dr. Andersen is treated differently? IT IS PURE DISCRIMINATION.Ikhulor (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only do our rules explicitly deprecate sources of the type you're claiming we allow, they actaully explicitly permit and in fact give strong preference to many, many sources — academic and political science and literary and diplomatic journals, serious magazines and newspapers like The Economist or Le Monde, and on and so forth — of the type that would be reasonably expected to cover a notable writer of political science and diplomacy books. Just one good article in a source of that class, in fact, would count for as much toward getting him over GNG as five articles in some "lesser" publications. So if Andrew Andersen doesn't have the coverage needed to reference the article properly, then whatever that fact reveals it most certainly isn't that there's anything wrong with our inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, then explain me why Drena De Niro should be a part of WIKI? Based on what qualifications? If there are fair criteria for inclusion of Ms. De Niro and exclusion of Dr. Andersen, I will gladly support the deletion of the contested article.Ikhulor (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not a competition. The fact that somebody else has an article has no bearing on whether Andrew Andersen qualifies for one or not — especially when you're trying to set up an apples and oranges comparison between a political scientist and an actress, because the reasons why either of them might or might not qualify for a Wikipedia article have nothing to do with each other. It doesn't matter, for our purposes, whether anybody likes or dislikes the reasons why a person might qualify for a Wikipedia article. Either reliable source coverage exists or it doesn't — if it does, they can get in here for playing tiddlywinks, and if it doesn't, they could actually be the Jewish messiah for all the difference that claim would make in the absence of reliable source verification. But the fact that some other completely unrelated article about some other completely unrelated person in some other completely unrelated field of human endeavour has an article, whether she should or not, is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether Andrew Andersen has the necessary level of reliable source coverage or not. Kindly also read our WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rule if you need additional clarification. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just confirmed my point: WIKI created a tilted field, favoring the certain groups of people. In my opinion, it amounts to discrimination. If you follow the letter of your law - it appears that deleting Dr. Anderson article is legit, but it will be based on the discriminatory rule nevertheless. Actually, I quite enjoyed our little discussion: where else one can get a free in depth lesson on how to create and enforce double standards and discriminatory rules? IKHULOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.135.156 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Favouring" people who have been covered in reliable sources which properly verify the accuracy of the information in our article, over people who have not been covered in reliable sources and are trying to use Wikipedia as a venue for commercial promotion of their work, does not constitute "discrimination". It constitutes being an encyclopedia. It's not our role to make subjective judgements about who should be more important or famous than who else; our job and mandate is to reflect and summarize media coverage that already exists. No matter how unjustified you may think a person's lack of media coverage is, it is not our role to help create a media profile for them by hosting unsourced promotional profiles, because we are not a public relations database. If the media coverage needed to support an article on here does not already exist, then that simply isn't our problem. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But of course your approach make WIKI a public relation database: scored a point for media coverage - Got an article, no matter how insignificant the coverage is. Just look at Ms. De Niro sources:))) It is much easier for an entertainer to get this sort of coverage, thus, researchers are discriminated by your policy, because it' much harder for them to meet your criteriaIkhulor (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the existence of media coverage is what prevents this from being a public relations database, because independent coverage which verifies the factual content of the article is the thing that prevents a person from simply being able to make stuff up (which plenty of people have tried, believe me), or to claim an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist. And no, researchers aren't "discriminated" against by our policy, because there are plenty of very solid sources out there which do cover political scientists and diplomatic affairs writers and such. The world does not lack for academic journals and diplomatic affairs magazines and serious intellectual newspapers and high-end newsmagazines and documentary films that cover writers of academic literature — there are thousands upon thousands of excellent sources out there covering academic writers and researchers.
    It's not an under-covered occupation which lacks for adequate sourcing as a matter of course; exactly like any other occupation, some people do have the necessary degree of source coverage and some don't. But that doesn't constitute discrimination against the occupation — many actors and actresses don't have the necessary level of coverage to get articles on here either, and many writers of political science books do have the necessary level of coverage. Neither occupation has any systemic advantage or disadvantage in the "getting into Wikipedia" sweepstakes compared to the other one, because neither occupation inherently lacks for coverage — but both occupations have some practitioners who get enough coverage to clear the bar and some practitioners who don't. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, you claims about fair rules, not offering any advantages to any groups of people for WIKI entry, are absolutely unsubstantiated and unverifiable. I offer you concrete example (Ms. Drena De Niro) and can find dozens if not hundreds more, you keep feeding the discussion with unproved "rebuttals". You got any factual counterarguments - I am willing to listen. Your claim that the researchers in obscure fields have thousands upon thousands of sources to cover them is laughable. Are you offering me to take your word on it or asking me to prove the negative? In both cases, it's a major blunder against common sense and rules of logic. Ikhulor (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime, a source appeared in the disputed article. "Interview with Dr. Andrew Andersen by Teimuraz Toumanishvilli". IndraStra Global. Retrieved 1 August 2015. Is it a solid source or not? Ikhulor (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we follow this kind of logic, any episodic role in the 3rd rate Hollywood movie if mentioned in mass media confers notabilty. Drena de Niro obviously deserves a Wiki article, Dr. Andersen dose not. Smells of prejudice to me, given touchy subject of Dr. Andersen research.Ikhulor (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Dr. Andersen works were cited by many scholars in their articles: easily verifiable through Google scholar search.Ikhulor (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As for the "reliable sources" - feel free to google him. And as for the grammar... what language are you going to offer help with? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltvilks (talk • contribs) 22:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make every person's individual coat of arms appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to the page that I think helps with the grammar issues, but it could still use some improvement Curiocurio 00:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Really??? My dear Bearcat, please do me a massive favor and please-please-please enlighten me whether there are any rules on Wikipedia about whose arms are appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia?? :) :) :) Baltvilks (talkBaltvilks (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Royalty. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. I would recommend that you read a bit more about heraldry, in general, to get more understanding about this element of European culture. And where can one read that rule on Wikipedia? BaltvilksBaltvilks (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


You've been a regular financial contributor for years, yet this comment is your first contribution as an editor, ever? Go ahead and just guess how much I don't believe you. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I heard somewhere that dishonest people have problem with believing others. Maybe you do not know, my dear Bearcat, that you do not need to have an account with Wikipedia to contribute financially? Let me add to the above that I was also a regular financial contributor to this on-line "encyclopedia", and I will never give a single dime after having watched what is going on here. Nothing personal. Baltvilks(talk) 18:56, 3) July 2015
And I heard somewhere that people who engage in personal attacks, such as calling other editors "dishonest" without evidence, are at risk of getting editblocked. Thin ice ahead. Skate carefully. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And who dared getting engaged in personal attacks su ch as calling other editors "dishonest"??!!! That is disgusting!Baltvilks
What makes you a "sockpuppet" is the fact that you have no prior history of contributing to this site, but are a brand new editor who registered specifically because somebody asked you to come help overwhelm the discussion with arguments that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's established policies. That's not what saves an article that's up for deletion — improving the article is what might save it. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serious?? The national Fellow is neither a Chair or the Highest elected position. According to the web site it is one step above postdoc and is not a faculty postition.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability rules are not satisfied by asserting that the subject passes them; they're satisfied by reliably sourcing that the subject has gotten coverage for passing them. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't argue. This kind of policy is absolutely fair.Ikhulor (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • THE ABOVE STATEMENT BY DAVID EPPSTEIN IS AN EXAMPLE OF PURE LIE.Baltvilks (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the reliable sources covering him in that context would be...where? Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--- LaMona mentioned you on Wikipedia [2:20:17 PM] Alexander I. Kurov: LaMona mentioned you on the Sockpuppet investigations/Marianwolfe86 talk page in "Comments by other users". [2:20:32 PM] Alexander I. Kurov: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marianwolfe86--- And what should I do to prove that I am not a camel? :) I love this comedy! It all amply proves how prejudiced are all those people are. That also means that Andrew Andersen is doing right things. Otherwise this disgusting "discussion" would not take place at all. And, BTW, what is the problem about that article? Does it occupy to much space?

Alexanderkurov — Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, North of Eden, I also respect your opinion and the effort you invested in writing the above comment. It would sound absolutely reasonable if... if the Wikipedia had not been filled with articles on way less notable persons than the person under attack (and let us be honest, Andrew Andersen is under attack here and so are his vocal supporters including "yours truly") PS.: I am still awaiting phone calls from the "investigators" who claim that I am - Normannsdottir but nobody has called me so far... I wonder why? :) Baltvilks (talk)Baltvilks (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we will be very glad to consider for deletion any that you think are particularly outrageous. In past years, tens of thousands of promotional articles on non-notable people made their way into WP that would nowadays not meet our standard. It is a slow process removing them all, tho I hope we eventually manage to complete it. But at least we do not want to add to them. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not waste my time on reporting such Wiki articles for deletion as I find that counterproductive. Unless they are really "outrageous", of course. :) By the way, do you really find outrageous the article we are discussing here? :)))) Baltvilks (talk)Baltvilks (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment/question I would consider the above comments (DGG, North of Eden) valid if 3 conditions are met: 1. I mentioned the article on Drena De Niro three times - nobody cared to explain me how she is more notable then Dr. Andersen, and, if she is non-notable, nobody from the cohort clamoring for Dr. Andersen entry removal marked her entry for removal. I'd like to hear a comment on that. 2. If "old" articles on non-notable people (those, not meeting current criteria on notability) are being purged, can I see a list of those articles removed, say, in July 2015? 3. If somebody (DGG) claims that there are 6 books on modern Abkhazia history are widely available in the world libraries, I would like to know more about these books: the topic is highly controversial and contested - the propaganda pieces funded by opposing sides are common. Just want to make sure that the rules for WIKI entry are non-discriminatory, and the field is not tilted toward certain group of people. Is it too much to ask the commenters to provide examples, or WIKI rules dictate that I have to settle for unverified claims of those who happen to edit or author WIKI entries in the past? Ikhulor (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • For (1) Non-answer. I asked about specific example. The statement in WP:WAX that the argument can not be made on the basis of existence/nonexistence of something similar is faulty. If applied to society, it voids all civil right struggle summarily. (2) Reviewed. Found the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_R._Brock. Compared with the entry on Dr. Andersen. I am not saying that the entry on Dr. Brock should be deleted. I am asking for explanation why the verdict was to "keep". What in the article about Ms Brock makes her notable as opposed to Dr. Andersen? Obviously, I can not see the deleted articles, so can not appreciate the arguments. (3) Thanks. I am not a career researcher, and was not familiar with this database.

Actually, combining #1 and #2, I feel that my impression on subjective and somehow discriminatory standards of WIKI is being confirmed. People has written the whole essays in this discussion, how difficult can it be to sort out my examples in 2-3 sentences Ikhulor (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Ok, a longer answer to (1): comparing the notability of celebrities like De Niro to the notability of academics is a mistake. Celebrities become notable through having multiple in-depth stories about them published in the popular press. Academics become notable either directly by having high-impact publications or indirectly by being publicly recognized by their peers (through major awards, distinguished professorships, etc). So there is no point in trying to seek a deeper answer in this specific case. Additionally, it may well be that De Niro is not actually notable, and that we just haven't tested that through an in-depth discussion of her notability yet. So again, trying to compare her case to this one doesn't accomplish much in either direction. Re (2): look at the keep comments in the AfD. In particular, they mention multiple publications with hundreds of citations each, and multiple published reviews of her books. Compare that to my comment in this AfD re the citation counts for Andersen. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. People spent a lot of time on Andersen notability. Yet nobody got 1 minute to check out Drena De Niro entry? It was mentioned by me 3 days ago. I would expect more diligence from WIKI purists. 2. I never saw any quantitative criteria for notability: no fixed number of publications, no fixed citation index, no lists of specific awards or positions qualifying for notability. Or I missed it? I apologize, if I did. If not, subjectivity and personal bias is not eliminated from the process of establishing notability. If there is no effort to eliminate bias - it amounts to discrimination. I say no modern mathematician is notable without receiving Fields Award (joke)Ikhulor (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Another great argument: "Lots of professors are well-beloved, myself included":))) Man, you made my day!!! You should have written: "Beloved and modest like myself":))) I wonder though why would a beloved professor like Bearian or Eppstein waste their valuable time on Wiki discussions? Baltvilks (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ! Where did you manage to find any personal attacks here?! I wrote that you made my day because I REALLY LOVED your comment! I am so confused... [User:Baltvilks|Baltvilks]] (talk)
Oh, it wasn't directed at you, Baltvilks, just at the others above. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Took me about three clicks of the mouse to find Eppstein listed as Faculty at UCI. The myself included was an injection of humour - much easier on the ear than your attempts.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me 2 clicks to find out that Prof. Eppstein contribution to computer science on par with Norbert Weiner and Michael StonebrakerIkhulor (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Er, no, I disagree, they are not on par with those two. But they don't have to be, to be good enough for an article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Professor, you are way too modest, so I respectfully reserve the right to disagree with your humble self-assessment. Ikhulor (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was my attempt at college teacher humour. Again, FWIW, see I can prove that my former students love me. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see only one failure here: failure to create strict quantitative criteria for notability. Results are creatively exploited by various editing bodies, occasionally for the purpose of practicing "college teacher humor" and advance of librarians as a part-time WIKI messiahs Ikhulor (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Feel free to propose improvements to the process at WT:N or WT:PROF. Personally, I feel the system is working exceptionally well at preventing canvassed editors from exploiting Wikipedia as will be evidenced by the close of this AfD. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't feel qualified to propose any specific WIKI rule change. I leave it for professors and librarians - let them figure out quantitative criteria for notability for various arts and sciences. BUT I will keep pointing out that the existing rules on notability are fuzzy at best, can be used for discrimination at worst. Also, I started to suspect that the "old" editors might be prone to tried and true MEATPUPPET tactics. KEEP THE ARTICLE, until new quantitative criteria for notability developed! And if they are fair and the current article does not fit, I'll be the first to vote for deletion.Ikhulor (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Okay this is getting very silly. You are accusing me of meatpuppetry while engaging in meatpuppetry yourself? Sorry your stalling technique isn't going to convince anyone. You can't just ask others to change the criteria to get your way. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. A whole bunch of respected editors almost simultaneously discovered this article and poured their holy wrath on it. Sure, Andersen made quite a splash:) Everybody was holding their breath, and now, whet the entry appeared, there was a big collective sigh from the body of WIKI editors. I doubt, Albert Einstein enjoyed such an attention. And yes, I can not ask anybody to make the rules according to my whims, but I can and I will demand the rules to be fair, applied equally, and quantitative (in the sense of having a defined threshold for notability). To the effect that anybody can read the rules, then open the article and immediately point out criteria the person met to be mentioned in WIKI. Otherwise, we are arguing on what constitutes a pile of potatoes: 3 potatoes, 5 potatoes or 123 potatoes. I have hard time finding a benign explanation how the esteemed editors-professors-libriarians fail to see it.Ikhulor (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikhulor, if you look at about a third of the way down, you will notice some smaller text that reads, for example: "Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions." These are links to deletion discussions on various topics. That's how different editors will "simultaneously" discover an article. Personally, I'm interested in visual arts topics and I check the visual arts deletion page regularly. If you look at the editing histories of most of the editors not arguing for keep, you will see that none have any connection. They edit in vastly different areas and geographically live in many different places. Many editors disclose their location on their user page. So, there is no connection other than being a Wikipedia editor. freshacconci talk to me 11:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That very well may be true, and again, it may be not. Am I supposed to believe you words, while you reserve the right not to believe my words and accuse me of being a meatpuppet without any actual proof? I learned about this discussion not from the author or the subject of the entry. People who knows my interest in public policy (and WIKI is not a private enterprise, as far as I know), notified me of the discussion, and I felt that I had to comment. Now, I am not an expert to review Dr. Andersen work. The only thing I can do is to review the rules and see if they are fair, or applied fairly. My conclusion: the rules of notability as they are now, are fuzzy and do not define a quantified threshold for WIKI entry. Thus, they can and are applied subjectively, which, in my opinion, amounts to discrimination. Lets see: Dr Anderson wrote a few books, a few articles published in respectable journals which where cited by a few other researchers, and had some independent media coverage. Unless you have a rule that his book should be available in X number of libraries, or his work must be published in certain journals, or it must be cited Y number of times, or he must have Z number of pieces about him in certain media outlets - you can not claim that he is not notable, while the person B is notable, without prejudice.

Now, let me address (again) the question of my limited (first) contribution to WIKI. The reasons are following: firstly, my area of expertise, in my opinion, covered in WIKI extremely poorly, most articles need to be re-written. But it would be futile, because a FREE and highly respectable source of the information in the field exists in the web - all articles are written by the known and verified entities specializing in the subject of the article, referenced up to wazoo, updated regularly, and reviewed by the editorial board. Why waste my time on a futile task? Particularly, given the fact that English is my 3rd language? secondly, I don't feel like writing of something I am not an expert in. I do use WIKI occasionally, mostly to read on historical events and figures when I dont have time to research them on my own by using multiple sources. Recently, I've read an article on Borgia. It's a disgrace. Yet, to improve it, one either need to sepecialize in the subject, or spend a lot of time putting together a coherent report as a hobby. Sorry, I can not afford spending time on Borgias for the purpose of WIKI entry, I can look up a good book and read it at my leisure. thirdly, I am interested in public policies and human rights. But, as far as know, WIKI is not a debate site, and if it is, I have no way of knowing where, what and when something of interest to me is being debated. When I accidentally learn about the occasion, nobody can find me wanting. In summary, my opinion of this case: the article qualifies for the entry under the existing notability rules, you want to delete it - you have to modify the rules first. Ikhulor (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you have a chance to read a boxed header on this page?Ikhulor (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2015 (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.
More