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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Dunin[edit]

Stanley Dunin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subject is a non notable person, and hence fails BIO. A google search reveals few topics. CO₂ 00:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Non-notable. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Aerospace engineer published in his field. Head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project and part of a team that launched the world's first geosynchronous communications satellite. Seems like the sort of person Wikipedia should have a biography about. Am I missing something? WjBscribe 00:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —WjBscribe 00:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, as mentioned by WJC. ViperSnake151 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Will, and the reliable sources. Google searches is not everything, especially when you have the sources already in the article. Daniel 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep you must set a very high bar indeed if someone who has "...been head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project, and in the 1960s successfully calculated the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit." is not notable. KTo288 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm still convinced of notability if claims are verified, however verification remains to be satisfied. KTo288 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is relatively well-written and the man has done plenty of notable things. Anyway, the google hunt does show up a good amount of topics. Lauren^whisper 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't list any reliable sources. The first is trivial and only lists his name and what he does. The second doesn't make much sense. The 3^rd is trivial, the fourth has no relation to Stanley, the fifth is trivial, and the 6th isn't reliable, as it's a family tree constructed by members of an online community. CO₂ 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless reliable secondary sources can be provided that discuss the subject of the article. Tim Vickers 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable. If you feel that its not well referenced enough ((sofixit)). Deletion isn't cleanup. Shell ^babelfish 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked, but could not find any. Perhaps you might have more luck. Tim Vickers 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shell, why obviously notable? Do you consider the claims to be accurate? Discussion below strongly suggests they are either untrue or unreferencable. Neil ム 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because you have decided the gentleman should have published his work before allowing his employer the leg up to get to geosynchronous orbit first doesn't make it so. Regardless, his paper is still the first published describing the mechanism. It would be helpful if you offered some proof that the claims are false instead of your original research. Shell ^babelfish 12:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, more than likely notable, and I'm thinking that the sources are more than good enough. Animum, slow down there. :) *Cremepuff222* 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep --Victor falk 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No reason given to keep article - could you provide one? Neil ム 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I'm willing to be shown otherwise, speaking as a space buff, but I'm skeptical of the claim that Dunin played the primary role in calculating the first geostationary orbit. That's usually credited to Herman Noordung. Additionally, few of the sources where I would expect to find information about him make any mention. I'm not saying he wasn't accomplished, but the jump from that to notability seems fishy. --Dhartung | Talk 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me if Herman Noordung fully superceeded Dunin. The artice on Noordung says that he calculated the geosychronous orbit. From all I can tell, he may have just calculated the height of a geosychronous orbit, whereas Dunin calculated how to actually get into it, which is something different. But I don't know enough details to say one way or the other. Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not even close to notable. (Personal attack removed). Just where are the sources that this guy had any material responsibility for advances in satellite technology at Hughes? 12.10.190.132 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{This is this user's first edit. Tim Vickers 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable by the citation of Multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. including the The New York Times, Detroit Times and Letter from Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan to Secretary of State Article needs cleanup with ((fact)) tags. Full Disclosure: I originally WP:SNOW non-admin closed this AfD - but this has been reopened by an Admin (which I am fine with) Please refer to my Talk Page for the discussion. Fosnez 03:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT reference is about his grandfather, not the subject of the article. The Detroit Times reference is about his mother, not the subject of the article. This leaves the entire claim for notability resting on a letter from a senator about the naturalisation of one of his constituents. This isn't really very convincing. If this article is to stay, it needs better sources that establish the notability of Stanley Dunin, not his relatives. Tim Vickers 04:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got an edit conflict saying essentially the same thing. These are reliable sources, yes, but they do not speak to his notability. Even having a Senator write a letter about your citizenship is not notable. Unfortunately, this reads like a "my famous relatives" genealogical entry, not an article about an person whose importance is recognized by his peers. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But isn't being published in his field isn't recognized by his peers? Shell ^babelfish 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I have many more papers in more significant journals than this person, but I am not even close to being notable. Being published isn't enough, see WP:PROF. Tim Vickers 17:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to delete this article Elmao 05:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No reason given to keep article, either - could you provide one? Neil ム 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:

  Notability. There are a few chief claims to notability - one, that he was "head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project". Heading a project team is not in itself sufficient, even if the project team was at NASA. The second is that "in the 1960s (he)successfully calculated the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit.". This is a lie - the calculation was carried out years earlier by Herman Noordung. The other two are that he was "part of a team"; this is also no sufficient. The only meaty assertion of notability is the succesful calculation, and this is the claim that is untrue. Note that being related to Polish nobility is not an assertion of notability, as this is true of about 10% of the population of Poland.

  References are lacking. Many of the sources provided fail to mention him, and they certainly fail to provide evidence of notability, being trivial mentions only, articles about his daughter and not him, or a family-created (and, therefore, utterly unreliable) family tree:

  • • [1] - one mention of his name, in a footnote. Useless.
    • New York Times (1945) reference is solely to support Edward Werner being vice-Minister of Finance for Poland (it was published when Dunin was nine years old), so has no value here, and certainly does not count as a non-trivial reference in a notable secondary source.
    • The 1947 letter, again, solely shows that Dunin became an American citizen at the age of 11. No value to assert notability, solely a biographical aside.
    • Ref #4 is a paper Dunin contributed to. Doesn't provide any evidence of notability.
    • Woman sets sights on code on CIA sculpture, going from the mirror on Elonka Dunin's website is a minor mention. (full article is here "woman%20sets%20sights")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no but I'm not paying for it)
    • "Engagement of Countess" is another background biographical thing. Does not provide evidence of notability.

  To summarise, the whole article reads like a carefully constructed piece of flummery, on a person that isn't actually notable, but has synthesized some (unquestionable) basic biographical facts (name, nationality, who their grandparent was, etc) together, mixed in some exceptionally minor assertions of notability, one untrue larger assertion, and, given the creator of the article is his daughter, a Wikipedian who knows the rules inside out, comes across as a piece of vanity with a bunch of smokecreens to flummox us into keeping it. Neil ム 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • • But how do you really feel? Being part of a historic project would seem to be notable, even if you consider his other work at NASA to be routine. You have yet to provide any proof that his published paper and claims are false. As far as nobility, as established on the Antoni Dunin article, which also recently under went AfD, the nobility was not of the kind that 10% of all Poles hold; please note that he is not just szlachta but Hrabia or you can read the entire discussion about halfway down here. Please note that this is not a discussion of Elonka and she can very easily be left out of the discussion by talking about the article content. Shell ^babelfish 13:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the wrong way around. People have to show that a subject is notable for it to be included. The onus is not on the people questioning notability to prove a subject isn't notable. Instead reliable sources that discuss this person's achievements must be provided to establish notability, otherwise the article will be deleted. Tim Vickers 17:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Neil. Also, three extra sources have now just been added. One is Elonka's self published autobiography, and two are sources which appear to using as their source... this entry from Wikipedia (!!)

The subject is clearly non notable, and the article is pure vanity. None of the old or new references support notability of Stanley Dunin one iota •CHILLDOUBT• 13:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm sorry but I agree with WJBscribe. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the whole. It may be that it could use better sources; but that's not a deletion criterion.Notability seems to be answered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which citation is it that convinces you of the subject's notability? Tim Vickers 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird, I just posted the same thing. Out of curiosity, on what grounds is notability answered? Neil ム 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of He is most notable for having been head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project, and in the 1960s successfully calculated the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit. do these editors fail to understand? The argument about this sentence on the talk page appears incoherent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim made in that sentence is perfectly understandable, however it is unverifiable with the references provided. I have searched hard for reliable sources that discuss this person and have found none. Tim Vickers 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the citation for the publication on orbital determination appears to be wrong. The full citation is " Orbit determination for stationary satellites (Orbit determination of stationary satellites through data analysis, noting perturbation effect and estimation of Early Bird satellite orbit) BALSAM, R E; DUNIN, S E AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY, SPACE FLIGHT MECHANICS SPECIALIST SYMPOSIUM, U. OF DENVER, DENVER, COLO ; United States; 6-8 July 1966. pp. 123-136. 1967" (link) This appears to be just a meeting report, not even a peer-reviewed paper. Tim Vickers 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. As well, the references all appear spurious and sprung from the daughter's creation of the page. She has encountered quite a bit of criticism (including from Jimbo) about the veracity and lack of diligence evident in family and related vanity articles. Elonka Dunin or her editing charateristics notwithstanding, her dad Stanley Dunin is just not notable. 216.43.156.91 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{This user has made few other edits. Tim Vickers 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

• Comment Lets try and take some of the heat out of this debate, what seems to be the residual ill feeling from earlier confrontations elsewhere need not lead to farther hostility here. The concensus seems to be that if Stanley Dunin did indeed achieve what is stated in the article than he is notable. It is not even neccessary to debate the truth of this article, if both sides can accept the notabilty and truth of article as a given, than this debate can concentrate on meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability. KTo288 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that call to focus on content. However, a core claim for notability is that he made a key contribution to the mathematics of space flight. This claim is based solely on an abstract from a meeting, rather then a peer-reviewed paper, and has been disputed by an editor with expertise in the field. This is an area where the truth of the article is seriously questioned. Tim Vickers 01:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may skirt around the issue, but if it can be verified than its true and notable and should stay, if it cannot be verified than it can be deleted and whether true or false does not matter. By simply concentrating on verifiability than conflict over issues that may lead to hostility can be avoided. KTo288 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost none of the references are to the point. the material about his noble family is irrelevant altogether, and that eliminates ref. 2, 3, and 6. The decipherment--ref 5-- was not primarily his work--according to the source, he "helped with the final English translation." Ref. 1 is his role as consultant on a business report. That leaves ref 4, his junior authorship of a paper at a subsidiary AAS symposium. Is there anything else?--yes, the paper in the AIAA journal not specified exactly in the article, but it is: "A terminal guidance technique for lunar landing" by CITRON, S. J. DUNIN, S. E. MEISSINGER, H. F. ( AIAA Journal 1964 0001-1452 vol.2 no.3 (503-509) from Web of Science, it is cited 7 times only. And read carefully, the WP article itself says he was a minor member of the group, who came up with one particular calculation. End of story. DGG (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The prose is poor; it should be reworded. The lead contains material it shouldn't, which should be moved. Indeed the article includes material that probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia, which should be deleted. But the two cited, published works by this individual are noteworthy, particularly the one on lunar landings, which was published between the Luna 2 "first impact" and the Luna 9 "first soft landing". (sdsds - talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N suggests: "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability." The subject individual's life does not appear to be covered by reliable, independent, available secondary sources. (sdsds - talk) 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agreed, Dunin is notable. • Lawrence Cohen 06:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Borderline, revising my view upon a second look. The article is horribly unsourced. If kept, it needs a gutting or a heavy sourcing immediately, either way. • Lawrence Cohen 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Tim Vickers & DGG, Publications appear to be unrefereed, "Dunin SJ" generates zero hits in the Web of Science citation index. But he is User:Elonka's father, and she and most of her relatives (Elonka Dunin, Elsie Ivancich Dunin, Rodryg Dunin, Antoni Dunin) seem to survive AfDs so no doubt the "rescue squad" will save this one too, but the evidence presented in support of tthe argument for notability is really quite deceptive. Pete.Hurd 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citation note: WoS was never fully updated from the program used to produced it as a printed book from punched cards back in '65. For the relevant years, it only includes the first author in the cited reference index. So to find all the citations to someone's papers, you have to find all the individual papers (assuming he's among the first 5), and then look each one up under the first author's name. DGG (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Neil and DGG. --Crusio 09:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable sources that specifically discuss this man or his accomplishments. Deor 13:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have just noticed that the meeting abstract cited to show that Dunin was the first to calculate a geosynchronous orbit was published in 1966, three years after Syncom 1, the first satellite to have a geosynchronous orbit was launched. This claim does not seem plausible. Tim Vickers 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Syncom 1 failed and Syncom 2 was the first to reach geosyncc. orbit. Bubba73 (talk), 05:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That also happened in 1963, three years before this Dunin meeting abstract was published. You can't claim that a publication described how something could be done for the first time if this publication was made long after this had already been achieved. Tim Vickers 05:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am becoming more and more convinced there is something very hinky about this article. Neil ム 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I am becoming convinced, on the other hand, that the deletion campaign is excessive. Please do not spam my talk page again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Contrary to everyone claiming this calculation is nothing but falsehood, one tiny search shows papers which cite the original article as being handed out "pre-print" in 1962 (see [2]). And the "meeting" - AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY, SPACE FLIGHT MECHANICS SPECIALIST SYMPOSIUM - was a large conference; the citation points to the speech given - but you actually read the reference first, right Tim? This witch hunt is just ridiculous. Shell ^babelfish 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're getting confused there, that's the other paper he has in his CV. The one was are talking about is the one on geosynchronous orbits that is claimed to be the first time this was worked out, not the one on guidance for moon exploration cited there. Calling a serious discussion about how we can't verify these claims "ridiculous" is not constructive. This is what we are supposed to do in these deletion discussions. The reason I am so skeptical of this claim for priority is that histories of geosynchronous orbits do not even mention Dunin NASA document. Instead the idea is credited to others working in the early 20th century. Tim Vickers 17:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as currently written. Significant person based on the article as written. If the article is in error then in needs to be corrected and then we can reconsider keeping. So, resolve the factual issues with the material in the article and not here. Vegaswikian 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced the controversial and unverified claim that he was the first to calculate a geosynchronous orbit with the statement made later in the article that he just calculated the most fuel-efficient way of reaching this orbit. This claim is also unverified, but seems more plausible since it doesn't contradict other sources. Tim Vickers 18:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not notable. Yahel Guhan 02:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, part A Notability of knowledge workers is a tricky subject. There is some evidence that Wikipedia is biased against knowledge workers; the Professor test is more stringent, relatively speaking, than the notability requirement we place on Pokemon or minor Star Wars universe characters. Two published papers is not very much but he seems to have contributed in a reasonably significant way to the early development of spaceflight. Thatcher131 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • It is very hard to tell if he did contribute in any significant way to spaceflight. Reading what I can access of the papers - which is their introductions and abstracts - and the handful of papers that later cite these papers, it is entirely unclear if the Dunin papers were significant advances in the field. A review article or a secondary source such as a history of spaceflight that mentioned Dunin would solve this problem. However, it is impossible to prove a negative here, some editors have asked for proof that Dunin did not contribute to the early development of spaceflight. This evidence is entirely lacking, just as it would be lacking for the idea that Joe Dimaggio was important in the history of particle physics. We need reliable secondary sources that put his work in context. Tim Vickers 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, part deux I have a vested interest in articles of this type, or at least in the one article of this type that I have created. The importance of the subject must be established by independent reliable sources. However, once the subject is established as notable enough for an article, we must also be flexible in recognizing that the coverage of people of lesser notability is likely to be confined to the reason for their importance, with pretty thin independent coverage of the rest of their life. Strong sources are of course required for derogatory or negative information. But if the information is relatively uncontroversial, is provided by a family member so is unlikely to be challenged, and helps to flesh out the person's life, do we really need to require rigorous citations? Such articles should definitely be de-fluffed, and family editors need to yield to the judgement of independent editors. But I'm not sure there is any real harm, assuming the notability of the subject is proved via independent reliable sources in allowing family members to flesh out life's little details. Thatcher131 02:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the claims to notability made in the article's (well-written) lead. While I'd like to see more references, it seems that the article makes some attempt at verification, and thus I will use "AFD is not the cleanup department" there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. All scientists have been a part of something or other. This person doesn't stand out. Arrow740 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He who performed the calculations necessary to insert satellites into geosynchronous orbit is unquestionably notable. We now learn that this wasn't Stanley Dunin, and that Wikipedia has been wildly misinforming its readers all this time, about Mr. Dunin and about the history of space travel alike. This debacle - and a debacle it is, for such a falsehood to remain unchallenged for so long - suggests that nothing else in this article - which is not, and will likely never be, based on reliable third party sources (which apparently don't exist) - can be trusted.Proabivouac 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I think I've found the person who was responsible for the advances made in the Syncom project. It was Harold Rosen - a Biography at Inventor of the Week. None of the biographies of Rosen I have read so far mention Stanley Dunin at all. This biography link lists some other members of the team, but doesn't mention Dunin. Tim Vickers 19:26, 26 September 2007 (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.