Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Muir (Third nomination)

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 of the debate was keep and cleanup. Babajobu 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Muir

I'm sorry about this, I really am, but I keep coming back to this one. What troubles me here is that the original AfD got bogged down in personalities and meatpuppetry, and the second debate did not actually address the fundamental issue: it's all very well for Larvatus to assert that this is a "notable and well-loved" Usenet personality, but that's not actually evidence as such. I have spent some time looking around this one and found that (a) he has fewer Usenet posts in the archives than I do, despite an allegdly much longer history (yes, quality beats quantity, but the entries are often mundane). His publication list is short, not indicating a prominent academic, and a Google search also turns up under a third of the hits that I get. I am absolutely convinced of my non-notability, so I find my self asking: why are we keeping an article on someone who is apparently less notable in the fields for which he is supposedly notable? Especially when its creator and main defender is a self-confessed blowhard who has a history of questionable judgment (see this arbitration case and this deleted vanity autobiography). So I come back to comparing with standards I can visualise. My friend Tony Raven is a long-time Usenet poster, who Googles more than Muir and turns up more on the archives; he has a publiscation list, a PhD, is director of Southampton University's spinoff programme and has started a few moderately successful companies. I guess if the bar is set at the Muir level I ought to be clicking that red link. But I don't think it is (although my personal standards for notability are quite likely above the community norms). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable enough, with a decent list of publications and fame on Usenet. He even had an asteroid named after him, which is more than can be said for a lot of people who have their own Wikipedia articles. JIP | Talk 14:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the subject meets notability standards independent of the asteroid; but I also think the asteroid naming itself indicates notability. If it's worth listing the asteroid names (as Wikipedia does), it makes no sense to exclude identification of the individuals asteroids are named for. "Who was Mr/Ms X" is a reasonable question for someone looking at that list to ask, and, since Wikipedia isn't running out of cyberspace, it's a reasonable question for Wikipedia to answer. Monicasdude 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm prepared to accept this asteroid argument if you can show me where I can find out more about asteroid naming and the exclusivity thereof, I know you can buy star names but I understand this does not apply to asteroids? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• You can't buy star names. Several people and organisations claim you can, and for a specific sum of money, they store your name in their database and send you a certificate. All globally accepted scientific communities and official records view these databases and certificates aren't worth wiping your butt on. JIP | Talk 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup — The person looks notable enough, but for me, the fact that there are "alternate nicknames" for this person really drag down the article. I suppose he is an active contributor to Usenet, but I'm an active contributor to MSN Messenger, yet nobody calls me by my nickname, ;-) I suggest that the usenet references (particularly) the names be removed. However, because I am not a usenet participant, nor do I know this person, my suggestion can be ignored if it isn't the right thing to do. Kareeser|^Talk! 15:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --GeLuxe 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup He's a widely published and cited scholar in geophysics. Google scholar returns 69 hits, mostly for his own articles and books with some cites [1]. His bibliographies at Stanford are impressive [2] [3] FeloniousMonk 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• If in doubt Keep. I trust the other editors' judgement that this is a notable fellow. --kingboyk 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: the "asteroid=notable" camp may wish to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzveta Dmitrieva Pokrovska and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18190 Michaelpizer. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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.