Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Deasy

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 Delete. Not a chance of any other result (see WP:SNOW). Even the IP address of the article creator says delete. All dissent comes from a sole vociferous supporter of the article. Closing now to (hopefully) avoid further disruption. kingboyk 10:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh Deasy

Delete. Disputed PROD nomination, so I brought it here. It's a vanity article (edited by User:Hdeasy, no less) with mostly genealogical information. Deasy's claims to fame seem to be 1) a self-published book and 2) a single political cartoon published in the 80s. android79 14:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, not-notable. Bucketsofg 14:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting life, but all the above comments still don't change the fact that Mr. Deasy does not meet WP:BIO. There are a couple of claims surrounding his work as a cartooninst made by Will314159 that might scrape the edge of WP:BIO, but they are not in the main article and they are not WP:V sourced. It is not "Wikipedia policy is to support budding writers and painters". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a place for professional or personal promotion. If Hugh Deasy has done something to meet WP:BIO guidelines (or does something to meet these guidelines in the future) he will deserve an article. It's not about being closed-minded, it's about having some sort of minimum standard for inclusion. (I added my opinion above below text to make it a bit easier on the closing admin.)--Isotope23 15:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (tagged by User:kingboyk; this is clearly a comment in favour of keeping). I am strongly opposed to this deletion. I only have time presently for a few comments. I reserve the rigt to return and expand and revise my remarks. Mr. Deasy is a unique individual because of his education, temparment, skill, and training. He is a Phd. physicisct with heart. His a clear author who has introduced obscure physics, including the opaque Heim Theory to the masses. Deletion of this page would be a needless travesty. It was very useful to me in assesing the credibility of the Heim Theory wikipedia article. I'm increasingly dishearteded of the small mindedness of some of the Wikipedia community. As my three legged labrador retriever Max increasingly communicates, it cuts down on his beach play time replying to all the B.S. that goes on here. Let's try to be more positive and help people do things,instead of trying to stop things.--Will314159 12:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)edit--user:Will314159 13:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

AFter having had to deprive Max of some valuable beach play time, I have composed this addition to my above written comments, to wit:

I feel there is a case for retaining Hugh Deasy, as not only is his book "Grannies" rather good and entertaining, but he is known in other circles. As a cartoonist he was quite successful in the 1980s in Ireland, with one fine political cartoon, reproduced in his book, making the pick of the year of Phoenix, which is the Irish Private Eye. So he is not only self-published – others have posted his cartoons. edit on cartoons as cartoons in these present times seem to be able to move the world--Will314159 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

While on the subject of cartoons 2 or 3 in Phoenix, dozens in 'Disarm', where he worked on the editorial team and discovered he functioned well in running up a quick cartoon to illustrate a 'breaking news' item. He probably could have done that on a bigger circulation paper - but astro-research beackoned. In 'Disarm' he had a running cartoon strip. Also, came 2nd in the Sunday Times competition for shcool-children to complete a super-hero cartoon strip -his entry was then re-produced in full in one of the 3 largest circulation newspapers of the time, the "Irish Press".

But of course he was not always kow-towing to the establishment, so the fact that he published cartoons in the Irish CND newspaper Disarm might not please the powers that be – could this be a reason for the move against him :-)  ? Speaking Truth to Power!

So he is not only a bit of a writer but an acknowledged artist – he has exhibited at ESOC as you can see from his home-page. He was also a bit of a child prodigy, winning prizes for his poems on Irish TV and Radio. Note that he is also planning to bring out a book on a science topic later this year – this time with a science publisher. The Wikipedia policy is to support budding writers and painters – if they are in that situation of being excellent but yet relatively unknown, then it is not fair to deny them even a small stub of an article, I take it that this is not really the issue at stake here, but more the supposed vanity aspect.

However, note that struggling writers must be pro-active in some sense or they will die in obscurity. On top of all that he is part of a small team controlling such key satellites as Envisat (major environmental data source), Integral (gound-breaking observations of high energy astrophysical objects) and ERS-2 (data from which recently confirmed the growth of ice in central Antarctica). So yes, I think this page should be retained, as well as the companion article on his book and the mention he gets in his uncle’s page.

If the problem is that he wrote that article, then consider myself the author of the Hugh Deasy article, and therefore that impediment is thereby removed. Max sends his felicitations.

the above comments have been relocated from the "Hugh Deasy" article Discussion Page.

Addition. I was led to the Wikipedia Heim Theory Article by the stupendous publlicity on Heim theory in 2006 due to the New Scientist and Scotsman article about the recent paper about the Hyperspace aspects and the Air Force taking the FTL aspects seriously. The talk pages turned up the name HDeasy consistently and Googling revealed his identity. He has revealed himself to be the most consistent and lucid elaborator of that theory. He is cogent writer and a PhD physicist and a working scientist. this is a rare combination. As a budding writer, illustrator, and cartoonist, that rare combination deserves a Wiki contribution. I plan to do a rewrite of the article in a few days.--user:Will314159 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is not the case that Wikipedia policy supports articles on "budding writers and painters"; see WP:BIO and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As for the allegations that I nominated this out of some sort of political motive: I'm an American and haven't the faintest clue about Irish politics. Lastly, setting aside whether the accomplishments you describe add up to any meaningful claim of notability, almost none of them are verifiable in any meaningful way. android79 15:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As per above. Kukini 16:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vanity. Being somebody's nephew is not sufficient notability. There's a physicist by this name who is more notable, but I'm not about to create a page for him either. Slowmover 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, wait a minute. Can we confirm the physicist is the same Hugh Deasy? It doesn't change my vote; I just want to acknowlege the error. Slowmover 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Per User:Will314159's comments this is the physicist Dr. Hugh Deasy...Couldn't find any independent confirmation of that fact though. --Isotope23 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • But it looks like the most visible thing he's done is write the Wiki article on Heim Theory Lots of self-promotion out there, though.Slowmover 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Clearly Vanity. I believe that he is the Physicist that you are refering to above. Although I am lead to believe (by somebody who claims to know him) that he has spent the last twenty years working at ESAs ESOC control center. In ESOC he works on very simple parts of a number of missions, all in a very minor role. I would also appear that the only person defending this page is the user Will314159. Looking at the edits that this user does shows a bit of a history of defending anything Hugh Deasy posts to the wiki. This, in addition to the rather curious way that the Will describes Hugh Deasy i.e. in the manner of an intimate friend (he does seem to know an increable amount of detail about him), and the writing style, which seems very, very similar to Mr Deasy's himself, I would rather suspect the Will314159 is a ghost account created by Mr Deasy to back up his own none existant claims.—This unsigned comment was added by 192.171.3.126 (talk • contribs) .

• 192.171.3.126 resolves to the European Space Agency ESA in Darmstadt, Germany, the place of employment of User:Hdeasy and also the creator of the article. kingboyk 12:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What is this rubbish above. It sounds like somebody writing an obituary for his favourite uncle. I also agree with the comment above that the depth of knowledge demonstrated by this defending user is very suspicous. The Pedant 13:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC) User's 3rd post to Wikipedia. --kingboyk 11:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I pointed a friend to this article as I thought he too would be amused by the tone & nature of the defense given above. A little bit of looking by him found that Will314159 & Hugh Deasy are know to each other from a Physics Forum (see link below), so it appears to be a case of a friends defence. The Pedant 15:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=45

• Help! These gushing defences put me off quite badly. Delete Mustafa Bevi 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment These rebuttals and surrebuttals are well surrealistic. Either you are criticized for having no personal knowledge and therefore not being verifiable. Or if you have personal knowledge and can verify facts, then you are a friend and are biased. For those skeptical souls that think the aforementioned and here dissected Irishman Hugh Deasey on this St. Patrick's day is NON NOTABLE, kindly do a GOOGLE search on his name. then please report back the number of hits. Moreover, compare the number of hits to some of the Wiki subjects of the articles you have authored. And if those subjects come out with less hits, let's start nominating those less notable personalities for deletion. Fair enough? --user:Will314159 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As for the Gentleman, and I use the term loosely, that opines that I am a Hugh Deasy Ghost because of my writing style, first I wisht to thank him for the compliment and secondly I would point out that I have a USA IP and I believe on information and belief that Mr. Deasy is an Irishman, and bless him on St Paddy's day, working in Deutschland.--user:Will314159 16:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am working on a major rewrite of the subject page. While taking a break, i noticed most of the posters above are unsigned or ANONYMOUS. I too share with Slowmover, I see that from his information, a love for APL but have now discovered Maxima. I noticed he has authored numerous articles on minor actors in the OUTER LILMITS sci fi series. This brings up the problem of balance in Wikipedia. Stargate 1 has a portal with episode guides. We have an episode guide to all of the SEINFELD series. You can elucidate yourself on Babylon 5. But you have a problem with "Hugh Deasy." For me the context of "Hugh Deasy" is that he is the foremost popularizer of Heim Theory in the English Language. Heim Theory is tremondously important is that it is a brute force take the Bull by the Horns direct quantization of General Relativity. Heim quantized spacetime directly and used a discrete form of calculus to avoid the singularity. Unfortunately in his old age Heim started using mystical terms and became embraced by New Age Gurus. Deasy with his Physics knowledge and familiarity with Sring Theory and LOQ cuts through the BULL and gives a scientific assesment. Heim Theory has recently climbed to the news and is being taken very seriously by certain Aerospace circles. That is the importance of the "Hugh Deasy" article. To give this author the support he deserves for his tireless effort. Yes, he is a notable cartoonist and author and has other interests. But I have revealed my interest and my entry in the discussion. I wish the detractors would be as honest and not hide behind their anonynimity.--user:Will314159 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is exactly one comment above from an anonymous, unsigned user. android79 17:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Click on some of those NonAnom links and see how far you get Android.--user:Will314159 18:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? According to the history, User:192.171.3.126 is the only non-registered user to have made edits to this page. android79 18:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know Android. You must be lazy as well as right down negative. As Wikipedians, too bad we can't project positively. Here's one for you. "Mustafa Bevi is a Wikipedian who wishes to remain anonymous." Click on Pendent, see how far you get. By the way, I haven't figured out how to make my moniker a link, Any "know how" would be appreciated. But you can google me and probably get 10,000 hits.--user:Will314159 20:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Sign your post with 4 tilde characters (~) at the end and the wiki software will insert your username and a timestamp when it processes your edit. And please let's not make this worse by arguing semantics about what is "anonymous" and what is not. In Wikipedia, editors who don't sign in and contribute under a chosen username are considered "anonymous", even though their real-world identity may not be known. IP addresses can be spoofed, etc, but user logins are more reliably from the same person each time, so they develop a local identity here over time which earns them credibility. That's the point. Slowmover 20:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment thanks slowmover. To me anonymous is a person that has no I.D.-- one that cannot be contacted and hides behind a cloak. I think the two I named met the criteria. My tag is being displayed but I am not showing a blue link. I"ll try the 4 tilde's in lieu of the signature icon and see what happens. Heck, I"ll try both.Boy this ain't as easy as baseball. Will314159 21:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) --Will314159 21:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) edit--user:Will314159 21:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  You're just as "anonymous" as as Mustafa or I am. All we know about you is that you are from South Carolina and various other non-identifying personal details. No Wikipedia editor is obliged to reveal their real-world identity, and though some choose to, they are not accorded any special rights or privileges for doing so. As for me being "negative" and "lazy", please refrain from personal attacks. Instead of attacking other editors and their perceived motives for wanting this article deleted, focus on improving the article with neutral content backed up by verifiable and reliable sources, particularly for those facts that you believe make Deasy notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia based on the guidelines for biographies. android79 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Android79. I hope there aren't 78 other androids around. Please be accurate and more careful. I believe I stated I am from North Carolina. I am a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We won the NCAA men's basketball championships last year. I'm pretty sure i put on the page that I am a lawyer and have a physics degree. However, unlike Dr. Pat Robertson, I do not use the Juris Doctor to refer to myself as a Doctor. They told us at Law School that confuses consumers. We North Carolinians are proud to refer to our state as a humble abode between two mountains of pride, the two mountains being Virginia and SC. President James K. Polk attended the University of North Carolina. Take Care.--user:Will314159 23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry about confusing the Carolinas. Please keep commentary on this page on topic and relevant to the deletion discussion. android79 00:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Will314159 argues by stating the relevance of the Heim theory. Although not peer reviewed I think Burkhard Heim and the Heim theory belong into Wikipedia. The fact that a user contributed a valid article alone does not merit for a page about himself. This information can be put on the personal page of that user. The Heim theory additions made to the Hugh Deasy aricle by Will314159 make the article worse. The details about the Heim theory don't belong on that page. The link to the Heim theory page is enough; the duplication of this content is a bad attempt to make the article longer. Also note, that these statements are not accepted by the scientific community, this is not made clear in the addition. I don't think believe anyone wants this page removed for political or personal reasons. The arguments are typical for believers in conspiracy theories "they don't want the world to know about our theory, they want the truth to be hidden."

There are many Wikipedia authors who have written more and better articles and don't have a page about themselves. The Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies define which biographies should be inclued on Wikipedia. Anyone is free to set up a personal vanity page on a different web server.

I'm sorry that I'm writing this comment anonymously but I don't have an acocunt. I know I could create one and put in two lines of text like Will314159. As long as anyone can create an account without personal identification (which is a good thing), I don't think that will give me more credability. The activities by Will314159 were mostly defending the Heim theory. 84.167.147.190 12:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) User's first and only edit. --kingboyk 11:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I posted under Will314159 becasue of Net anononymity but a google search reveals 36,800 hits, so I have been pretty active online, mainly in the veterans community. maybe, I"ll just post under my legal name. I have nothing to hide. i am a disabled combat veteran that earned the combat infantryman badge when I was 19 so I've paid my dues and come by my views honestly. i came back from War and earned a B.S. and Physics and a law degree. So i let all the Bull Crap and ad hominem attacks wash off me like water off a duck's back. Because the main entry is Biographical entry, the comments are necessarily personal but the detractors are a little bit too outrageously "pesonal," and a little too shrill.--24.179.98.1 13:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC) IP user states they are User:Will314159 so all future 'votes' from this user changed to 'comment'. IP address has no posts except to this article. Address resolves to the USA. --kingboyk 12:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Let's see what we can agree on. First, the rules: The subject article is a biography of a still living person. The criteria is notability. A google search result is evidentce. What facts can we agree on. This has turned into a lively discussion. There are many comitted and vociferous anonymous detractors. That in itself speaks for notability and being famous. Some of the criticisms are petty. They admit that Mr. Deasy is a "rocket scientist" but say he is a "minor" rocket scientist. They admit he is a cartoonist, but say he only has "one" cartoon. Others say the Wiki article is self published and a vanity article. The proponent says as a budding author, there is a certain amount of self-promotion, in any case the article has been rewritten by another, the cartoonist career is much more extensive, he is a published author. His Google hit count stands at 59,100. While it is not the quality and not the quantity of hits that is persuasive, the quantity is not easily discounted. Mr. Deasy has made a name for himself as the leading English speaking elucidator of Heim theory. It's the quality of the elucidation that counts here. Heim theory had been embraced by a New Age following. But Heim theory is a honest to goodness quantization of the metric of General Relativity by a creative invention of a discrete calculus equivalent to what is now called the finite method for Tensor Calculus. it takes a physicist to appreciate that and to put it in proper context and Mr. Deasy is the man that did it. He was and is uniquely qualified by his training, experience, skill, bacground, artistic background, to bridge this esoteric and obscure theory to the English Speaking World. To me that makes him notable and famous To appreciate that, you have to be more than a programmer, you have to have a physics & a liberal arts background. But the most telling argument of all for the retention of the subject article is the length of this page and the extent of it. Surely that interest engendered herein is the most telling for the retention of the subject article. Take Care!--24.179.98.1 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Can I suggest you put your name in double quotes when working out your Google hit count so that you don't unnecessarily over-inflate your ego. A Google on "Hugh Deasy" yields a mere 223 hits while the 59,000 is picking up lots of unrelated pages. And, if you really think Google hit counts are a good measure of fame, there are 29,800 for my name (with quotes) but no Wikipaedia entry (nor should there be). (Most hits for my name are online book stores selling a book I co-wrote). I think the page should be deleted because it seems quite clearly a vanity page and the only user other than Hdeasy in favour of keeping it has a suspiciously similar writing style (bar the occasional accidentally on purpose typo). —This unsigned comment was added by Opk (talk • contribs) . User's 2nd edit at Wikipedia --kingboyk 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. VanityCruft, Disgusting Sock'n'meatpuppet attack, someone close this before it starts spidering. Deizio 17:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's mostly just the same guy rambling on and on but not signing, as opposed to puppet attack, as my cleanup edits hopefully show. --kingboyk 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, one vain author and one... disciple? Anyway, nice work Kbk, bye Deasy... Deizio 12:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The guy's clearly a nut.--62.52.92.225 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment From the anonymous person. Thank you for the advice about the Google double quotes. Always willing to learn. Took the Google hit criteria from the Wikipedia notability guidlines. as from user 62.52.92.225|62.52.92.225, I won't descend to your level. "Sticks and bones may break bones" but your viturerpitude won't and the comment clearly appllies to the "nut caller" above. Take Care cloaked in your Online Superiority. Imagine the epithets if we were talking about something really important like the Taba Accords or the Geneva Mideast Plan!--24.179.98.1 22:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Will314159
• Comment It's all a matter of perspective when you come down to it. It's better to include a worthy article that to delete two unworthy ones. Here's an insight in the mindset and I will call him Bozo after the terms he used, in the mindset of the author of the "Strong Delete comment above written" I am all about Wikipedia. If you're reading this because you came across Deiz on AfD, just know that I love you. To Cruft! spreaders, indiscriminate inclusionists and anyone who rejects WP:CHILL, you can quote me: "Better Wikipedia through deletionism? You bet your sweet ass." Deizio 02:29, 14 " Take Care! --24.179.98.1 15:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Will314159
  • No it isn't a matter of perspective. It's a matter of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. This article fails to meet them (WP:BIO). Next! --kingboyk 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment First off, I'd like to point out that being the most noted pusher of an somebody elses idea (or theory, if you wish) is very nobel & should be encouraged, but this does not merit the inclusion of your own personal entry. As pointed out above, that is what the user pages are for. In refernece to the number of hits Hugh Deasy gets on google, the answer is 225 (not thousands, 225). Of the 225 pages you find that they are mostly links to entires in the wiki (created by the person himself), refreneces to his self published book (created by himself), his personal web page (created by himself), and references in physic group talk pages (again, created by himself). There is absolutly no merit for the inclusion of this page. A self published book, and a cartoon allegedly printed in a magazine thirty years ago are the only items that can be consided here. The support of Heim Theory can not. In the future, should it prove that Hugh Deasy's work in bring Hiem Thoery to the world has a lasting import to mankind, then somebody can think about including a page. Until then... Delete The Pedant 08:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV article on an nn figure, and vain too. --kingboyk 11:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, vanity, non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Battling with "nattering nabobs of negativity" to use a hitsorical phrase is second nature and "no problemo." There is a lot of latent agression and spite quite unbecoming to a beacon of knowlege on this board but that is a horse of a different color. There seems to be a "legion de deleteurs" ready to spring forth and issue execution warrants on this board akin to the reign of terror. By the way, Googling a term in quotes does indeed act as a filter but deletes pertinent search results and is not a measure of notability or prevalance or famousness in the online community. I could have summoned and organized a " legion of includeurs" to counter the "deleteurs" but I chose not to. I preferred to draw the smallminded people out. The neutral comments are appreciated. The provocative and ad hominem comments belong to low class people unworthy of being associated with a great encyclopedia. . Take Care!--Will314159 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think you'll find it's an encyclopaedia, not a board. Perhaps that explains the problem? Just zis Guy you know? 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete Vanity, not notable. Nigelthefish 19:13, 20 March 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.