Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Aguéli

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 Keep --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Aguéli

Ivan Aguéli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

origional research. Also no evidence of any notability Sefringle^Talk 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - As per my vote at Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah's AfD. When you say WP:OR you refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. It is not the case. 1, 2, 3, and many other references in Arabic and few other languages. The guy got a museum w/ his name and you say Original Reaserch and NN? Have you checked the facts before trying to waste everyone's time w/ this AfD saying it is NN? I'd ask the creator to use other references. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

By origional research, I mean "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". This article clearly meets this criteria as there isn't a source within the article. I don't know what you are talking about with "other" references, as there are none in the article. Lets see: Source 1 isn't in english, and I don't understand it, so I won't comment on it. Source 2 I don't know if it is a reliable source, but I don't think it is from a notable website and source 3 looks like a primary source. As for the museum arguement, not every museum is notable.--Sefringle^Talk 08:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep and close. Based on the nom's other AFDs today I am suspicious of WP:POINT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are voting based on the nominator rather than the value of the article.--Sefringle^Talk 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That might be true, and I am actually not in agreement with these views. However, your claim of "original research" for an AfD is highly unusual: usually we put a {{sources}}, and cleanup the article, and look for sources, not delete obviously notable articles. The article is already tagged as requiring sources, please be patient. All of this page is obviously not original research. I usually only support deletions based on notability or pov forking, and only support deletion of notable articles when it is fancruft and related cruftiness. Please have more trust in the ability of your fellow editors: we take our sweet time, but we get there.--Cerejota 08:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I dont understand why this was even brought to AfD. I enjoyed the article and learned something new which is what an Encyclopedia is for. He was definitly notable for a number of reasons including have stamps issued with his pictures on them and a number of things including a museum named after him. I am not sure what original research means but if that's it then it must be a good thing. ;) Consaka 08:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)— Consaka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
• Strong keep and close original research? Article could use some more sourcing, but the simple notability of the subject - 21,400 unique hits in google. I actually didn't know this guy existed until I read this, but man, this is the most misguided AfD I have ever seen. --Cerejota 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we go by google hits to determine notability?--Sefringle^Talk 08:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't when it comes to actual contents, but it is used a lot in AfD to specify general notability. However, John Gustaf Agelii, aka Ivan Aguéli, is so notable, a museum is named after him. [1]. As I said, your concern on sources is legitimate, however this doesn't warrant a destructive AfD, but a constructive search for sources.--Cerejota 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is used a lot, and most of the times, it is rejected as invalid evidence.-Not every museum is notable.-Sefringle^Talk 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: All of this is OR, and a one person writeup with no sources whatsoever, so its unencyclopedic. I would have done a Keep if it was only a stub with multiple reliable sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dennisthe2, Consaka and Cerejota; as it's still a stub and needs referencing, but he is clearly notable if he has a museum and so many Ghits. Bearian 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Except the article is not a stub. It iteslf provides no evidence of any notability nor is it verifiable according to WP:V--Sefringle^Talk 01:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep [2] Plenty of sources Giggy _U^CP 02:04, 23 July 2007 (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.