Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikko Välimäki

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 NO CONSENSUS. This is noticeable below a two-thirdsish level and, whilst I'm inclined to give little weight to Zordrac's purely historical points (we should consider the article, not the previous VfD) I can't really see agreement for deletion here. -Splash^talk 01:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mikko Välimäki

Non-notable. Probable vanity. Ifnord 00:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Previously nominated: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mikko Välimäki

• Delete on both counts per nom. If it's fleshed out, with references, and demonstrating notability or notoriety, I reserve the right to change my vote. 147.70.242.21 00:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, needs better sourcing. Cofounder of EFF Finland = notable, I think. Google agrees (65,400 hits.) rodii 01:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, has already survived two attempts to delete March 2005 AfD Log, although it does need expanded. Peyna 02:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain, since I can't decide whether potential (or lack thereof) for expansion makes it worth keeping. Peyna 17:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, he's notable as the co-founder of EFF Finland. — JIP | Talk 08:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Finland has the same population as Miami or Philadelpha. The EFF, while commendable, is just another small NGO. Let's not get carried away because we love the EFF and we love Finland. What is the budget and membership of the Finnish EFF. Surely the co-director of, say, the Rotary Clubs of Eastern Massachusetts would be as notable. And this is his sole claim to fame. Other than that, he's a researcher -- not even a professor. No publications claimed. You know when they start mentioning their hobbies after only three sentences that it's a stretch. The article is over a year old, and the creator has disappeared, so let's face it that this is good as it gets. He's probably even forgotten he wrote the article. For whom are we keeping the article, then? (I see with three Keep votes that article will be retained yet again. Perhaps we should formalize this into a rule -- notability not required if person is associated with the EFF... Herostratus 09:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't buy the population argument. Monaco has less population than Tuusula, yet which is more famous and more notable? Surely an organisation for a whole country is more notable than an organisation for a state within a country? — JIP | Talk 09:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. All things being equal, that would generally be true, I guess. Still its not enough. To expand on my earlier note RE Rotary of Eastern Massachusetts...

1. Is much older than the EFF Finland or EFF as a whole.
2. Covers an area with a larger population than Finland.
3. Surely has many more members and a much bigger budget than EFF Finland.
4. Would probably be more well-known in a random poll of native English speakers (certainly in the US, which forms a signicant sector of that pool; outside the US, I don't know.)
5. Has much more practical activity than EFF Finland. Rotary has a significant charitable presence. They do lots of important things that most people don't notice.

And yet... if someone was nominated whose greatest accomplishment was Co-Director of Rotary Clubs of Eastern Massachusetts... I think we would clearly say: a good career, a fine man, but there's a limit. Herostratus 21:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• If notability depends on the EFF reference, then let someone write up the EFF, and its founder will then get the mention. If the EFF is not notable enough to get its own entry, then what is the justification for retaining a 3-line bio ? Delete, with option to merge into an EFF article. --SockpuppetSamuelson 09:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just another dude. --Ezeu 10:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Normally I'd say to merge this, but since the organisation he's in doesn't have an article, just delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I think Herostratus's argument is compelling. I love the EFF, and I like Finland, but the leader of a group should only get a biography if that leader is known above and beyond the organization. He isn't, and this "biography" is a substub. Geogre 13:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Malformed nomination (did not link to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mikko Välimäki), notable founder of notable org. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I read through the previous AfD (which I found linked from the article's talk page, but should have been included in this nomination, Hipocrite is quite right). It included "keep and expand" - no expansion has taken place. So, a notable person like this, it should be trivially easy to verify that this information is correct and expand it, yes? I did some Googling. His page at the university (where he is listed as a researcher, no indication of whether he's a PhD student, a post-doc or what) is 404. Is he still there? Is it the staff list that's out of date? He has published one book, from a very small publisher, which is also available as PDF and looks like print-on-demand. His own website doesn't count, for verification purposes, obviously. Apart from that I am having a really hard time finding anything in English that allows me to verify most of this entry in the context of the English Wikipedia. I thought I could ask the editors of his entry on the Finnish Wikipedia. There is no such entry. So with all due respect to Hipocrite, and taking due cognisance of the "Professor Test" and other established precedent, I simply can't find out enough about him to persuade me that this entry is verifiable and factual, or that the subject meets any of the usual criteria for inclusion. I stand ready to be persuaded otherwise. - 16:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability is very dubious, difficult to verify as above. Lord Bob 20:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I have read the arguments of the people who have voted "delete" and understood them. I stand by my vote of "keep" but will no longer fight for the article to be kept. If the consensus is "delete", I might have a look at the webpage of EFF Finland and write and article about it, after which I can redirect Mikko Välimäki to it. — JIP | Talk 21:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just started a "long stub" for EFFI. Expansion welcome. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. I'd vote a weak keep, but there's so little information in the article that it really makes little difference. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, although the {expand} notice is well-deserveed. --Aleron235 23:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it was kept before, so keep it now. Why must something be nominated twice? Zordrac 00:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Usually because the flaws which were identified before, and the potential for whose remedy was a key part of the justification for retention previously, have not been remedied. Last time they said keep if expanded, it's not been expanded, so why should anyone expect better this time? But my vote is based on the article itself, not previous votes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 01:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the article is still a useless substub and will never be expanded.  Grue  09:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful stub establishing notability. Kappa 04:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable enough, needs expanding though Otus 19:56, 6 December 2005 (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.