Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul DeMaine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 to delete, defaults to keep. Bongwarrior (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul DeMaine

Paul DeMaine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article asserts notability but does not show it. Unless notability is shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. The person in question did indeed exist. He rcvd the German vonHumboldt award, which some consider not much less than a Nobel. His work was done largely before the Internet. If the only way you idiots can determine a fact is to Google it, you need to learn the word "library." I note the article has been defaced as well.
  • Comment. While I haven't quite sided with "delete" yet, the incredible paucity of ghits on this guy, combined with the complete absence of incoming links to his page in any substantive context brings me to question the truthfulness of this article. Specifically, I question the importance of his work, as presented in the article, which is the primary assertion of notability therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Re the truthfulness of the article: a Google scholar search indicates that this person did exist and publish academically in some of the areas listed in the article. It also doesn't show a lot of impact for his work. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notabiliuty crops up. --Crusio (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both ghits and google scholar are not relevant for someone who did his work in the 1960s. DGG (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem is that google may well be the only reasonable method of testing it. If he is notable thanks to his work (as his article asserts without providing a single source), there will be reliable sources on him. Those sources are apparently not published on the internet, so...what? The only thing left would be to go through as many libraries and newspaper archives as we could find until satisfying ourselves that the sources don't exist. Proving non-notability is nearly impossible for pre-internet anything. But when no sources are provided or apparent, I think erring on the side of delete is quite reasonable. Someguy1221 (talk)
  • Comment. The truly notable computer scientists of the 1960s have citation records that still look notable in Google scholar today, because it includes the back issues of many important older CS journals and conferences. Try comparing, for instance, the Google scholar results of Sheila Greibach, and you'll see a big difference to the results from DeMaine. I'm not arguing that DeMaine's article should be deleted for being not as notable as Greibach, only that I think Google scholar negative results from that time frame may still be meaningful in the absence of any other contradicting information. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 03:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - While I believe that DGG has a point, the other points brought up are more persuasive. I have spent the last 10 minutes trying various searches ... I even tried finding an obituary (which should be found in 1999). Nothing. I think lacking WP:V, this article should go until something turns up. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per User:DGG below. Some of the searches turn up portions of papers, as well as a document showing he was chair of academic conference. I tried "De Mayne" and "De Maine" .... third one would have been the charm. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As noted, source do not appear to exist. Due dilligence has been done using all reasonably availible resources to find references, and none have been found. As has been noted on various places, it is the responsibility of those voting keep to provide sources. Those voting delete have looked everywhere they could, which is above and beyond the call of duty, and STILL can't find them. People who have voted delete can't provide non-references that do not exist to back up their arguements. If sources can't be found, they can't be found. I see no evidence from the article that the sources are likely to exist in print form, and unless someone somewhere provides those sources, Wikipedia should not have an unreferencable article on this person. If print sources are produced after the article has been deleted, then the article can be recreated, or restored via WP:DRV. However, we can't assume references exist if no one can find them. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
what is found there does seem to be sufficient to show importance in the field. DGG (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Struck through prior vote. After picking through the google search provided by Shawis under the new spellings, reliable sources clearly exist. The article should probably be moved to the name "Paul de Maine" or "Paul A.D. de Maine" as those appear to be how he spells his name. The misspelling of the current article is what appears to have led to the confusion over the lack of sources. Good work Shawis! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: absence from google scholar et al. would not be evidence of absence of notability for somebody working in the 1960 and 70s; but his presence there (e.g. this, or this) clearly shows *some* notability - although his importance in the field seems to be somewhat over-egged in the article as it now stands. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I'm still not convinced. It is difficult to find much impact from his work, and the article itself doesn't demonstrate any. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (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.