Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3

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 delete, though this closure is not in any way an endorsement of the blatantly incivil behavior shown toward the article creator in this AFD. --Coredesat 04:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Dunin

Stanley Dunin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Stanley Dunin is a non notable aerospace engineer who fails all 6 points of WP:PROF. All scientist have been a part of something, nothing makes him exceptional. Also, being born in Poland moving to the US doesn't make him important by any means. Thousands of people move to the US, nothing makes him stand out. No independent, reliable sources exist to prove he is notable, and notability is not temporary. Simply being named by a Senator does not make you important, or notable. Being a business consultant doesn't make you notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Carbon Monoxide 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Didn't we just do this? And weren't you the nominator then, as well? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • About a month ago. I don't see any difference in doing it again. The article is vastly different, with all of the original research removed. Carbon Monoxide 23:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CO, I'm a little confused--you say it's improved, and yet you nominate for deletion? DGG (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How so? It hasn't improved. All of the OR research was taken out and no independent, reliable sources have been brought to show the article's notability or importance. Carbon Monoxide 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have an opinion on whether to keep or delete, but I'd like to ask: when do we plan to stop wasting time with Dunin-related AfDs? Don't people have something better to do like, say, build the project? Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, most users are rather partial to some zOMG WIKIDRAMA, soapboxing, and waging battles, so unfortuna tely the answer is no. But that doesn't stop you, the user who hates zOMG WIKIDRAMA, soapboxing, and waging battles from writing a few articles. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 00:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• This time a firm delete, as no independent sources attesting to the importance of this individual's contributions have been brought forward in the intervening month. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Close this as last AfD was less than a month ago. This seems to me to be verging on an abuse of the AfD process. If I hadn't have participated in the last debate, I would prob have closed this. WjBscribe 00:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WJBscribe, I would hardly call this abuse of the AfD process. If the last AfD was speedy keep or even keep, sure. But both AfDs have closed with no consensus. Carbon Monoxide 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You wouldn't of course. I think its high time we brought in a proper rule against such repeat nominations though - all it takes is one delete outcome at AfD and articles tend to be gone regardless of the number of times they have been kept previously. It leads to excessive amounts of time spent by people defending articles that would better be spent elsewhere. WjBscribe 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm shocked at your tone. Carbon Monoxide 04:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
      • WJBscribe, I concur that repeat nominations can be abusive, but (particularly in the absence of such a rule) I think a month is sufficient for a no consensus close to be brought back. That's ample time to address sourcing concerns, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not even close to meeting the general notability criteria - the first reference is nothing more than having your name mentioned in a government letter, which doesn't count. The second reference apparently indicate he was part of a major engineering project - ok, but every major project by definition, involves hundreds of staff, so this is meaningless. Lastly he was a consultant on a report - the reference isn't about him, so this again doesn't count. Addhoc 00:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Addhoc. I disagree with the process wonkery going on on this AFD. Consensus can change in less than a month, and this is not an abuse of the "process" at all. Majorly (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources fail to establish any sort of notability as outlined in WP:BIO. Deor 00:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as I believe Dunin's aerospace engineering work to be notable - in particular that he calculated the most fuel efficient manner of launching a geostationary satellite. The sources don't confirm all of this at present but it seems to me a little pointless to delete this article only to probably end up recreating it later when further material is located. This man is not a figment of someone's imagination - he clearly exists, the problem is that the sourcing needs to be improved to more encyclopedic standards. However, the article seems harmless and frankly there are worse ones out there. AfD isn't cleanup. WjBscribe 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has been around for more than a year and a half, and because of the contentiousness surrounding it, I feel sure that extraordinary efforts have been made to find reliable sources. That none have been forthcoming suggests that your "when further material is located" is oversanguine to say the least. Deor 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think now would be an excellent time to find further material. Tim Vickers 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Fails most notability points therefore shouldn't be here. — E ^talk_BAG 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The most rational explanation for the failure to produce sources by this time is that they don't exist. Waiting for them to be produced is thus an inherently indefinite enterprise.Proabivouac 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think relisting is acceptable considering that the last one closed with no consensus, and that extra work has been put into determining the importance of the satellite claim in the meantime (in particular, Talk:Stanley Dunin#Notability of spacecraft guidance work). Even if the "calculated the most efficient..." part can be sourced and re-added, it doesn't appear to be something which has been recognized as a significant contribution, and on current evidence it sounds more like something that he was asked to do as part of the team rather than an important theoretical breakthrough (i.e. an implementation detail that any such project would sort out, as opposed to some pressing theoretical problem that had the field's finest minds stumped). Thomjakobsen 01:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the individual is a notable recipient of the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal and has sourcing to that effect. Yamaguchi先生 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaguchi先生 (talk • contribs)

  Wow, that would be an undisputable reason to keep. However, I am afraid you misunderstood that statement. Harold Rosen received the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal for that work (1982). IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Recipients --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've reworded that sentence to avoid confusion. Tim Vickers 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Working for someone who received a notable award is not notability. In general when I see such a claim in an article I start looking more closely at other claims, as it's a very telling bit of puffery. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The life of this individual is not covered by reliable, independent, available secondary sources. The article thus fails to meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. (sdsds - talk) 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep once again. Article has improved since last afd, even the nominator says so... clear proof of nominators keep listing til I get it deleted mentality.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The nominator did not state that the article has improved per se, but that original research had been removed. Naturally, that's an improvement, but one which also lays bare the fact that no reliable source attests to Mr. Dunin's notability.Proabivouac 06:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable - even more clearly so now that the OR and non verifiable information has been removed. •CHILLDOUBT• 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although the article has improved since the empty sources and the roundabout references to Elonka Dunin have been removed, that still doesn't make this person historically notable. Was this article here just because of Elonka Dunin? Will we remember this person in 100 years? Mindraker 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WJBscribe. I also completely agree that this is abuse of AfD. Tim Q. Wells 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, so trying to form a concensus is an abuse? --Slarti (1992) 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to form a delete "concensus" over and over again like this abuse. Tim Q. Wells 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The other two discussions ended with no concensus (which defaults to keep). I bet if it defaulted to delete you would actually want this discussion. But, of course, defaulting to delete would be absurd so here we are to actually form a concensus. --Slartibartfast1992 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. The abuse has been in the protection of this and related spam. 72.106.196.73 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — 72.106.196.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Preceding comment added by user:Disavian.

Comment - I am traveling, always edit anonymously, and what business of yours is it to purport to tag comments in any case? 72.106.196.73 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because anonymous contributors don't typically get any say at AFD. If you wish your input to be considered for AFD, please consider signing up for an account, it only takes a few minutes.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Their contributing... CO 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the fear is that anonymous IP voters probably will lead to sock-puppeting [1], instead of constructive criticism. I'm not accusing 72.106.196.73 of doing this, but you can easily see how it can be done. Perhaps this article could be boiled down and merged with Elonka Dunin's article, avoiding the whole deletion process? Mindraker 02:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Elonka Dunin's article is the appropriate place for this information. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It was just an idea. I'm quite suspicious of this article being here, for the only reason it might be here is the link to Elonka's claim to royalty -- see: this link surprise, the second sentence is that he is a "Count" -- and it references, surprise, surprise, Elonka's personal web page. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. Mindraker 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a little bit like a personal attack on User:Elonka. Tisk tisk. Also, that link appears to be a mirror wiki; you're just citing an older version of the article in question. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being critical, yes. I'm working on the Dunin disambiguation page and the whole issue of royalty comes into question: see the old version of the page here and the link cited here. It's not the first time that people have used Wikipedia to make claims to royalty, you know. Mindraker 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I came across something similar to Dunin (surname) recently: Griffin (surname). I was somewhat surprised to see such a thorough article about a surname. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (although I have some vague reservations about bringing this back to AfD so soon). The claims to notability made in the article when it was nominated for deletion a month ago were largely debunked over the course of that AfD. I think that shows some value in nominating borderline notable articles for deletion, many of them appear notable because the authors of the articles have puffed them up with over-reaching claims. The article last nominated for deletion claimed achievements for Stanley Dunin more correctly attributed to other people. With those spurious claims now removed from the article, it clearly fails to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Stanley Dunin was a member of a team that put up a satellite, his role and contributions were such that his name does not appear in NASA histories like this, I see no grounds for a claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment On a related note to this discussion, I consider the rarity of engineers on Wikipedia an example of our systemic bias, even though systemic bias is typically portrayed as being overly western and/or academic. I also believe that a month is too soon to hold another deletion discussion, and that there should be a guideline (not a policy) somewhere about how long you should wait before trying again. There's probably already an essay about it somewhere in project space. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Someone was lamenting the scarcity of poets (while defending a NN poet), so I told them to start with Category:Poetry awards and mine for redlinks. Category:Science and engineering awards doesn't have as many as you think (most of the major prizes have 100% bluelinks, which isn't true for poetry) but it does have some. Best start there, with the engineers that other engineers have recognized. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 12:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are also all the members of the National Academy of Engineering. Several hundred, and almost none have a WP page. Membership in the US National academies is generally considered a certain indication of notabilityDGG (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

• Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 11:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am normally very much opposed to rapidly repeated AfDs, but the previous one was no consensus, not keep, and was no consensus in good part because of extraneous factors such as family relationships. Read it--I consider it a travesty. See Dhartung's comments there and here, which I fully support. See what I said there about the nature of the references used then. The AIAA paper that remains cited in the article has him as a junior author--and it has been cited only 7 times in the whole period since 1962. DGG (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Established after much ado as non-notable. Brunonia 14:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Its a damn shame that it took three separate nominations to finally get to the bottom of this, but there is no doubt in my mind that this calculated puff piece was disguised to cheat our notability guidelines. I think good faith has been exhausted here, unfortunately. Burntsauce 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Slarti (1992) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I support the work of Elonka Dunin, and it is really obvious (to me) that some folks on Wikipedia really have it out for her, but on this one article I have to agree, the subject fails the relevant guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira 06:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some do have it out for her. Speaking for myself, I had no problem with User:Elonka (and supported her most recent RfA) until I witnessed - and was ultimately myself the victim of - the hardball tactics to which she resorted to defend this vanity series. Several administrators have carried her water, proxying for her original research and/or threatening, megablocking and irrevocably violating the privacy of users who've attempted to scrutinize these articles. These articles must go for many reasons, but another very good one is to protect editors who mean only to uphold our sourcing policies from the vindictive actions of their creator and her IRC-based allies.Proabivouac 06:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I just don't see notability here, at least not in anyway that is verifiable with reliable sources. Sarah 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nominator and Burntsauce. No offense to anyone but nothing notable here, sorry. Thats just how it is. If its deleted and if anyone finds any non-trivial reliable sources on this, feel free to recreate. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn for Elonka. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
• Delete (as article creator). Life's too short to deal with griefers, let's just delete. Back when I was a new editor in early 2006, I created this article about my father in good faith, about an individual that I felt meets WP:BIO. He was born to Polish nobility, was involved with the launch of a historic satellite, and helped with the cracking of a famous code. After I created this article, per Wikipedia guidelines I asked an uninvolved editor to review it, and they gave it a thumbs up. Now, if I would have just created the article and then never edited Wikipedia after that, it probably never would have been a problem. But because I am an active Wikipedia editor, it seems that some other editors are using this article about my father as a constant target as a way to seek revenge against me for other disagreements on Wikipedia. I've seen editors come in and systematically dismantle the article, removing a sentence here, a paragraph there (yes, even removing sourced information) until they get it down to a stub, and nominate it for deletion again. My 70-year-old father (who really has led a remarkable life and has already overcome incredible odds at even surviving the chaos of World War II) truly doesn't deserve this kind of constant harassment. And to be honest, the information about him doesn't have to be on Wikipedia. I've already got the information in multiple other places on my elonka.com website. If Wikipedia wants to "lose" the data, well, fine, it's Wikipedia's loss (shrug). Let's leave my dad in peace, delete this article, and just move on. --Elonka 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Elonka, removing original research isn't "harassment." Threatening other editors for upholding the sourcing policies, using back channels to get them blocked and their privacy irrevocably violated…that's harassment. Such machinations have de facto banned me from most of the spaces to which I used to productively contribute, brought Matt57 one step away from a formal ban, all to protect these articles from scrutiny. Fact is, Matt57 was right. Many other people are seeing that now. This article will surely be deleted, and if policy is to be upheld, without reference to personal alliances and favoritism, more will follow. But there's nothing you can do, is there, to undo what your IRC friends did to me.Proabivouac 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion isn't about one of the many editors of this article or any past Wikidrama, it is about whether or not this article meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Please do not allow this discussion to move off topic. Tim Vickers 02:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Elonka, please be assured again, this is not about you or revenge or anything, its about: whether the article meets notability criteria. Almost everyone here has said delete in this pretty much extensive discussion and given their reasons especially the nom who laid it out. None of these people had any 'griefing' to do or wanted to take revenge on you. Just for you, I'll withdraw my vote. Please see the opinions of uninvolved editors. I hope you'll be able to see all of this impartially. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have seen much less notable articles that has been kept based on the argument that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". If there is any original research there that Elonka does not verify them, we should keep them out. Many of the humanities majors and their publications are really working based on trust and assumption of good faith on the part of those who collect the data. I haven't checked all the sources closely; others can do. I myself, in my vote, have gone beyond the letter of wikipedia to its spirit. Let's separate this discussion from Proabivouac's case or Matt's case. --Aminz 02:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Elonka and Sarah. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This AFD should not have been re-listed but rather closed on its original nomination page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-noteworthy - also, let's watch the close of this Afd to ensure it reflects policy and indeed consensus this time - no shenanigans. And, Ms. Dunin, your comments above are very touching but at odds with this quote..."Please don't assume that I made this page because I actually like my father" [[2]]. I for one don't even know you, but this gentlemen (who seems very nice and must be quite capable) doesn't meet notability guidelines. A cursory review of your editing shows that you know these policies well. Your remonstration above can be reversed: would you have created this page if the subject was not your dad? I think not. 75.224.244.206 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — User:75.224.244.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.