Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takaaki Musha

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 delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Takaaki Musha

Takaaki Musha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This person does not appear to be notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: publishing is what academics do, so in itself this does not make this person notable. In most countries, one cannot even obtain a PhD without publishing in international peer-reviewed journals. Question is whether these publications had any impact. --Crusio (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: From what's in the article, it's not clear he passes WP:PROF with flying colors. Is this the major notable accomplishments or is there more out there? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Lots of sources, seems to assert notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Not notable to me but then no one in the said category would be. Seems real enough.--Him and a dog 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there is some verifiable discussion of him somewhere (as opposed to simple references to papers by him). Dekimasuよ! 11:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete According to Google Scholar, his most-cited article was cited a paltry three times. That is very far from impressive.... --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable engineer working on a barely-notable pseudoscience topic. Lest anyone think he might pass WP:PROF, let's look at his publications: "Physics Essays" is not peer-reviewed. "Electric Spacecraft Journal" and "Infinite Energy" are non-academic fringe newsletters. "Speculations in Science and Technology" was a semi-mainstream journal (now defunct) that acknowledged, editorially, that its articles were probably mostly wrong but that it saw value in publishing creative speculation. "Journal of Theoretics" is held in two university libraries; "Electrogravitics II" is a book, found in two university libraries and two public libraries---any mainstream journal you can think of, no matter how obscure the field, is held in a hundred or so libraries. What's left? One engineering article and one conference proceedings? Forget about WP:PROF, this would fail WP:Grad_Student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm gub (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, ArXiV papers (xxx.lanl.gov or arxiv.org) are preprints and not peer-reviewed. (Sorry, forgot to sign above.) Bm gub (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - does not appear to fulfill the general notability requirements of WP:Prof, if there is more information out there about him, put it in and lets re-evaluate. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Minor work in non-generally accepted journals. Non notable fringe science. the only paper at all likely to be cited , in Speculations... , was apparently not cited at all, according to Web of Science. (btw, arXiv is in some cases increasingly considered sufficient publication; there is some minimal editorial control --but the paper in there was by someone else.) DGG (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Publications in scientific journals are typical for engineers and scientists and are insufficient to establish notability without other significant achievements. Pburka (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
not quite; the way scientists become notable is by publishing scientific papers that are referred to by other scientists--its like saying that baseball players dont become notable by playing baseball. (In this case, o fcourse, there arent enough papers, and nobody's every referred to them). DGG (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. What I meant to say was that publication on its own isn't notable -- that's just part of the job. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that additional acheivements do not seem to be forthcoming, delete as not meeting the requirements of WP:PROF. Though I wanna read the guidelines for WP:Grad_Student, just to know what's on them. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:37, 10 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.