Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Sklenar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 
14:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vladimir Sklenar
Does not seem notable. Neither the article or the links suggest it, at least to me. I've asked the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry if they know anything about him. Hopefully they will chime in here. It's also only by one, anon, author, in 2003. And unchanged since then. Delete JesseW 07:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Full professor in a country that does give that title easily... Still, it is very hard for the average reader to guage anything from this article—it needs soooo much work, including writing the necessary articles to explain his research interests. I'll go for delete unless substantially improved. Physchim62 11:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete at the moment, but I suspect that the article will be recreated once Wikipedia contains a critical amount of information to properly describe the research interests of this person. --HappyCamper 12:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, please. ~K 15:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. There are plenty of chemistry professors with an article in WikiPedia, who I have never heard of. I can't tell just whether professor Sklenar would be less important than, e.g., John Markoff (professor), William Goldman (professor), David Cain (professor) and Professor Ronald MacDonald and all those others. Wim van Dorst 21:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC).
- Comment Ug. Well, the idea of Wikipedia is that you should be able to tell they are important, that's the point of requiring notablity. However, this article is clearly no more clear about notablity than any of those. I don't know whether to vfd all of them, or change my vote on this one to keep. Ug. On the other hand, its better to know; so, thanks so much! ;-) JesseW 00:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- That is not the idea of wikipedia, and neither is "notability". Wikipedia is a collaboration, and editors should be able to add significant information without having to jump through hoops to prove how "notable" everything is. Kappa 06:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Ug. Well, the idea of Wikipedia is that you should be able to tell they are important, that's the point of requiring notablity. However, this article is clearly no more clear about notablity than any of those. I don't know whether to vfd all of them, or change my vote on this one to keep. Ug. On the other hand, its better to know; so, thanks so much! ;-) JesseW 00:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, full professor, per Phsychim62 assessment. Kappa 23:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep if expanded. Some notability. JamesBurns 09:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Being a chemist in itself doesn't cut it. If the article is expanded and shows why exactly this guy deserves mention in an encyclopedia any more than the next guy I might change my vote. -R. fiend 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I met the guy at a conference. He contributed a lot, but not anything of encyclopaedic magnitude. --62.254.128.5 21:42, 29 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
