Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 01:21, 24 October 2007 (delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:21, 24 October 2007 by Elonka (talk | contribs) (delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Stanley Dunin

AfDs for this article:
Stanley Dunin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Trying to form a delete "concensus" over and over again like this abuse. Tim Q. Wells 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
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 , 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 (/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 (/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 Misplaced Pages 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 (/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 Misplaced Pages 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 (/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 (/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 Misplaced Pages 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 23:07, 23 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages after that, it probably never would have been a problem. But because I am an active Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. I've already got the information in multiple other places on my elonka.com website. If Misplaced Pages wants to "lose" the data, well, fine, it's Misplaced Pages's loss (shrug). Let's leave my dad in peace, delete this article, and just move on. --Elonka 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories: