User talk:SilkTork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Edmund Blair Leighton - A flaw in the title.jpg


I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

To suppress the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; } to your personal CSS.

To suppress site notices add #siteNotice { display:none; } to your personal CSS.

To suppress the MediaViewer follow these instructions

Use {{Reflist|30em}} instead of {{Reflist|2}}

Deletion decision re: B. S. Daya Sagar[edit]

Hi, Silk Tork, I am contacting you regarding your recent decision to retain the article on B. S. Daya Sagar following a deletion discussion that you ended with "no consensus" with the final outcome hinging on the subject's membership in the Royal Geographical Society. I decided to do some follow-up research on the RGS, in particular their fellowship program, and wanted to share my findings with you. According to the RGS website, "Application for Fellowship is open to anyone, based in the UK or overseas, over the age of 21 who can demonstrate a sufficient involvement in geography or allied subject through training, professional work, research, publications or other work of a similar nature, or not less than five years continuous commitment to the Society as an Ordinary Member at the discretion of Council." It goes on to state that membership requires nomination by an existing fellow, or that a person can submit evidence of their work to the society directly for consideration, and then on the application itself there is a minimum fee of ₤114 to be become a fellow if you pay by Direct Debit (slightly more if you pay by cheque, credit card, or debit card). All of this means that it looks to me like "fellowship" at the RGS is mostly a device for the organization to collect money rather than a signifier of notability worthy of Wikipedia's attention (such as are "fellowships" in many other organizations, Fullbright, etc.). If this rings true for you as well, do you think it might be worthwhile for me to renominate for deletion? If not, then please let me know how all this strikes you. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 02:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I also have concerns about the suitability of the fellowship as an indicator of notability for the reasons you state, and wondered if there should be a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) and on Category talk:Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society regarding the fellowship's status. However, it's worth saying that in my close I also took into account DGG's comments which rely on other criteria. As it stands I don't think there is sufficient clarity regarding the subject's notability - it's not a clear yes or no, and I'm not sure without additional information that a new AfD would be worthwhile. This article is fairly borderline; we could be spending our efforts better on more obviously non-notable subjects, and/or on making the notability guidelines clearer. Perhaps a line in WP:Prof that says that subscription fellowships, such as the RGS one, are explicitly not evidence of notability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
SilkTork I spent around 1 hour in discovering the person over Internet and failed to find the independent references. I was looking for the answers, like "what" all notable things i.e. work done by the subject. In-fact the work(s) done and the awards won by the subject is very common and you will find nearly millions of people with similarity in republic of India itself. This subject simply does not meets the notability criteria for academics as well as GNG. — CutestPenguinHangout 15:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand that you feel this person does not meet our notability criteria. Others felt he did meet the criteria. In such situations where there is sufficient doubt we default to No consensus, and the article is kept. The matter can be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review, though you would need to say why you felt my close was inappropriate, rather than why you feel the subject is non-notable. Deletion Review is not a second chance at AfD. You can renominate the article for AfD for that - though it is generally frowned upon to simply open a new AfD soon after a closed one simply because you disagree with the outcome; there would need to be fresh information. If you feel I may have misread consensus, or not taken into account pertinent comments made, then that would be an appropriate use of Deletion Review. Though if you brought those to my attention first, then I would be happy to relook. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Comment left. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)