Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhas Mitra (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:45, 23 July 2018

Abhas Mitra

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:PROF. Previous AfD was done before the standards were established. This is a WP:FRINGEBLP that seems to have slipped in early on and wasn't properly vetted as a biography. Having unique ideas does not give the subject a lock on notability. jps (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Citations, credited to his work, well over 1000+, as shown here at Google Scholar, [1]. Additional coverage by Quartz and Times of India as recently as March 2018 and shown here under a Google News search, [2] and of course not to mentioned the other sources mentioned in that search. Are we sure he doesn’t meet our current standards? ShoesssS ^Talk 19:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A simple check of the citations find that they are to a walled garden of WP:FRINGE theorists such as Rudy Schild. They do not confer WP:NFRINGE. Qz of India and Times of India aren't exactly stellar science journalist publications. jps (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Just a reminder, we just do not take the pieces and parts of Fringe theories to make a point that fits our ideology, but reference the whole policy, as shown above, to give a full picture. You forgot to also show; “…Creation science and Intelligent design – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it among groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.” As stated in 3.1.1 Examples. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or guideline which states that only scientific journals are reliable sources. Quite the opposite, in fact. If we required every article to only be sourced to scientific journals, 99% of Wikipedia would be gone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-cited and easily meets WP:GNG. Whether or not the article topic is WP:BLPFRINGE is irrelevant to this discussion. All that matters is that the article's topic has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources which it does. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just false. The third-party sources are poor quality indeed. jps (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Nature is a trash rag.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Times of India article is brief but it's an article from a good reliable source which focuses on the subject. I am not qualified to comment on his theories, but I don't think that's the point. Seems to pass GNG pretty easily. Tigerboy1966 20:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Seems to fail [[WP:PROF]]. Previous AfD was done before the standards were established. This is a [[WP:FRINGEBLP]] that seems to have slipped in early on and wasn't properly vetted as a ''biography''. Having unique ideas does not give the subject a lock on notability. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' – Citations, credited to his work,  well over '''1000+''', as shown here at [[Google Scholar]], [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22Abhas+Mitra%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47].  Additional  coverage by [[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]] and [[Times of India]] as recently as March 2018 and shown here under a [[Google News]] search, [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Abhas+Mitra%22&tbm=nws&ei=byVWW5SuJsyvggfTsISYDQ&start=0&sa=N&biw=1745&bih=875&dpr=1.1] and of course not to mentioned the other sources mentioned in that search.  Are we sure he doesn’t meet our current standards?  <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:Shoessss|'''S'''''hoesss'''''S''']] <sup>[[User talk:Shoessss|''Talk'']]</sup></span> 19:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 ::A simple check of the citations find that they are to a walled garden of [[WP:FRINGE]] theorists such as [[Rudolph Schild|Rudy Schild]]. They do not confer [[WP:NFRINGE]]. Qz of India and Times of India aren't exactly stellar science journalist publications. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
+::'''Comment'''-Just a reminder, we just do not take the pieces and parts of [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|Fringe theories]] to make a point that fits our ideology, but reference the whole policy, as shown above, to give a full picture.  You forgot to also show; “…[[Creation science]] and [[Intelligent design]] – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it among groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.” As stated in 3.1.1 Examples. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:Shoessss|'''S'''''hoesss'''''S''']] <sup>[[User talk:Shoessss|''Talk'']]</sup></span> 23:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 :::There is no policy or guideline which states that only scientific journals are [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].  Quite the opposite, in fact.  If we required every article to only be sourced to scientific journals, 99% of Wikipedia would be gone.  [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' The article is well-cited and easily meets [[WP:GNG]].  Whether or not the article topic is [[WP:BLPFRINGE]] is irrelevant to this discussion.  All that matters is that the article's topic has received significant coverage in third-party [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] which it does.  [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)