|
|
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 3
|
Purge server cache
- 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 keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW and because this is getting seriously off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- David Linden (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertation of notability. Sources aren't reliable substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
QUESTIONS Okay, hammer... got some questions for you here:
- how exactly do the statements "...professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, and the author of The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God,..." and then "... The book ... recently received a silver medal in the category of Science from The Independent Publisher Association ..." not qualify as an assertion of notability? Not notable enough? Maybe. But the notability is definitely asserted.
- How exactly is Harvard University Press not a reliable source?
- How exactly is The American Physiological Society not a reliable source?
- How exactly is Slate Magazine not a reliable source?
- How exactly is Newsweek not a reliable source?
Please address these issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- There're, like, a million of those Independent awards. Is this one notable? Also, the Newsweek article simply references him; it's not actually about him. I'm not seeing anything really substantial in the sources; they're reliable indeed but not substantial. My main concern was the {{notability}} tag placed by someone else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if that particular award is notable or not, and that can certainly be discussed... but the article claims that it is notable, so the article itself does claim notabiliy, so the article does have an "assertation of notability". The real argument (as I'm understanding it) is that the subject is not notable, not that the article does not assert notability. They are related, but different.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep appears clearly notable -- article needs work however that is no reason to delete it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the Newsweek article is not about Dr. Linden; it is, however, about his book and his book only. That seems material to this discussion. Scooge (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete - the sources we have don't quite establish notability. Harvard University Press and the American Physiological Society aren't independent of the subject, the Slate and Newsweek articles aren't about Linden. Newsweek is the best of them, but to me it isn't quite enough to make him satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Huon (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Curious how is Harvard University Press not independent of the subject?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Change to keep - the citation info is enough to clearly let him pass WP:PROF. Harvard University Press is the publisher of his book, though - I wouldn't call information distributed by a publisher about one of its books "independent of the author" for purposes of notability. Huon (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe the nominator is looking at it from the wrong perceptive. Concerning Dr. Linden as an author, you can possibly make a case with regards to not meeting Notability standards. However, as a candidate for inclusion under academic guidelines, as shown by the blue link, Dr. Linden does meet our standards as shown here by Google Scholar [6]. ShoesssS Talk 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --if I'm allowed a vote (I started the entry--does that mean I should recuse myself?). I'm afraid that when I compiled the list of Linden's writings, I left off the Science publication, which was careless of me.Scooge (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep articles about someone's book are sufficient to show the notability of the author, and in any case he meets the requirement of WP:PROF. I can't tell what the nom is actually objecting to. DGG (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep of course. Major university prof, editor in chief of a journal, etc.... John Z (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Extremely well-cited academic (I have added citation data to the article). The article is not very good though and should be pared down. Especially the large quotes from Newsweek and Slate should be reduced or deleted. J. Neurophysiol. should have its own article, respected journal with an impact factor of 3.684. In any case, obvious notability. --Crusio (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per JohnZ and Crusio. Impressive citation results in GoogleScholar[7]. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep/snow Here's a hint, if someone can make the claim that " the American Physiological Society is not sufficiently independent of the subject" without having to stifle a laugh, the subject is probably notable. :) Protonk (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read that source? He's their journal's editor. As with Harvard University Press as the publisher of his book, I wouldn't call their bio of their new editor as independent of him for the purpose of notability. Or would you argue that every company's bios of their employees confer notability? Huon (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Right. I'm afraid I wasn't clear. If he is the editor of the journal for the American Physiological Society, you can bet your bottom dollar he meets WP:PROF. That doesn't mean the APS is an independent source. Also, a publisher's bio IS considered independent insofar as the publisher itself (HUP) is independent. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- keep Clearly over the bar of WP:PROF, h-index over 40, and per Crusio, DGG, Nsk92, etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Probably not the place to ask this, but I will anyway: if the decision was to keep the article, when does the flag get removed from the top of the page? Also, I did make an attempt at streamlining those too-long quotes and improving the article, so I'm wondering whether a few of the "this thing sucks" flags might be removed as well at some point. Is there a template for "this article only slightly sucks?" How about "the article sucks only moderately?" (Okay, okay--I'll get my ego back out of this. But I'm still curious as to how the process works from this point forward.)Scooge (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is a fine place to ask that. If you go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, you will find a brief explanation. The idea is that MOST cases run 5 days. That number is set to limit debate on contentious issues but to allow time for problems to be fixed. If a debate trends off in one direction, the AfD may be closed early by an administration (or very rarely a non-admin). This article will probably not run the full five days, but it may. The "flag" (they are called templates) will be removed by the administrator who does the closing. Does that answer your question? Protonk (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm removing the {{notability}} tag from the article, as it seems from the above discussion and from the more recently added sources that Linden's notability is pretty clearly established in the article. I originally added the notability tag shortly after the page was created; the article has been greatly improved since then. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- But there's still a little broom up there, and a "citations needed" note. I'm hoping those will eventually go away, or I might be forced to go find a life somewhere else. I hear that watching reruns of old Star Trek episodes is a fine way to do that . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- :) Well, it does still require cleanup. There is a guide on how to write better biographies. As I can see, the sources need to be cleaned up (no bare links), the prose needs to be tweaked, and the "writings" section needs to be clarified. but, if you need to take a break, you can do that for free. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Somehow the source lists scare me, since on one article I worked on the numbers refused to correlate properly, and in another the reference list just didn't appear at all. I suspect the footnote system of being out to get me.
I guess a "bare link" is all those "external links" that don't refer specifically to Linden's writings? So that means I must master the footnote system. You know, my husband has been trying to tell me for years that I'm not perfect, and I've . . . resisted this bizarre idea. But it could be that the spouse is onto something . . . You're right: Shatner break. Scooge (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Okay--that was GREAT. I was alllowed to watch ST when I was 7-8 because a colleague of my mom's said it was good. I think she must have been dating this guy, because a year later it was just TELEVISION (bad). So I don't remember much, except for all the stuff one hears second-hand (cf. Monty Python and the Rocky Horror Picture Show).
So where do I get more free ST--or, possibly even better, a recording of Shatner singing "Rocket Man"? I've heard that that is wonderful.
Furthermore, why is Shatner so YOUNG in Star Trek? I mean, he's, like, barely legal. Sexy, but almost creepy. Is it some sort of makeup effect? Scooge (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- You want creepy, see how much they gel the lens on every female costar. As for bare link I mean this: [8] versus Google.com. If we are citing websites in an article we can use the {{cite web}} template. You don't HAVE to, but I like them. If you don't want to do that (or there isn't enough info about the source to do that), you can write a web citation like this:
-
- Geanakoplos, John (2001) Three Brief Proofs of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem at IDEAS. Accessed on 2008-07-05
-
- Again, nothing will be perfect. This is a wiki, so perfection isn't expected. Protonk (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I'm a fact-checker, so I CAN do this. I just hate doing it without being able to bill at some obscenely-low English-major rate. And, as previously indicated, I abhor imperfection. (Proofreading background + 46-year-old eyes = imperfection. No exceptions.)
As far as ST is concerned--and I'm going to Comic-Con this year for weird spouse-related reasons--I have the following concerns: (1) Aren't the women's uniforms just a TAD impractical? (2) Which color shirt is it that guarantees death? Is it blue? (3) Are there teensy hints of Takai's homosexuality in that first episode? Or am I imagining it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes.
- Red
- You're imagining it.
Protonk (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- (I'm just guessing on how many asterisks I need, here--totally in the dark. Making it up as I go along.)
1) Are there ANY long-term ST crew members who wear red? Because in episode, #1, we had a few blue-guys die. Also, how frequently does Kirk wear that sexy V-cut shirt? (As I understand it, Shatner is obligated to lose his shirt entirely in 99% of episodes, just as Chuck Norris needs to lose his gun once per movie. Life, like a sonnet, does have its rules, after all. Not for me, but for others.)
2) How frequently do female crewmembers die in ST, and does uniform-color bear any correlation to this statistic?
3) Sorry, but I still think Sulu comes off a bit light on his loafers. it could be that I'm the victim of prejudice.Scooge (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4) I'm sorry but I'd like a color for engineering-smock stats. Is that those sort of maintenance uniforms that people wear? Might I assume that there are zero chicks in such outfits? And, while we are on the subject, what color did Scottie wear?
I hate to sound like an idiot, but . . . it's truth in advertising!Scooge (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The coloring was in flux throughout TOS. The pilot (for example) is totally different from the rest of season 1 and seasons 2/3 are diff from season 1. Female characters die much less often (usually the ones that die are found on planets, wooed and discarded). Sulu may seem light in his loafers but this is probably a "confirmation bias". We know the actor is gay so any "gay" mannerisms we might see in the character are amplified. Keep in mind that in the 1960's it was shocking to have a black man and a white woman kiss. Most actors, writers and directors who were gay did not come out of the closet and there are VERY few gay characters in film or television before the 1980's. Engineering smocks were red in TOS, but not always. "Science" was supposed to be blue, but if I remember correctly, there were a few episodes where engineering people wore blue coveralls (rather than smocks). But red is the best bet. Scottie wore red more often than other colors, but almost all the characters changed shirt color over the series. Protonk (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- We actually have an article on redshirts. Huon (talk) 17:50, 5 July 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.
| | | |
