Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroshi Araki
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiroshi Araki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't cite any sources or make a particular claim of notability. A "team sub-leader" at Japan's space agency. There may be foreign language sources, but prod was contested twice (I didn't notice the first one due to non-standard edit summary) and still no sources were added. Gigs (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the looseness of the "notability" criteria has already been noted earlier. This said, I don't mind the deletion as long a redirect is left in place to List_of_miscellaneous_minor_planet_discoverers#Hiroshi_Araki. Urhixidur (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and also put in some links. SilverserenC 03:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even with the addition of a large number of external links that mention the subject in passing, I don't see sufficient notability to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found no difficulty adding a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has made a noteworthy published discovery in his field. Honestly now. Why would Wikipedia, which strives to be a complete encyclopedia, not list as much information about scientists as possible? Every pop star and porn star gets their own article, but not scientists who have made a notable discovery? And he has news mention for things besides the two asteroids. [1] Dream Focus 05:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The subject's (now) sourced astronomical discoveries have become part of the historical record in his field, and show him as notable per guideline. That no one added sources until now, would have been a reason to do so, not to nominate per WP:NOEFFORT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My nomination was not per WP:NOEFFORT. I could not locate any sources of significant secondary coverage. It's nice that some coverage has been located now, but I did look. There's over 100,000 numbered asteroids. "Discovering" one of these is not a notable event for someone working at a space agency. Gigs (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did not mean to have you think I was chastising you, as I do understand that you may have had difficulties in trying to see if a scientist would have headlines or coverage that could meet the GNG... but I also accept that WP:N and WP:BIO allow other means for determining notability. I was only responding to your nomination statement that no sources had been added since the de-prodding. As for your opinion that with there being thousands of discovered asteroids, his discovery must then be less notable... well, that would seem to belong in a discussion about changing WP:ANYBIO, as "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" seems clear to me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misreading what that means. It doesn't mean "anything that's recorded in a logbook". You can ask about it on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Gigs (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am only reading "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" for exactly what it says. I can only conclude that that particlular choice of words for WP:ANYBIO was arrived after many other editors debated the phrase, and so am respecting their consensus by honoring that phrase as it is written, and not as I or someone else might want it to otherwise intend. If you think it says something other than what it clearly states, you are free yourself to begin discussions elewhere changing that guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a footnote for that criterion, which begins, "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." It already clearly states something other than what you are asserting. You should read the footnote in full. Gigs (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, yes... it would have been prudent to have offered the entire footnote, as it is set to encourage seaches, not to limit them, and thus uses only politicians and actors as examples, making no mention of scientists. However, this individual is now "part of the enduring historical record"... and has been pointed out by others above, has been written about for other things, thank you. Is is also to be noted that guidelines such as WP:BIO's section WP:ACADEMIC grants that "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources"... which seems to indicate that even without meeting the GNG, a scientist can be determined as notable.... even if only in Japan. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a footnote for that criterion, which begins, "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." It already clearly states something other than what you are asserting. You should read the footnote in full. Gigs (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am only reading "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" for exactly what it says. I can only conclude that that particlular choice of words for WP:ANYBIO was arrived after many other editors debated the phrase, and so am respecting their consensus by honoring that phrase as it is written, and not as I or someone else might want it to otherwise intend. If you think it says something other than what it clearly states, you are free yourself to begin discussions elewhere changing that guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misreading what that means. It doesn't mean "anything that's recorded in a logbook". You can ask about it on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Gigs (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did not mean to have you think I was chastising you, as I do understand that you may have had difficulties in trying to see if a scientist would have headlines or coverage that could meet the GNG... but I also accept that WP:N and WP:BIO allow other means for determining notability. I was only responding to your nomination statement that no sources had been added since the de-prodding. As for your opinion that with there being thousands of discovered asteroids, his discovery must then be less notable... well, that would seem to belong in a discussion about changing WP:ANYBIO, as "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" seems clear to me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My nomination was not per WP:NOEFFORT. I could not locate any sources of significant secondary coverage. It's nice that some coverage has been located now, but I did look. There's over 100,000 numbered asteroids. "Discovering" one of these is not a notable event for someone working at a space agency. Gigs (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 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.