Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel George Cefai (2nd nomination)

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 delete. I will delete this, for all the right reasons, and salt it (ditto). I'm tempted to cite the lead of the article here as an example of how not to write a biography. As for the deletion: there are no valid arguments presented here for keeping this. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel George Cefai[edit]

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

Non-notable; a poem hosting site and his personal site are not reliable sources JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to slowly build this article and link it to other relevant material on wikipedia, however I need time to do so. It would go much faster if I were not constantly accused of a number of infringements to policy which I then need to look up and address each time before moving on. I appreciate the help other users have given thus far but ask that my contributions are given time to fully comply with all policies. Suntrax south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntrax south (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) turn up no evidence that this person meets the notability criteria and no reason to overturn the previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Non-notable crank philosopher. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not treat Dr Cefai in an unfair way. Go Dr Cefai’s site at Weebly.com read his scientific articles; go to Poem Hunter Com read his poems and see each day how much his poetry is read as well as the comments made by third parties on the site on Dr Cefai’s works; please go to Academia.edu and read scientific papers by Dr Cefai; then form your judgment whether the papers are land mark papers, whether the poetry of Dr Cefai is great and please check whether in recent times almost everyday Dr Cefai’s poetry is more widely read on PoemHunter.Com than poets as Leopardi, Holderlin, Ronsard, Virgil and others; and then conclude whether Dr Cefai is notable or not.

Also please compare Dr Cefai’s works with any other works by any Maltese intellectuals who are shown on Wikipedia without any difficulty. The only problem that I personally see with Dr Cefai is that he is so much an intellectual all rounder and head and shoulders above any other Maltese (if not Latin) intellectual that it will require a very long and deep study of his works, their import and significance and therefore I have to take a long time to conclude my article on Dr Cefai which I also feel I will have to adjust from time to time as Dr Cefai publishes more and more of his landmark works.

May I kindly ask you to consider well and retain permanently on the Wikipedia site the excerpts placed in scientific articles in Wikipedia all reporting faithfully what is written so far in the papers so far published by Dr Cefai. I feel also that the readers of Wikipedia should not be deprived from knowing about any of the ideas or works of Dr Cefai. This applies as well to any scientific proposal, Principle enunciation or other work put forth in Dr Cefai’s scientific papers. Please kindly let these references appear in the respective articles in Wikipedia; then it is up to anybody who is competent to correct, contradict, criticize or in any way adjust what is uploaded even against or near each respective upload and in writing. But I feel that Wikipedia readers should definitely be allowed to hear Dr Cefai’s position, then each one will judge for himself or herself. As already said all corrections, criticisms or any other adjustments are welcome. Suntrax south — Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Suntrax south (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. I don't see anything in all of the Google resources, except a pointer to his PoemHunter user page. I regret that Suntrax south interprets the trend here as being undair to Dr Cefai, but without reliable, disinterested sources, there is no way to write an objective article on him. Perhaps there are other sources we have missed? Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Suntrax_south you wrote:

Go Dr Cefai’s site at Weebly.com read his scientific articles ... and then conclude whether Dr Cefai is notable or not

but that is not how Wikipedia works. Here notability is determined by the coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Not editors' conclusions, not the writings of the subject themselves. You should read the policies concerned, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as they describe the policies in detail. They are core policies of Wikipedia. All articles should be able to satisfy them, and need to do so if challenged, especially biographical articles on living people.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suntrax_south All ideas once expressed and once that they are not copied from any other person/s and have not been expressed by any other person before are equal in worth, equal in intellectual worth. Whether such ideas are those of an Einstein or of Dr Cefai does not matter. In Science and indeed in all civilization today the trend is that all new original ideas are equal in worth and that any ‘superiority’ of any one idea or set of ideas over the others is ‘myth’ and is relative. In the spirit of the above, Wikipedia should amend its policies and immediately so : ideas do not depend for their intrinsic intellectual worth on what others say including peers in peer-review processes but on what the ideas themselves say. Please dear Wikipedians wake up to the call of this important principle not just in Science or Literature or Philosophy but in all civilization. Otherwise with the ‘blocking’ ‘deleting’ of Dr Cefai you will unfortunately have blocked out from Wikipedia readers a part however small of Civilization. That is not fair to the Wikipedia readers themselves and recalls events a la Van Gogh in respect of Dr Cefai too. Suntrax_south 19:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No sources independent of the subject have been identified. I think the long-term persistence of the article creator in spamming Wikipedia with this material (after a past AfD and two G4 speedy deletions) makes page protection necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse the and salt. When I nominated it I didn't realise until the software made this the 2nd nomination that it had been AfDed before. Until the above comment I didn't bother checking the log to see the other times it's been deleted. Salting will stop this time wasting once and for all (unless someone comes up with proper sources for this article, but that seems extremely unlikely after several years to do so).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that the original article had been done without a thorough knowledge or enough experience of Wikipedia's purpose and, most importantly, regulations. The decision to delete it was perfectly right, and that is precisely what I have done. Not by eliminating the page entirely but by modifying the article from top to bottom. For all its worth, I hope that, in its present form, the article is now acceptable. Of course, I suggest that it is removed from the earmarked list of articles for deletion as now I see this resolution to be unnecessary.

If I may add a further comment, I submit that a page on Emmanuel George Cefai is worth keeping on Wikipedia. I am quite conscious of Wikipedia's extensive rules regarding Notability. Nevertheless, since Cefai is already somewhat published and has external references to Wikipedia itself, I think that there is some significance in having an article on the subject. --Katafore (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.