Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin

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 of the debate was no consensus. — Fire Fox 11:43, 28 May '06

Stanley Dunin[edit]

Kind of iffy. This is all that Google turns up.[1] The St. Louis dispatch article is about his daughter. The few non-Wikipedia Google matches are from a personal website run by his daughter. Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nod Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Check the references on the page. Among other things, Dunin has been listed in St. Louis Post-Dispatch as being part of the team that cracked a famous code,[2], and the AIAA website [3] , as well as scholar.google.com[4], confirm his papers. Further, the biographies on the papers can confirm his work history (feel free to request them and check for yourself). Just because something isn't on Google, doesn't mean it's unreferenced. --Elonka 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and also appears to be vanity page created by his daughter user Elonka who voted above. --Tom 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note a big problem with this article is that it seems to mostly consist of Original Research. Although, considering it was written by the subject's daughter, its accuracy is not questioned, but the verifiability of the content is. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete Well-written article, but I couldn't find anything that convinced me that it passed WP:BIO. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep After receiving this message, I decided that Stanley fell into the range of my "inclusioninst" side such that I needed to change my vote. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems just notable enough to make it. I don't think the author's relation to the subject is enough to deem it a vanity page. GassyGuy 03:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has some academic publications, and been mention, on and off Wiki, in various articles. Notable enough in my inclusionist book.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written, it doesn't seem to violate anything. Looks notable enough to have a wikipedia page. --rewtguy 03:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per OhNoitsJamie. Olessi 18:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no assertion of notability. If the author would include reference to some of the "academic publications" which Piotrus refers to above, I'd abstain. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per GassyGuy. //Halibu tt 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Major argument for inclusion appears to be membership of Polish nobility. Since this is about 10% of the population of Poland, this does not consistitute notability. Septentrionalis 03:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other elements were his academic publications, plus the fact that he was the head of the astrodynamics section on a NASA project, which launched the world's first geosynchronous communications satellite. I should probably rewrite the first paragraph to make that clear. --Elonka 19:18, 26 May 2006 (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.