Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Herschel

Add links
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 delete. JForget 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Herschel

Wayne Herschel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. An exact google search turns up 365 hits, almost all of which are blogs, or translations of blogs, or page relating to Dan Brown (because of the title of a book). Most of the references are self-published and the page was created by someone close to Herschel (and has been edited by SPAs since). Looking at the talkpage I see this could be a controversial nom, and the page looks good, but I don't believe the

effort merits keeping it. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Given the off-wiki attempt to vote stack, and the admission of AstronomerPHD that he would use sock/meat puppets to circumvent any blocks I would also endorse the page being SALT-ed. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO, self-published book and got some publicity in some very minor and fringe sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - Same as Cameron Scott only adding to this that we can not confirm publication in key (fringe) sources as their online content does not include any reference to Herschel.Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223 you know that this what we agreed at the last
cabal meeting. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The shadowy cabal that want to misrepresent Herschel as claiming to invent the wheel?Simonm223 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete - As the author in question here and treated as I have been treated so far by a wikipedia group determined to stop my work being listed, I will provide every single query and reference requested. The page yesterday was reduced to a meaningless garble and the anger I express on the Dan Brown Facebook page was justifiable since all the text was reduced absolute nonesense and fabrications. I appologise for the expression of anger. From here forward it is just my online rights I will defend and within the fair specifications that all other authors are subject to. If authors like Richard Hoagland and self published authors without valid measurable discoveries and wild theory like David Ike are listed here then I should not be treated differently.
To add here I acept the self published entry and have no choice being the author to make sure a simple page far shorter than the David Ike page.
People have tried to do this for me but were walked over. I am aware of conflict of interest but will upload neutrally and accurately and since there are so many trying to delete any false entries such entries will soon be removed any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) 09:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC) — AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have been treated so far by a wikipedia group determined to stop my work being listed I think you misunderstand how wikipedia works and what we do here. The first thing to understand is that many of the people editing that article will have never of heard of you and have no interest in your work. I have never heard of you, I have no interest in your work or what you do, and therefore have no interest in preventing your work being listed because of some perceived slight or grudge. How I (and other editors) judge if an article should be on wikipedia is via reliable sources - 3rd party independent mentions of you and your work. When a claim is made "X did Y", we look to see if a reliable source exists to support that claim. It's not about what you write, it's about what other people write about you. As the article currently stands, it does not provide sufficient evidence that you or your work is notable enough for an article. David Ike has an article because he has been discussed by many many reliable sources and we can use those to construct an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't, it makes them easier to spot. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page has just been Reverted to next to nothing... the false claim by Ove von Spaeth is back and it is not true.
there is somthing drastically unbalanced here and it is about to go online on where others can see the manipulation is rife here!
I will give moderators here an hour to provide a solution to this then i have no other choice other than taking astand against the moderators names who claim all is fair here. I have a full page put together that will upload in an hour... if I have already been blocked it will come from another party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I will give moderators here an hour", What are you talking about? There are no "moderators", this is not a chatroom forum. "it is about to go online on where others can see the manipulation is rife here" I don't understand what you are talking about, all changes to Wikipedia articles are live. "if I have already been blocked it will come from another party" are you threatening to use sockpuppets? If so that could lead to you being blocked. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How is this COI notable? I've self-published far more interesting things than this, but wouldn't dream of trying to push them here unless they first get traction in RS's. kwami (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and
    Salt A good-faith search turned up none of the multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources that we require to support claims of notability, and AstronomerPHD's conduct suggests that he'll keep trying to create an article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Coverage is not the same as significant coverage. Living in South Africa and being interviewed in South African papers for a puff piece, or getting a passing mention (and the link you provided has a number of subscription only articles) does not merit significant coverage. In fact the first article (from 2004) comes up dead. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be specific, living in Durban and being interviewed in Durban papers for a puff piece.Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used "significant coverage" in the sense of the GNG. In fact the quoted part came directly from the GNG's definition of Significant Coverage. Do the articles address the subject directly in detail with no
O.R. required? I think they do. Note: the subject's web site has scanned copies of the articles without having to go through the reg/paywalls: [1]. Granted, the website is a primary, though I don't think it likely that the scans are fabrications. ArakunemTalk 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Additionally, Durban is the 2nd largest city in S.A., so they're not exactly tiny local papers. Durban has a larger population than many cities whose "local papers" would be unquestionably Reliable Sources. ArakunemTalk 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also happens to be the town where Herschel lives. The fact that mention by media not aimed at the local market of his home city is essentially non-existent and that locating mention by local media in a source other than his personal webpage requires three editors and a heap of searching just to confirm the articles exist tends to lead me to say that he does not meet WP:GNG.Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arakunem, I have read the talk page, I have read Dan Brown's wall at Facebook, I have done a number of searches, and I have even clicked on all the links supplied by you, and yet I cannot find a few solid, third party references that would pull this guy (or his book) over the GNG bar. I understand that foreign (that is not US or UK) authors sometimes find it difficult to show the necessary sources, and sometimes that is because their work is obscure or only in translation. That is not the case here, the guy has self-published a book, and no one has been interested. On the Dan Brown page when he implores people to come here it is so the book can have the maximum exposure. If the sources were there, for a book published in the last five years, in English, then we would have found them. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from. I have not used the self-pubs in my considerations, nor the more "fringy" magazines (though an argument could be made that they do constitute media coverage) and find the off-site canvassing somewhat distasteful. I'm not using AUTHOR as the bar, which I don't think he meets for the exact reasons you specify, but the GNG, which I feel he squeaks over based on the S. African newspaper articles. Where the articles fit into the paper will match the subject; we would not diminish a restaurant review because it appeared in the Food section of the paper, for example. He has unquestionably been "the" subject of multiple newspaper/magazine articles. So the question, as Simonm223 has brought up, is whether the Durban papers are reliable enough, or whether they are too local. I can't speculate whether those same papers would have covered him if he did not live there, so I will go on what I can verify. To me, that means I go on that he has been covered by multiple newspapers in the 2nd largest city in a country of 49 million. As I said, in my opinion, he squeaks by
WP:GNG based on the 5 definitions used in that guideline. ArakunemTalk 20:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

{Undent} I am afraid I disagree. From what little I can see past the pay-walls the articles are clearly of local scope. As such, notwithstanding the size of Durban I find this is not sufficient for GNG notability.Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 is right, under GNG then Durban is notable, and the papers published in Durban are notable, however Herschel is not. And having looked that the scanned articles on his own webpage they are nothing but puff pieces. And on an unrelated note, the
face on mars? Seriously. He managed to convince a reporter to publish a softball interview, doesn't make him notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm waffling. I think a strict interpretation of
WP:GNG also states, "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. This gives us the latitude to decide that he's not notable despite the coverage in these articles. These do seem to be "puff pieces" and remind me of newspaper articles that I've seen of close members of my family that I wouldn't consider notable. My suggestion to delete isn't as strong as it was, though. -- Atama頭 21:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That's how I see it - notability is not conferred by a couple of puff pieces. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Puff pieces are of questionable reliability, don't really contain much 'significance' of coverage, and are essentially
WP:PRIMARY (as they do not contain any critical analysis that is expected of a WP:SECONDARY source). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
After sleeping on it, and straining my eyes re-reading the full scans, I think you guys are correct. The articles are rather puffy, and lack the sufficient level of journalism to make them proper News pieces, as opposed to what Paul Harvey would call "For what it's worth". Some level of coverage, but not to the depth needed. Switching to Delete. ArakunemTalk 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something to be aware of in regards to the scans - at least one of them has been photoshopped to change it from the original (see article talkpage for more information). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, many of these sources only show that he was interviewed, saying nothing about him otherwise. No evidence of actual notability. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His sole book is self-published. Googling turns up pages that seem to all be linked to what appears also as self-promotion. Is this self-generated notability? BashBrannigan (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You don't have to be a published author to be notable. You don't have to be a mainstream scientist either. To me, the Durban papers are reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. I have to assume they are verifiable, and I believe the coverage is actually there even though I can't verify this myself. Herschel's methods, especially the Facebook campaign (which we don't actually know he instigated), are despicable, but have no bearing on the question of inclusion. So the question becomes whether the coverage is "significant." This is somewhat a matter of opinion, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rees11 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, you don't have to be an author or a scientist to be notable, but you do have to do something notable. Herschel's only claim to any notability is his book, which is self-published, not itself a bar to being notable, but his book has not sold in any significant numbers, not has it been covered significanctly by the press, outside of a puff-piece (which has been doctored on Herschel's website) in his local paper. So to sum up: he is a self-published author whose book expounds a fringe theory, and who has been interviewed by a local paper, but whose only coverage comes form his own website, and has been doctored. As for the facebook campaign, having looked at the various pages it is Wayne Herschel encouraging SPAs to come her to register a keep vote, and he has also edited his own page as AstronomerPHD, in an attempt to make himself seem notable. Whether he is notable is not a "matter of opinion", it is a matter of whether he meets the GNG, and he doesn't. But if you can find better sources than the ones in the article then feel free to improve the article, but judging the article on how it stands it falls well short of the GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GNG doesn't give a metric for "significant coverage," so I don't see how it can possibly be anything other than a matter of opinion. It just says the coverage has to be somewhere between trivial and "main topic of the source material." Rees11 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in Wayne's case all the information comes from him (as the paper articles are either dead or behind pay walls) so there is nothing outside of primary sources, and even the copies of third party articles on Herschel's site have been altered, so cannot be trusted. And if it is down to numbers 378 Ghits is not significant. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was fairly borderline for me as above. After actually reading the article scans (now of dubious reliability after one confirmed case of Photoshopping a scan), Hrafn's comment that "they do not contain any critical analysis that is expected of a WP:SECONDARY source" swung me back under my own "line" for Notability. You are correct that there is no hard and fast line; everyone has their own metrics. Hence we all get together here and lay out ours, and the consensus shall determine the outcome. ArakunemTalk 20:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the Durban papers are verifiable is difficult to do now that we know that the evidence he has presented on his web site has been altered from the originals. I don't trust any of it anymore. -- Atama頭 00:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you and I can't verify the Durban stories doesn't mean they are not verifiable. Nowhere in
wp:v
does it say that you have to be able to verify the content for free from your easy chair. And I don't think we need the full content to verify notability, just enough of it to know there is "significant coverage."
In addition, shouldn't Wikipedia:Notability (people) apply here? It says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Rees11 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can not actually confirm much of that potential avenue of notability due to pay walls and shopped content on Mr. Herschel's website. Furthermore the articles which do appear are puff pieces in his hometown newspaper. And the consensus here has been that these do not meet the notability criteria.Simonm223 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayne_Herschel&oldid=1069102085"