Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 25

Justin_McLachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was clearly within Wikipedia's Journalism project guidelines, had 15 independent sources attesting to the notability of the journalist's contributions to FOIA and his status as an award-winning investigative journalist in the state of West Virginia. As a writer for Sharesleuth.com, a controversial site that makes stock prices plummet and is covered in the New York Times, Wired, etc., he's reached a national level of status. At the very least, this was not a candidate for speedy deletion but deserved some discussion. It also has a vast edit history.

• Overturn/undelete-From a review of a Google's cache of the page, it seems clear that notability was at least asserted. Whether it was proven or not is another matter, but that's for the community to decide at AfD.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my speedy deletion. Granted, this action was a bit
  WP:BIO or make them merit inclusion in Wikipedia. If he wins some more awards and gains solid national notoriety, then sure, he can have his article. If the speedy deletion is overturned, though, it should go straight to AfD. y'amer'can (wtf?) 20:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:WEB and WP:BIO are not criteria for speedy deletion. 72 point font. They are not criteria for speedy deletion. overturn deletion as there were several claims of importance, which means this article didn't meet
    WP:CSD#A7. --W.marsh 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I didn't say that they were. What I apparently unsuccesfully tried to convey is that, unlike you, I did not read anything in the article that actually managed to assert notability. Which item was it that you felt asserted said notability? The award? The career for a newspaper or the website? I am asking, in good faith (and kindly requesting no "72 point font"-like comments :) ) foir you to tell me where I went wrong, and I will undelete the thing myself. y'amer'can (wtf?) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Writing a column for a notable newspaper is a reasonable claim of importance, since certainly a meaningful percentage of people who write columns for notable newspapers are notable. It might not be something that would survive AFD, but it's a reasonable claim. The award claim is weaker since we don't have an article on
        WP:BIO... it should really just go to AFD now. --W.marsh 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Thanks for the reply. While I still tend to disagree overall, I can see enough of where you are coming form to accept that this is controversial enough for a discussion. I'll undelete now and list later tonight or tomorrow, unless someone else lists it first. y'amer'can (wtf?) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD. The columnist award is sufficient to make a claim of notability. The evaluation of the exclusivity of that award is something for AFD to sort out. (Writing a column for a notable newspaper, however, is not in my opinion since notability is not inherited from employer to employee.) Having just said that this belongs at AFD, I don't see much hope for this article. Except for that one somewhat weak claim, the article does appear to be more of a resume than evidence of a person who meets our generally accepted
  inclusion criteria. The page is remarkably well-sourced but the achievements are not particularly different than the accomplishments of any other aggressive young reporter. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Riverside Garden (Shenyang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I disagree that with the closer's evaluation of the content of the deletion discussion. I would like admins to review the short article and the short deletion discussion and decide how they would have closed it. I think it is borderline, and thus boils down into whether "keep what can be made better" or "delete anything not already a great article" should decide. I'm for growing the encyclopedia, not deleting anything that Britannica would not have an article on. Listed in the deletion discussion are examples of things of similar importance in Newark, NJ. We have fewer sources on third world countries, so it makes our ability equally cover those countries harder. That should be taken into account also. As time goes on we can expect additional sources on a community of 1000 homes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my closure of AfD as delete. There was a clear consensus for the deletion of the article, and the keep !votes simply did not address the concerns that were brought up by the nominator and the users supporting the deletion. The keep arguments in this AfD either cited other articles as to why it is not deleted, advocating their personal opionion of what Wikipedia should be and personal opionion on the usefulness of the article, which are not convincing arguments for the article's inclusion. The sources added to this article fails
  WP:SOURCES, part of a core policy of Wikipedia. If better sources can be found in the future, then you are more than welcome to recreate the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure, that article could have been speedied as A7, and the DRV argument above does not state any irregularity in the Afd, merely re-argues to "keep" based on Inclusionism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been a poor A7 deletion... a development is much more a place than it is an organization of people. It's also hard to say it's just a corporation, even in cases like Pebble Beach where it technically is, it's also a physical place. So it only met A7 with some very extreme lawyering of what an organization or corporation is. This should have gone to AFD and it did. At any rate, the AFD precedent is that incorporated, legally recognized places are notable, but developments aren't unless proven to be. A development can be as simple as someone dividing a large parcel into X number of lots and selling them, there's no guarantee there's any official or otherwise reliable information on the development, other than deed books, or whatever they use in an individual country. --W.marsh 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I agree with W.marsh. This would have been an inappropriate speedy-deletion under A7 but the AFD consensus was clear and well reasoned. (The only plausible argument to keep the article was based on a faulty analogy. Small villages may well have less than 1000 homes but they are also independent legal entities. This page described a housing development.) Rossami (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure As has already been said, there is a dearth of verifiable sources. This does not look like a place that would be "inherently notable". It appears instead to be a commercial development or subdivision. As such, A7 does not sound terribly unreasonable. That said, the original closure seems appropriate, and there is no indication that the arguments for deletion were faulty. The consensus to delete seems to me to be well based and clear. Dlohcierekim 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure people arguing to keep failed to provide reliable sources or address the concerns of the people arguing to delete, and their arguments rested on personal opinion that is at odds with widespread practice. The subject is not inherently notable, as it is just a development or subdivision rather than a village, town or geographic feature in its own right. I agree with W.marsh that this would have been a poor A7 deletion. Hut 8.5 13:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and snowball clause close delrev. The closer appropriately determined rough consensus. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure -
  notable presented during the course of the discussion. The 2007 version of Encyclopaedia Brittannica has around 65 thousand articles[1], English Wikipedia has over 2 million[2]. Guest9999 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If we thought what Britannica was doing was good enough, we'd shut down Wikipedia and apply for jobs with Brtiannica. That they have fewer articles than us is never a reason for us to delete articles. --W.marsh 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picardians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

There was no real discussion in the AfD about whether this ethic group actually exists or once existed, and no attempt appears to have been made to do even minimal research. Aelffin (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Uh, the discussion was two years ago, and was longer than the actual article. If you have verifiable information, add it to Picardiey or start a new article. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The discussion has as much content as the article did. You might look to improve
  GRBerry 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure. No evidence has been presented here to rebut the AFD's findings either. Rossami (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• EndorseThough short, the discussin seems to me to have covered the ground thouroughly. If someone has verifiable sources attesting to the existence of a recognized and recognizable group by this name, then they could recreate the article. However, quoting from
  Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)" Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks, struck that part. I must have misread that. Dlohcierekim 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dlohcierekim, that quote does not say the group doesn't exist; it says the group has a whimsical name. Anyway, I've redirected it to Picard language. Whether it's a separate ethnic group or not does indeed appear debatable. As far as I can tell, it would be roughly equivalent to saying "New Yorker", "Bostonian" or "Liverpuddlian". Aelffin (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The nominator finds that two years ago we were less rigorous in AFD discussions, quite true. But there is no requirement that an AFD actually do research, it's just a matter of responsibility. The original article/editor is responsible for bringing sources to the table. Nor has any been brought to this table. If such sources exist, moreover, there is nothing preventing a sourced article from being written. I can't find anything in a search of the usual places you would find such information, and it certainly isn't a recognized ethnic group today if it ever was more than a demonym, as Aelffin said. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Muenster cheese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I cannot find a substantive discussion that determined this was not a separate kind of cheese from regular muenster cheese--the only discussion I found was about a deleted mathematician who was reported to be the inventor of a sandwich using this kind of cheese, so anything associated with her got deleted as well. I don't care one way or the other about the mathematician or the sandwich, but when I read the cheese article, it seemed to me to be plausible that this was a different type of cheese, and thus I think the article should be kept to avoid possible confusion (which is already present because regular American muenster cheese is different from the similarly named French variety) Bhuck (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to AfD. Deletion was probably okay, but didn't go through normal channels, so the only thing we really can do is restore it per request. Of course, the deletion rationale ("not verifiable") probably holds some merit, so AfD it after restoration. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD not a reason for speedy. DGG (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I just noticed taht thsi article has been deleted.There appears to be a lot of confusion!Ashoka Prasad and Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad are two different individuals but hoary has apparenetly not looked at the evidence.Jahnavi_parasad was born in 1945 not 1955,is teh author of a book and holds an Honoaray degree from Natal which to me is notable enough.Is there anyway we can device a policy to avoid these confusions?Regards (Delhite (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Request moved from talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion This issue has a long, convoluted history. Much background can be found on the AfD, on the talk page of the recreated article, now preserved here, and an earlier AfD on an alternative spelling of the name. In brief, there is a psychiatrist called Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad, who has a relatively undistinguished publication record consisting of one book and under a dozen papers, yet some overblown claims are being made on his behalf on Wikipedia and elsewhere, going back three years or more [3]. There is a psychiatrist called Ashoka Prasad, whose main claim to fame is being struck off medical registers in at least two countries for scientific fraud, and is apparently a bit of a fantasist.[4][5] The nominating account is a spa whose only edits have been to defend Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad and his article, as here, extensive edits to a page on an obscure book on "1000 top scientists" which allegedly includes AJ Prasad (I am trying to check this, but as it's not in my local library it may take a while; in the meantime the only accounts which claim to have actually read it seem to be the ones promoting Prasad), and most tellingly, creating an attack page on John Funder, who headed the panel which found Ashoka Prasad guilty of misconduct. This is very odd behaviour indeed if, as he/she claims, the two are unrelated people. There are several other accounts and IPs with similar histories, for example [6], [7]. Regardless; if they are different people, I cannot see how Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad is notable enough to merit an article. If, as I suspect, they are the same person there may well be something worth writing about, but I doubt that a BLP compliant article could be written with the sources I've found so far. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that there is a deleted page on Ashoka Prasad as well. While I can't read it, from the deletion log it appears to have essentially the same information, and be about the same person, as the one on Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Interim comment: AfD/Johnubiprasad is another page that makes interesting reading. On Dr Ashoka Prasad the fraudster, see this BMJ article. For what Wikipedia is worth as a reference source, fr:Ashoka Prasad tells us that Ashoka Jahnavi Prasad est un médecin et psychiatre indien ayant proposé en 1984 le valproate de sodium comme alternative thérapeutique au lithium dans le traitement des troubles bipolaires.[with citation] Il est surtout connu dans les milieux psychiatriques du monde anglo-saxon comme imposteur, faussaire, fraudeur scientifique et auteur d'accusations mensongères à l'encontre des médecins universitaires australiens John Funder et David Copolov and that Il ne doit notamment pas être confondu avec son homonyme Ashoka Jahnnavi Prasad Jr. de l'Indian Institute for Advanced Study, membre honoraire étranger de l'American Academy of Arts and Sciences, élu en 1972 dans la section I:5 (Engineering Sciences and Technologies) de la classe I (Mathématiques et Sciences physiques). -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold deletion - enough with the vanity articles already! Madman (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Send to AfD--both of them. This needs a discussion in the proper place,which isnot deletion review. As importance asserted for both of them, neither of them is a valid speedy.DGG (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Meets speedy criteria "Recreation of deleted material" as this has been deleted several times already. No new reliable sources or information has been found to change the reasons for deletion. I find it hard to believe that the fraudster[8] and the great psychiatrist[9] are both a "great grandson of First president of India" yet separate people with the same name. This is yet another attempt by fans of Prasad to create a vanity article full of the usual rubbish. That 1000 scientists article should be AfD'd too as it is just another vanity page for some obscure book by an obscure Indian publishing house. The valproate claim isn't backed up by the source supplied (see earlier AfD). Someone should tell the French they've copied some English bollocks. Colin°^Talk 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? Where are the bollocks in the French article? It looks good to me. (Is my command of French even poorer than I realize?) Voir aussi: fr:Discuter:Ashoka Prasad. -- Hoary (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "having proposed in 1984 valproate sodium as alternate therapeutic with lithium in the treatment of the bipolar disorders". And my GP proposed in 2008 the use of penicillin in the treatment of bacterial infections. Perhaps he should get a Wikipedia article? :-) Colin°^Talk 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note for those who find Colin's remark excessively harsh or sarcastic: Please read his earlier comment in the AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aaarghh! I've regressed. Where once I could express myself with eloquence and reason, now I merely grunt out harsh sarcasm like some surly teenager. This is what two years on-Wiki does to you. Colin°^Talk 09:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not at all. Really, whether or not what we see above is harsh sarcasm, harsh sarcasm does indeed seem a reasonable reaction to the claims made for the significance of this person to the use of sodium valproate -- once one has read the AfD and realized what the actual significance was. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some reason to think that his career is notable as a fraudster, and thus an article would be justified. The BMJ reference is sufficient to meet BLP concerns. DGG (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article built from reliable sources would be AfD'd by fans as an attack page. The radio program and BMJ news item are both 10-years-old. This is old obscure stuff. Colin°^Talk 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with DGG about the fraudster; my BLP concern would be linking the fraudster with the psychiatrist with the modest publication record, whose supporters claim discovered the use of valproate and other unlikely achievements. It seems the only evidence we have that they're the same person is (1) the behaviour of his supporters on Wikipedia and (2) it's completely damn obvious, neither of which is really a reliable source for a negative BLP. An article about his career as a fraudster, leaving out the publication record altogether, might be worth a try, though with only two sources from the same journalist it might be vulnerable on notability and possibly neutrality grounds. However, technically that's not under discussion - it would be a completely different article to the deleted ones (all of them), so wouldn't require a DRV. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Deletion review hardly seems the place for writing about write-ups elsewhere about the subject of the article, but I hope the following will be seen as informative rather than disruptive. The only library to which I have easy access does not have the "top 1000" book. The International Who's Who (71st ed, "2008"; London: Routledge, 2007) does indeed have an article on "Prasad, Ashoka". I'll describe it IFF asked. However, Prasad does not appear in Who'sWho [sic] in the World (aka Marquis Who's Who) 24th ed, 2007; in Who'sWho [sic] in Science and Engineering ("2000-2001 Millennium Edition, i.e. 5th ed.), although this does list Ajay Krishna Prasad (mechanical engineering educator) and Atul Prasad (neurologist); in Notable Scientists from 1900 to the Present (5 vols, Gale, 2001); in the rather oddly titled Encyclopaedia of the World Psychologists (4 vols, Delhi: Global Vision, 2002, a book that, to be fair, has write-ups for fewer than 400); or in the impressively large author index (i.e. index of authors of cited papers) of The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science (3rd ed, 4 vols, Wiley, 2001). ¶ I'm drawn to the conclusion that even if Prasad appears in the "top 1000" book (a claim that I'd like to see confirmed by an established, non-SPA editor), this is a mere fluke; and that his appearance in even a very recent The International Who's Who is the result either of (a) a remarkable turnaround in his reputation that I would like to see described in an additional, credible source, or of (b) editorial slackness or credulity (neither of which is unknown within en:WP). -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to have been another incident in Canada in 2005: newspaper report (requires payment), discussion in legislative assembly of Saskatchewan here and here in a more readable page, Saskatchewan Party Caucus press release here. I think the fraudster is probably notable, though I still haven't seen any sources to link him definitively with the alleged discoverer of valproate, who is the subject of the deleted articles, without us having to
    join the dots ourselves. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Couldn't we join the dots if we did so ever so transparently [pardon the mixed metaphor] and scrupulously? -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By a strict reading of
        WP:BLP (and given the seriousness of the allegations, I think a strict reading is appropriate) probably not - negative contentious material must be impeccably sourced, so if someone asserts that the two Prasads are not the same, we'd need a good source to show otherwise, even if we had doubts about the motives of the person asserting it. However, it occurs to me that there's actually no pressing need to cover the publication record at all; the only sources we seem to have for the fact that anyone has ever claimed that he was the first to use valproate in mania are some posts to Wikipedia, and a freewebs hosted hagiography [10], so it would not be appropriate to include anyway. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Overturn and Send to AfD As DGG says. there are issues here that would be better dealt with in an AfD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I don't really see that there is anything worth sending back to AfD - as far as I can tell, the most recently deleted content is (barring a bit of cleanup by Hoary) much the same as the poorly sourced, unverifiable material which has already been deleted at two AfDs. A better solution, I think, would be to create a new article which says as much as we can within the limits of
    WP:BLP, and let that be sent to AfD if necessary. I would be happy to collaborate with Hoary, or any other interested parties, on a userspace draft. That would also probably be a better venue for the discussion Hoary and I are starting to get into above. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • With all due respect to those who frequent these pages more than I, the issue at Deletion review is whether the speedy delete was merited. "Recreation of deleted material" is a clear speedy criterion. Hoary and Iain99 have dug up some material on a fraudster with the same name, but none of this information is new: it is covered either on the previous AfDs or on the talk page of the previously deleted article (for which you'd need an admin to recover). Two AfDs have already discussed "the issues here" and they resulted in a clear delete. If folk want to try to cobble together a stub on a fraudster based on a few 10-year-old brief news items, then I agree that someone's sandbox/talk page is a more suitable venue for discussion. Colin°^Talk 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - too much confusion and too little evidence to create an article about a
  WP:BLP be created in any part of Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. Colin points out that Two AfDs have already discussed "the issues here" and they resulted in a clear delete. So yes, leave deleted -- and perhaps take measures to prevent re-creation, and think long and hard about the "Top 1000" article. Colin continues: If folk want to try to cobble together a stub on a fraudster based on a few 10-year-old brief news items, then I agree that someone's sandbox/talk page is a more suitable venue for discussion. Well, maybe: but while IaNaL it does seem to me that the allegations against AP might merit his criminal investigation; IFF this happened and resulted in prosecution, then a WP article might be warranted, but unless/until it does, it would indeed be wrong (as well as stupid and dangerous, and in violation of WP policies) to create an article that might be labelled defamatory. -- Hoary (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC) ... Realizing that the thrust of my comment might not have been absolutely unambiguous, I've just added the words "Endorse deletion" to their start. Hoary (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There's just not enough reliable information to have an article - and that's without even getting into the fraud business. Interesting discussion above, but I suddenly have an image of a WP page that begins This article is about the fraudster. For the psychiatrist, see below. Pinkville (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further research results: I consulted all copies of the Canadian Who's Who from 1987 (when Prasad is alleged to have been a professor at Dalhousie) through 2007 - his name does not appear in any of them. I consulted Who's Who, 2008 (London : A. & C. Black) without finding him, and had the same result in Who's Who in America, 2008. All this (with the evidence above) goes some way to establishing his non-notability (and assuming, for a moment, there are two people, neither of them showed up). I consulted JSTOR and MUSE for any articles by Prasad, with no success. I consulted Google scholar, where I found two articles from the mid-1980s by Ashoka Jahnavi Prasad, this one, and one co-written with a Nirmal Kumar (who may be the same Nirmal Kumar now apparently working in a mental health and brain injury department in
    Weyburn, though there is the Southeast Regional College, offering 1st and 2nd year university courses in the faculties of Arts, Sciences, Pre-Administration, Fine Arts, Social Work and Education. Not quite where you'd expect an illustrious academic to end up...); but (as we learned in Iain99's links above) Weyburn is exactly the same town where Ashoka Prasad, the fraudster whom we're asked to distinguish from the brilliant academic, was practicing psychiatry when an arrest warrant was issued for him. Are we really to believe that two (unrelated) people with nearly identical names found their way from India to Weyburn, Saskatchewan where they worked in the same field at the same time? It's certainly far more probable that there is one Ashoka (J) Prasad and that he went to Weyburn to practice psychiatry (not as a visiting professor) and to (unsuccesfully) lie low for a bit after being run out of other cities/countries. As for this review, there is no firm information to support an article (whatever citable information exists is very scant); it should remain deleted. Pinkville (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Oh, I can't resist pulling apart another example from the laudatory article. Apparently, "Sir Arvid Carlsson who received Nobel Prize in year 2000 said about Dr. Ashok Prasad Jr. that he couldn't have received the honour if Dr. Prasad wouldn't have done the pioneering research and it is a matter to feel pity that he is leading a life of a recluse.". This appears to be confirmed in a letter to The Times of India from Arvid Carlsson (by email, which is great for someone in his eighties). This email/letter says "... You may be aware that the top 1,000 scientists of all time have been voted by 80 universities worldwide and I believe that nine Indians find a mention and two, Hargobind Khorana and Ashoka Johnubiprasad are alive. Khorana would make a good start. You may have difficulty finding Johnubiprasad who has become a recluse now which I think is a pity. I am on record having stated in my post-Nobel prize press conference that had it not been for his pioneering research, I would not have been able to conduct the work that fetched me the Nobel in 2000." This would be the Nobel that Carlsson won for work he did in the late 1950s, when Prasad was about four years old. The NobelPrize site has a full autobiography and interview with Carlsson, who strangely forgot to mention Prasad. This one needs salt. Colin°^Talk 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...when Prasad was about four years old. Or possibly 14... Pinkville (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After further reading, I agree with Colin and Pinkville. There's little doubt now that we're talking about a single person. Sorting the truth about this person from the fiction would certainly be a fascinating job for an investigative journalist, but we don't do investigative journalism on Wikipedia. I think that any attempt to write an encyclopaedic article from the handful of fragmentary and contradictory sources we have, without violating
  WP:BLP, would fail. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

[11]

[12]

You would note both are politically connected and while one is controversial the other is not!I happen to remember that Mahabir Prasad's son in law was a medic who was murdered and there was a national outcry!

I have read the International who's who

[13]

entry on Ashok Prasad in my libarary.I woudl like to pont out that my libararay contains the 2005 volume and not the latest and he finds an entry there-therefore he has an antry in teh 20005 issue and maybe the ones before and NOT only in the latest issue where of course he is there

[14]

Hie entry reads that he is teh son of late Judge Jahnavi Prasad.I woudl endorse that teh offending blog should not have found a place as a reference as it contains information that is not in the volume itself!Howvere it does confirm he holds an honorary doctorate from Natal in 2000.And Natal is one of the most respected Universities in South Africa.

I woudl also like to invite everyone to go through the International Who's Who site.It says that entries are posssible only after thorough research by a dedicated team of researchers and are continually under review.The volume has gone through more than 70 editions and is generally regarded the most valuable source of notable living!

While it is possible that there may be editorial lapses there but I woudl sublit it is unlikely-and we do not have any evidence!Besides the volume forward says that teh entries are continually under review!

And it wudl appear unlikely that Top 1000 Scientists ,a book prepared by a noted UK archeologist and a top science historian

[15] (Rochester University website)

and published by a top Asian publishing house

[16] which has published bestsellers like Wings of Fire by President Abdul Kalam (and not an obscure publishing house in India as Colin says)would be prey to the same problems-it is likely but improbable that is what I would say!!

The author is not the "noted UK archeologist". The Rochester University website has mistaken him for an academic with the same name. According to the publisher (UniverstitiesPress) the author "is a scholar of the history of science and lectures in Nepal, India and Sri Lanka". Other than that short statement, we know nothing about this author, what qualifications he has, and I have been unable to find any other works published by him. That he is a "top science historian" is therefore unverified. The publisher is Universities Press (India) Pvt. Ltd, who are associates of OrientLongman. The book appears to be out-of-print, except in the East. Colin°^Talk 09:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short the questions remain unanswered and in teh interest of faor play,I think the deletion should be overturned!I am personally inclined to believe that we are dealing with two different individuals and one of them seems to have b notoriety on his side while other according to reliable sources seems to be notable enough to merit an Honorary doctorate and place in Int.Who's Who for at least lat 3 years.

(Delhite (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Overturn

I think nobody has been unequivocally convinced that they are not dealing with two different individuals.This needs to be established beyond doubt before voting!

I for one am inclined to agree with Delhite-we are dealing with two different individuals with similar names!I would also feel it is bout time Wikipedia established some gudeline to eliminate the possibility of this confusion.This is not the first time this has happened!

I am not totally satisfied with Hoary's plea that the inclusion in International Who's Who was a result of "fluke" or "editoral lapse".For most,and I include a simple pastgrad like myself in that category,International Who's Who is the first place we refer to in our libraries when we have to look for a notable name!I would not contend that if someone does not find an entry there he/she may not be notable but finding an entry in my view at least would be a measure of notability.

Also,I would find it extremely unlikely that a "fraudster" would have a book published

I can think of one former Tory politician who has made a career of it :-) Colin°^Talk 09:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[17] by CRC Press which we all know is one of the most prestigious science publishers in the world.

This is a short (200pp) book of which he is the editor, not sole author. Again, this appears to be out of print. Colin°^Talk 09:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment: Let's suppose for a moment that there are indeed two people. The clearest expression I've seen anywhere of this notion is in the comment from Delhite above: Ashoka Prasad and Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad are two different individuals [...]. Jahnavi_parasad was born in 1945 not 1955,is teh author of a book and holds an Honoaray degree from Natal [...]. I am now looking at a photocopy of the relevant page (1766) of The International Who's Who 2008. The entry is for "PRASAD, Ashoka." It says he was born on 10 May 1955. So I take it that he's not the person about whom Delhite thinks an article should be written. This being so, where is the information about the different person A J Prasad (b. 1945)? ¶ Oh, no -- hang on a moment. This person has "Publications: five books including Biological Basis and Therapy of Neuroses [...]". And he is "Dr Med hc (Natal)". (Moreover, he's worked in some places whose names sound familiar: Queen Charlotte's Hospital, Dalhousie University, etc.) ¶ So, contrary to what Delhite says, he does rather seem to be the same individual. Now, I could write more about the article-worthiness of this one individual, but I hadn't thought that "deletion review" was the right place for doing so. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Redirected out of process to

• I'm not really seeing that this is a matter for Deletion Review. The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur last October, but the nomination was withdrawn. This just seems like an editing dispute - part of the long line of editing disputes that are currently being discussed in places such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. --Stormie (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as out of process. The fate of an article kept at AfD, with regard to merges and redirects, is purely an editorial matter and not a question that can be resolved at DRV. BlueValour (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where is Redirect Review? Because that's in essence a delete. pschemp | talk 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20) would seem to be the logical places to dispute this. I seriously doubt that DRV will be willing to consider these kinds of requests. I certainly don't consider them within its remit. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Same places we normally discuss editiorial disputes, talk page,

WP:RFC etc. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment True, they are not within Del Rev remit, and there is no real way to review them- . This is however a deficiency in WP which wee should not treat lightly--a redirection is only technically an editing decision, it is in almost all cases a form of deletion. We do not have a process to make binding decisions on content, and thus there is this enormous loophole for deletion. In practice, the thing to do is to wait till the case is over, and be guided by the results. If we need another process to protect against this sort of undercover deletion, we should try to find one. Personally, id support a process of binding arbitration by another panel for content after an edit war. fighting it out by stamina is an absurd way of decision. DGG (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said and thanks for your input. I was not aware there was an arb case involving this, and so in addition to leaving a request on the talk page for people to discuss, I've added information there. Thanks all. pschemp | talk 05:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn gratuitous and bizarre redirection. Okay, this may not be the right place to discuss the matter at the beginning, but as the issue has been brought here, can we resolve it here? And, I might add that there's probably no better place, as the arbcom doesn't address content disputes, and bringing this to the talk page will probably bear no fruit, either, since i know for a fact that the editors who redirected the page have no interest in debating productively. Ever. My overturn rationale: Surviving an AfD previously. Former featured article. Not to mention the fact that no reason whatsoever was given for content deletion. Can we please get a consensus to undo the redirection here so someone may go ahead and revert the protected page? - PeaceNT (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, strongly oppose speedy close. There is no other reasonable venue in which to discuss this. We can point to talk pages all we want, but we all know nothing will come of it. The failure to reach talk page consensus will become a WikiFact that is Written in Stone, and content will be lost for good. This article survived an AfD, was an FA and was even on the main page. This needed at the very least to go to AfD. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Serious Question why are we more likely to achieve consensus at DRV (or an equivalent process) than at the talk page? If there is a real consensus why can't it be demonstrated at the talk page? I doubt that edit warriors convinced of the correctness of their cause will be more likely to respect a DRV consensus than a talk page one; and I doubt that admins will be more willing to enforce it with blocks or other strong measures. The primary reason, in my view, for centralized deletion discussions is to ensure that uninvolved admins can find them to act on (and to preserve an archive of the discussion). I oppose the creation of additional discussion fora. We have talk pages; let's use them. If people want a formal way of listing discussions on, say, redirection issues, a category could be created so that such discussions could be found by interested users and closed by willing admins. That seems a leaner way to handle them than creating a new system parallel to AfD/DRV or extending the remit of the current, rather busy, system. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Because this is a more visible page where rational and impartial outside editors can take a look at the whole issue and examine it, as opposed to a talk page that could be dominated by extreme deletionism. The DRV page doesn't seem to be too busy today, at least as of now, so a discussion here wouldn't cause harm. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically, I view it this way: both sides of this dispute have extremely strong feelings and are unlikely to compromise in either direction. Several other factors which influence the appropriateness of a DRV include the location of the corresponding talk page and the level of formality of the discussion. The talk page of a redirected article, despite not being terribly hard to find, is arguably a much more difficult location to find and carry on a discussion at than DRV, which is a centralized process. Also, on a talk page, there is no time limit and rarely the involvement of an uninvolved admin. Considering the already unlikely chance of a compromise or consensus being used on the talk page, it seems reasonable to hold such a stalemated discussion in an area where time is limited and an official decision will be made by an impartial admin. This is not an unreasonable stretch of venue, the larger issue of episodes and character redirections is currently on the table of the arbitration committee, to have a DRV does not seem outlandish. Lastly, I have heard TTN's redirections referred to as "soft deleting" in the past, and I am inclined to agree with that characterization, therefore, a deletion review is a perfectly acceptable way to reach a concrete conclusion in what would otherwise likely be a vitriolic and unproductive "discussion" on the talk page. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I don't object to terms such as "soft deletion" since redirecting these pages is essentially deletion from a readers perspective, though don't like just using "deletion" as many partisans do since it isn't deletion from a technical or editors perspective. No admin pressed "delete" and thus anyone can revert it not only an admin. I'd rather not extend DRV to this though, partly for the (selfish) reason that I want to avoid this heated dispute and because I think that it will encourage users to prematurely escalate editing disputes to DRV rather than simply discussing it with the involved users. I do understand that the latter is not true in this case but don't relish explaining that every time a non-notable song is redirected to its album or an unsourced section of original research is removed from an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the case that anyone can revert this as an admin has protected the page. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem, most people who have voted overturn are admins; they can revert the unjustified redirection when consensus is firmly reached, which is a strong possibility, given the circumstances. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and list at AfD for discussion, unless someone has a more suitable forum. Appears to have been significant objection to the removal, which in turn seems to warrant discussion. The protection was in response to edit warring, and as such does not seem to imply a stance on whether the article should exist or not. I'd prefer it if contested redirects (at least ones like this) were handled in a fashion more akin to contested prods, given recent battles. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a deletion but an editiorial decision. The place to discuss is the talk page(s) of the articles concerned, or
  WP:RFC --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore; I think insisting on a redirect for such a plainly notable character is frankly unreasonable. As others pointed out the talk page is the more standard location for a discussion of this sort, but at this point I don't think it's worth the trouble of forcing discussion elsewhere. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn An admin seems to have blocked changes to the redirect with the comment (Protected Bulbasaur: edit warring, figure it out somewhere else [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 21:18, February 5, 2008 (UTC))). This seems to be an appropriate somewhere else. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]