Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AHuman Project


 * 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. Clear consensus; not yet notable  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

AHuman Project

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability asserted, no third-party sources (the one "reference" is by no means a source for the subject, having nothing to do with the AHumanProject), opinionated incoherent writing. I PRODded it, but the prod was promptly removed by the creator, with the argument that it needs to be on Wikipedia precisely because it is nowhere else, if I understood them correctly. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

VS: Well, let me clarify. I have used many sources, including Wikipedia to create content of aHuman. This project is not just pages to collect the information, but it contains know-how on how to integrate the information, and auto-generated content. Quality of data were confirmed several times in private emails to me from science representatives. Still, as I'm not a part of science community, it's quite hard to have formal references. At least, I have not spend much efforts for that up to the moment. Nevertheless, I think that it is the quite unique source of information, which have to be available to scientists. aHuman tag on google search is first line of output - so I can pretend it's sort of referenced actually. But when google buried its googlecode service and I migrated project to specific hosting, I need smth to let people know where they can find aHuman pages now. So, it is need both to community an to me (btw, to much lesser extent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete There really don't seem to be sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS discussing this, let alone discussing it in any depth. Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting new ideas, see WP:NOT. Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons given by the nominator. The lack of reliable independent sources means that notability has not been established according to WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

VS: Guys, ok, looks like you do not see the point. Wikipedia will miss more than me. Your pages are also criticized for politicisms and intentional distortions and some people do not trust your information at all. Now I also can see your rule set is somehow reasonable but fail in some cases. If you like you can believe that it is a sort of consensus. Happy with "let alone discussing it in any depth" - gentle enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep.The topics of Wikipedia articles have to meet our notability guideline. At present, this one doesn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -Although this sounds like an interesting project, it needs, as others have stated, to have been written about in independant reliable sources  to be considered notable for Wikipedia. ABF99 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

VS: final message from me. Wikipedia is arranged collection of significant facts. It is the only achievable goal disregarding your personal thoughts about it. aHuman is a fact confirmed by its author. And it is significant fact because of the concept and volume and quality of published project data. Hence if your rules prevent people across the world to let know about this fact, it means that existing formal rule set is incorrect. So is up to you whether to sacrifise Wikipedia mission or to improve rules.

Thank you all, welcome to ahuman.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik (talk • contribs) 09:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;No WP:RS. The claim to notability given by Vsavchik above is well and good, but we can't have an article until reliable, third-party sources substantiate the claim.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.