Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Gadomski


 * 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 delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Adam Gadomski
del. vanit. nonnotable. mikka (t) 01:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep . He looks notable to me.  There's plenty on him on Google. Devotchka 02:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So, what exactly notable did he do? Also, 148 noninformative google hits is not exactly "plenty" mikka (t) 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll change mine to delete unless notability is established. (I got 251 Google hits for "Adam Gadomski", but that is probably not enough.)  He does appear to have written a number of articles over the last few years or so, but it is hard to figure out exactly what he did.  If someone comes along and explains why he's important, the article might be salvagable, though. Devotchka 03:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are two hints with google: (1) try and go until the very last page of the google list of hist. YOu will be surprized how 32,000 hits turn into, say, 126. (2) Even brief pieces in google seacrh results show is there is written about importance of this guy (none in our case). mikka (t) 04:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it looks like self-promotion to me. He's the author of a.. well, I can't tell what it is, exactly.  I'm not surprised there's some google presence, since his web pages appear to have been around for several years.  Having a website to promote yourself is not really a claim to fame.  I'd say delete unless some significance is established.  Discussion of his invention or theory or whatever it is by third parties would help establish verifiability.  Friday (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless someone can show notability. Let me further comment that the thing about academics is that what they do tends to be well-documented. If this guy is notable, it shouldn't be all that hard for someone to dig up proper references. -- Captain Disdain 06:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some form of discussion verifying notability is started. Karol 17:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Weak Expand possibly notable, but lack of content or notability leans me towards delete. Ian13 19:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unless meta-knowledge should also be deleted. I'm not meta-knowledgable enough to have an opinion, but Gadomski seems to have made a notable contribution to this art.  --FRS 19:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure it's notable enough. So delete unless someone shows me otherwise.  Marcus22 20:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Scholar turns up >25 hits and his own page link from the article looks reliable enough and has over 100.  Seems more notable to me than some others we've kept. Writing a lot in Italian makes him less visible unfortunately.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  20:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. More notable than most band articles we keep. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Meta-knowledge was created by the same anon who created this article. I still see no indication of widespread interest in these subjects, beyond whichever person decided to put this stuff into Wikipedia.   Pick a random person with a graduate degree, and they'll show up on google scholar.  Friday (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as a stub. He is notable enough, and the point of stubs is to give a starting place for articles that could be useful.  Even if the stub is brief, it encourages people to contribute, because it is basically saying "we don't know much about this, but we think it is probably worth knowing about." -- Foofy 13:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: See User_talk:192.107.77.3 and User contributions --Adam M. Gadomski 17:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Not sufficient number of hits on Google. --PhilipO 16:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, vanity. Google reports 142 unique hits for "Adam Gadomski" and Google Scholar reports 26. In contrast, my own name gets 199 Google hits and 14 Google Scholar hits; people I know who are ordinary academics have from 25 to 100 Google Scholar hits. The evidence is that this is nobody in particular, salting Wikipedia with links to his own papers and writing about himself. Sorry buddy, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:59, 5 November 2005 (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.