Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Galambos (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Shirahadasha and DGG make particularly cogent arguments in favour of this. Proto :: ►  14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Galambos

 * — (View AfD)

no real assertion of notability, seems to be a non-notable crackpot. Delete. — Swpb talk contribs 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO--Tarret 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  Buck  ets  ofg  03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, widely referenced and written about crackpot, ideas who have been influential among libertarians and Objectivists. Hell, just look at the nontrivial independent sources in the external links! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of the three pages you link to, the first essentially merely refers to Galambos, rather than referencing his work in support of the author's arguement; the third is a book review, and the second, Galambos' eulogy, reads, I quote, "he never wrote a book or appeared on national radio or TV. His renown will be limited mostly to those who came in personal contact with him." Not exactly a strong endorsement for inclusion. — Swpb talk contribs 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * entry in Language Log. His ideas get noticed and mentioned, and I'd say that constitutes valid claim to notability.  There's more than one source for what's in the article, so what's the issue?  We don't need thousands. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The personal websites of people who themselves have no assertion of notability do not constitute "non-trivial published works" as required by WP:BIO. — Swpb talk contribs 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He also turns up in several books, and Harry Browne isn't exactly a person who himself has no assertion of notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Borderline notable. Realkyhick 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails verifiability. I'm unable to find any printed material on him. Self-published books, and personal websites are not acceptable as reliable sources. DrKiernan 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see enough discussion about him on the web to assume notability. I think that the discussions above confuse the words "prominence" and "notability", the latter is a much lower standard purposely chosen by the writers of WP guidelines.  There is no mention or implication in the guidelines that eulogies and book reviews are non-trivial.  --Kevin Murray 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Most people who die, meaning most people, get a eulogy. Those people tend to be the primary subject of their own eulogies.  Sometimes, people see fit to put that eulogy on the internet, a medium to which anyone is free to publish.  In what way is a eulogy not a trivial source? — Swpb talk contribs 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When it's written by a prominent, reputable figure, has extensive coverage of nontrivial events, and demonstrates that the guy actually has done something worth writing about besides exist? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also that eulogy wasn't just published on a personal website, it was first published in Liberty Magazine, another nontrivial recognition. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep For someone who left the scene some time ago (he developed Alzheimer's in the 1980s), it seems like his ideas are still interesting to a certain fringe element of libertarians. "Galambosianism" gets 283 ghits by itself. --Brianyoumans 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see non-trivial support for notability here. He met with notable people, was a professor at one point etc. No major books and no long list of academic publications. Fails Notability (academics) & WP:Bio--Nick Y. 23:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Mentioned in It usually begins with Ayn Rand, ISBN 0930073258. Regarding the links, considering the notability of the authors, I'm inclined to consider their self-published works about Galambos to be considered reliable. But still not really that notable. Argyriou (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As the article indicates, he wanted to keep control of his ideas to himself and didn't want others disclosing them. The reliable sources so far indicate that his wishes have been almost universally honored. Perhaps we should be similarly respectful. If there are later published/independent sources indicating his views have gained more currency since his death, my view would change. --Shirahadasha 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Swpb's second comment and ESPECIALLY Shirahadasha's above. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO. Source mentions appear to be mainly trivial, or in relation to his death rather than his work. Seraphimblade 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, Seraphimblade, Swpb's second and Shirahadasha. Anville 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - article does not assert notability. Also per Shirahadasha. HEL 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete-- this is an easy one. The article refers to him as professor, but he has never been a professor. The article calls him a astrophysicist, but he has published no astrophysics. He claims to have been an engineer, but there are no patents or other work to cite. The article puts him in the philosopher category, but he has published no philosophy. His only claim to notability of any sort is as a libertarian. But his work has been totally inored except in vanity publications, all on the web, all on private sites.  It is time we stop judging people who have done no science as scientists.-- DGG 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here, here! — Swpb talk contribs 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The linked essay by Browne convinces me that Galambos is notable.  Browne is qualified to opine as to who is "an influential libertarian". JamesMLane t c 07:54, 9 January 2007 (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.