Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Nicholl Rail


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Nicholl Rail

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason Smokefoot (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Rail looks like a nice chap, but I dont see any indicator of notability that merits a biography. Also Rail or his friends have written some related highly specialised articles that suggest a conflict of interest at minimum and a lack of perspective. They are using Wikipedia as scrapbook for fond memories.


 * Delete per nom. Also fails WP:BIO, as there appear to be no reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss the person in any sort of depth. Yilloslime T C  21:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable enough. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now at least. Wikipedia seem to want to steadily delete all my ('Whitenob') contributions because over the past couple of weeks I have focussed on the work of one person.  This is just because I recently read through some of his work, and considered it valuable.  It is true that I knew Anthony Nicholl Rail when I was a student at King's Worcester, but this is partly a primary biography, which are normally written by an acquaintance.  SW ('Whitenob')
 * Delete unless evidence can be produced of achievements in chemistry. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS returns a very definitive 'Your search - "Anthony Nicholl Rail" - did not match any articles'. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC).


 * KEEP, definitely. I’m not qualified to say whether or not Rail’s scientific research renders him important, though I applaud anyone with the conviction to justifiably correct another’s mistakes, and so help purge the universal corpus of knowledge from error.  I can speak about his historical research, much of which is of a very high quality.  Robert E. Schofield and John McEvoy, leading researchers of Joseph Priestley, have both applauded Rail’s work.  Even more important, though, is Rail’s decoding of Priestley’s idiosyncratic shorthand, giving us access to valuable material that we hadn’t been able to read for two-hundred years.  That on its own makes A N Rail notable; and he must be so much more so when this is taken as a whole with his historical and scientific work. Katbun (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reliable sources please, otherwise your assertions are nothing more than hearsay. Moreover, even if true, two peoples' opinions will not be sufficient enough to prove his work has had impact. The fact that he doesn't show up even once in Google, of all places, does not bode well. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Policy Should the administrators choose to delete this entry, then I respectfully suggest they look to the consistency of the implementation of their policies. I happened to come across Anthony Nicholls (chemist), which the administrators seem to have accepted, even though his only claim to notability seems to be that he started his own business.  On that basis, the electrician who rewired my kitchen this summer merits an entry. Katbun (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Katbun raises interesting points about Rail's work on scientific history. But we need verifiable sources WP:RS to confirm these claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Katbun is one of a collection of admirers of Anthony Rail, all of who commenced editing in September.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We know other stuff exists. Other articles will be dealt with when we get to them. In the meantime, if you don't think Nicholls merits an article, then be bold and nominate it for deletion. Also, it's the entire community, not just the administrators. Regards, MuZemike 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * as for Nicholls, it seems he is  primarily notable for the accomplishments  in his business, OpenEye Scientific Software, not merely for "starting a business"--and not for his previous scientific work. In any case, it's the community who decides, not we administrators. We just see what the people here say on the basis of their evaluation of the evidence in terms of  our policies.    DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As for the evaluation of his work as a scientist, that's easy enough to determine: he has never published any of it in a peer-reviewed journal. As an historian. what is the evidence that Robert E. Schofield and John McEvoy consider him an authority on Priestley? Is it merely that they cite it?, and not even that has been shown, except for ref. 27.   DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 25 September 2009 (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.