Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asgervalen


 * 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, per discussion and official policy. --Tito xd (?!?) 00:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Asgervalen
Probable hoax. No Google results for "Asgervalen". Delete. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Google is not an authority. It's a search engine. (previous unsigned comment by 130.15.82.217 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Delete google may not be an authority, but Simpson episodes are even less authoritative. We can assume this is an hoax, unless references (beside the Simpsons) are given. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the Simpsons is authoritative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as hoax, unless verified. --anetode¹ ² ³ 17:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There are numerous references available. See for example the Annotated species list of marine planktonic copepods occuring on the shelf and upper slope of the northwest Atlantic (Gulf of Maine to Ungava Bay) report by the Canadian Department of Fisheries, 1984. Just because it's not online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: If you happen to be an expert on this species, why don't you expand the article some more and put more substantive information than what exists now? -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call myself an expert, or at least I'm no Jasper Asgervalen on the topic. I'll expand it but I'll have to do some reading to refresh my memory as it's been a few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete This is a hoax. When I was the new guy on the job here the old hands would say things like "Hey, go ask the foreman for the left handed screwdriver", or "Ask the foreman if you can use the asgervalen" and the guys would just laugh and laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.237.7 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete unless notability can be established through citations and/or hoax assertions can be disproven. Jessamyn 20:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment When in doubt, don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment That's not WP policy. WP policy is, if it isn't verifiable, do delete. You claim there are "numerous references", and you've named one; if someone can find a copy and verify it, we'll keep the article, but if they can't, we'll probably delete it. Do you have any other references to cite that might be easier to find? &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:DP - If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted even if there are valid concerns about the quality of the article. (Cleanup may be appropriate.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!
 * Comment: one more thing - there are probably not a lot of easily accessible references to this topic, but I'm trying to do the world a service by creating one - so much for Wikipedia's openness and love of knowledge
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.49.232 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-02 22:11:59 UTC
 * Keep Am I reading this right? we're going to delete the article on plankton because it might be a hoax? I think we should refrain at least until the other guy can expand on the topic or someone can get the book cited.  It's not like wikipedia will be brought under by the great plankton hoax of 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.107 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's Wikipedia policy that articles have to be third-party verifiable. At this point, we have no such verification. If it can be supplied, then the article gets to stay. -- howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 07:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment for everyone who's upset about the allegation that it's a hoax, I agree with you, Google isn't the world. In fact, the Google test is currently one of the least accurate information-finding methods I can think of. However, whoever last had their hands on that book has something like four more days to find the book and put the source in the article. So if you could relax and play the waiting game a bit, that would be cool. Thanks. Jacqui  ★ 04:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I searched for this term in Encyclopedia Britannica, Expanded Academic Index (online database, indexing thousands of periodicals ), and a newspaper index which indexes over 100 newspapers and did not find one reference to this word in a full keyword search dating back to the mid-80's. It's entirely possible that it's so super-specialized that it's only mentioned in professional literature outside of these more general databases, but then I wonder why it isn't mentioned in OBIS (the Ocean Biogeographic Information System) since according to the commenters, it's not a newly discovered lifeform. It also does not appear on this list of diatomic organisms where there are many other organisms from the Biddulphia genera (family?). Jasper Askervalen is supposedly notable in Norway but doesn't work in Bergen or Oslo, and has not apparently published a single thing in English. [Norwegian speakers want to check your Norwegian databases?]. I suppose we could drop these people an email to see if they've heard of it, since they seem to be the experts on Baffin Bay plankton. In short, absence of any mention at all, anyplace, and absence of a verifiable citation makes this entry questionable. Lack of Googleability in and of itself does not constitute "unverifiability" but it is often an indicator that something may be amiss. Jessamyn 04:52, 3 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.