Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Šmihula


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 08:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Šmihula

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient notability for WP:Academic Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

and http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/866578_irq-iraq-middle-east-.html Aster554 (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC) He is known also outside his country: http://nielsposthumusdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/financiele-lente-is-nog-ver-weg2.pdf Aster554 (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC) He is cited more (and wrote more) than its i recorded in the article abou him. E.g.: http://www.politickevedy.fpvmv.umb.sk/userfiles/file/2_2012/macejak%281%29.pdf but above all in his country and in the Czech Republic. Aster554 (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. He has written some books and papers but they have not attracted enough cites to pass WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep it. see: https://www.google.be/?gws_rd=cr&ei=SRhdUpDJMpSa1AWc14DIBQ#q=Daniel+Smihula&start=10

I seems that some group of economists regards his ideas as interesting:http://www.em-economics.com/2013/09/09/kondratieff-wave/  http://www.scribd.com/doc/138582319/Can-Innovation-Solve-the-Economic-Crisis   Aster554 (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Aster554 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

D. Smihula is a notable Slovak personality - he is a well-known columnist and author of about 400 articles in newspapers in 1991-2013 (Sme, Pravda) For example: http://www.eurotopics.net/en/home/autorenindex/autor_smihula_daniel/ or http://www.parlamentnykurier.sk/kur198a199-11/79.pdf Trisw (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC) He is also on of "public faces of Mensa" in Slovakia http://hn.hnonline.sk/hn-pre-vas-821/prilis-myslim-teda-som-mam-iq-nad-130-357398 and https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zn%C3%A1m%C3%AD_%C4%8Dlenov%C3%A9_Mensy Trisw (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 
 * Keep. This article has existed since 2008 without any problems. Several people worked on it. (View History) Your methods are discriminating for small countries, their culture and science. You would have to erase majority articles about people from small countries who write mostly in their own language. Trisw (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: please be aware that I carefully considered the matter of discrimination against smaller countries and people who come from them and write in languages that are not widely understood before nominating this article for deletion. My personal inclination is to be less exacting for articles about such people than for those who come from large English-speaking nations. I'm happy to be convinced of the notability of the subject, but I don't yet see it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The view that articles from cultures outside the English-speaking part of the world deserve special consideration is not supported by policy and has always been repudiated here. There is no affirmative action in the English Wikipedia. Your nomination remains valid. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC).
 * I agree with all you say. Nevertheless, I personally think twice before proposing deletion of an article where notability may be hard to demonstrate because of systemic bias rather than because it is truly lacking. I did so here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Does exist any problem with a memory in wikipedia? Such a policy kills a liberal character of the wikipedia. Aster554 (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC) http://lewyland.blogspot.be/2011/10/kondratieff-waves-crashed-western.html http://www.em-economics.com/2013/09/09/kondratieff-wave/ http://extension.psu.edu/community/ecd/news/2013/making-something-out-of-nothing http://sh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:600462/FULLTEXT01 http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/energy/obtaining-inexhaustible-clean-energy-by-parametric-resonance-under-nonlocality-clocking http://www.scribd.com/doc/138582319/Can-Innovation-Solve-the-Economic-Crisis
 * Delete Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view. We do not keep articles or delete them based on political criteria. We keep or delete them based on the notability of the subject, and this subject is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep . His ideas are regarded as interesting for some economists:

http://www.copia-oculta.org/2012/09/crisis-economica-mundial-siglo-xxi.html http://www.ssa-rss.ru/files/File/KomitetyROS/SystemSociology/Fibonacci_Numbers.pdf — Trisw (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Struck second "keep" !vote from Trisw. Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC).


 * Delete. Seems to be almost no secondary WP:RS – almost all the references are actually written by the subject. WolrdCat search indicates the sum total of his books are held by <20 institutions. These are deal-breakers for a BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2013 (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.