Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene F. Lally (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   keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugene F. Lally
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page previously deleted for a variety of reasons but predominantly not meeting notability criteria. The page was strangely recreated a while ago claiming to have added sources establishing notability, but nothing referenced challenges the main points of the previous deletion debate. In fact from the discussion I'm struggling to find anything significant that wasn't apparently in the deleted article. I believe this was a totally improper restoration. A side issue is that the current article appears to have significant recent COI issues from an IP editor, probably the same as those issues raised in the deletion discussion. Not unusual for a non-notable article. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  D r e a m Focus  19:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He was published in a number of notable scientific journals such as the American Rocket Society.  D r e a m Focus  19:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Although the article has been extensively edited by Lally himself, it is based on real sources. I have copies of many of the articles (which he sent me); they are not all primary sources by him, but also include articles about him.  If someone would like to help clean it up to be better sourced and more neutral, I can help with that.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lack of sources that estiblish sufficient notability for inclusion on WP in accordance with WP:ACADEMIC. Agree that there has been no substantial improvement since the previous deleted version. User:DDG's comments from the previous AfD are compelling and have not been addressed ("The fact that I would not expect many references in Web of Science, but I find only 1, ( CONCEPTUAL SPACECRAFT DESIGNS FOR EXPLORATION OF JUPITER Author(s): LALLY EF Source: ASTRONAUTICA ACTA Volume: 11 Issue: 4 Pages: 219-& Published: 1965_ and it has never been cited by anyone. As far as I am concerned, that falsifies the claims in the article that he has a significant role, except perhaps as a technician"}. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I nominated this article for deletion the first time. Nothing presented demonstrates notability. Aldebaran66 (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article's claim to notability is on the basis of published work. But the independent citations to such work are negligible in number. No improvement since last version. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC).
 * True, they're not cited as references, but these are listed in the article: Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)




















 * Comment: there is no need to copy content from the article here. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Someone appears to have put a great deal of work into this, and the fact that it still doesn't meet WP:GNG means that it probably never will. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - It seems this is somebody who has done lots of not-quite-notable stuff that adds up to...well, I'm not quite sure. It seems we should have something on the guy, but there's no clear redirect target. The sky won't fall if the article is deleted, but with his broad area of experience, my finger hesitates on the button. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)



An editor above had said "But the independent citations to such work are negligible in number. No improvement since last version." That's why I listed the sources that talk about Lally and his work (copied from the article); the editor seems to have missed these additions since the first version. How many newspaper articles about a guy and his work does it take to meet GNG? Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the number of articles. The problem is that most of the articles mention him, as a person, only in passing. I'm not doubting that he was involved in some cool work at NASA, the articles demonstrate that. I'm not doubting that he was media-friendly (he certainly seems to have spoken a lot to the media). What I'm doubting is that there is substantial coverage of him as a person, and after all this encyclopedia article is about him as a person. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on what you mean by "only is passing"; some of the articles are specifically about him and about some papers or talks that he presented, to the point of referring to him and/or his ideas in their titles: "Designers See Space Guidance Systems Turning into Mosaics of Optical Cells", "Landing Foreseen on Martian Moon", "Keep Probing Space, ex-Quincy Resident Says", "Mosaic Star Trackers Sought For Guidance of Spaceships", "Weightlessness", "Cartwheeling Vehicle Asked for Mars Trip: Special Spacecraft Provides Artificial Gravity and Escape from Weightlessness". Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant by only in passing is that titles such as Dave Swaim (August 1, 1965). "Mercury, Jupiter put on Places to Visit List". The Independent (Pasadena, California). "Eugene F. Lally, of Pasadena, a former JPL man ..."  give the impression that the only reason Lally is mentioned is to give a local tie-in to a national story. I'm not saying there's not necessarily an article here (in fact I can foresee an article called Optical Mosaics in space exploration or something) but that article is not on Eugene F. Lally, which is what this AfD is about. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep probably should be judged as photographer as much as scientists, and thee appear to be sufficient references to his work to show notability, I consider Dicklyon our most careful specialist in this area, and I respect his judgement.  DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep could be rewriten, needs more citations, but legnthy enough, detailed, why delete? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per sources in the section of the article currently titled, "More sources, with notes/quotes to incorporate into the article." Topic appears to be notable per these sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I moved the extra sources with notes/quotes to the talk page but they do indeed indicate significant coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2011 (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.