Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural History of South Asia mailing list (3rd 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list (3rd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Long and nasty history, this being the third AfD in as many weeks. First was closed as a delete, and later overturned at DRV. The second was closed as a no consensus, with the following comment:


 * On the one hand ... there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed.

The references provided to support these claims were subjected to some basic scrutiny (not particularly rigorous), and failed to stand up. Most were trivial, and did not support the statements they were being cited for; one was circular, and was effectively citing the list itself for a contentious statement; one cited a "special thanks" note to the list's founder for something entirely unrelated to the list itself; one turned out to be demonstrably false. Many of these references were added by User:Atulsnischal, who has a confirmed WP:COI with the subject. The article as of the time of this nomination is here. With the exception of the two statements tagged fact, the content of this version does stand up to cursory checking.

In case the bogus references should be reinserted, I urge all participants tempted to simply glance at the article and say "Keep, well-referenced" to check the references against the invalid references listed on the talk page before committing. Chris cheese whine 02:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: Non-notable mailing list. Fails Notability (web). The only mentions to the mailing list are all trivial single sentence references to it, which, according to notability guidelines, is NOT a proof of notability. There are thousands of mailing lists out there which have similar trivial mentions in newspapers or other sources, but that does not make them notable and encyclopedic. Neither is this one. --Ragib 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. My first reaction when I saw the title was, "How on earth did this survive two AFDs?"  Now I know.  I just can't see how any mailing list can be notable unless some of its participants are extraordinarily famous. (Maybe I need my glasses checked.) YechielMan 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete delete per this statement on the Articles for deletion/Natural History of South Asia mailing list (2nd nomination) :Interestingly, many of the keep votes have been solicited by, as seen by the messages left on the talk pages of the users. This sort of canvassing is just a way to subvert the afd. --Ragib 06:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC) and a reference Signed Jeepday 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep We have been here before. Major institutions of world-wide stature do not make indiscriminate lists of resources, The selectivity involved in adding this to their lists is an endorsement of its usefulness. the references deleted were examples of this use--the battle to delete this list has been carried out on several fronts. I think most of the major researchers in the subject do use the list. There are many academic fields where the mailing lists are the main information sources--of course this requires a moderated list with significant editorial control. This is now the way the academic world--or at least large parts of it--now  work. I would certainly have been here saying this without the least need of canvassing, by the way--I think it is not wise to do so, for it does arouse suspicion.  I can thus understand perfectly well the reason why some might vote to delete. DGG 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction to above comment - the "major institution of world-wide stature" you refer to would be the American Museum of Natural History, which happens to be the one reference that was most dubious of all, what with it not actually being at the AMNH itself. Appearing in a link list is no big deal, regardless of who compiles the list - it is still a trivial mention for the purposes of WP:N.  Chris cheese whine 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Originally when I gave the American Museum of Natural History Reference it read:
 * Mentioned amongst notable Natural History Sites, on an archived Fax of Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA
 * Atulsnischal 04:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above Fax is archived here, ENVIS A Government of India Institution: Atulsnischal 04:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So? I don't see any reference from AMNH even in your diff above. Per WP:V, how do we know that it is an archive of the AMNH, and NOT a fake page? The anonymous server is from India, and NOT the AMNH. --Ragib 04:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. The jump to "notable" is an assumption; 2. That archived copy does not contain sufficient information to verify its authenticity and origin (date and time of transmission amongst others are missing). Incidentally, the host resolves to mail.ces.iisc.ernet.in.  Chris cheese whine 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * DGG, again, you are not taking into account the difference between trivial, and non trivial mention. Does ANY notable institution give it more that a "that too" type mention? Do you see the real AMNH mention this in a non-trivial manner? Even a single paragraph of text focusing on how useful this list is not there. All we have is simple one line mentions. Other references are forged.
 * Also, you need to take into account "Trivial mentions". For example, research papers often have an acknowledgment section where there are similar one-sentence "Thank you" notes on various persons, that by itself does not make those persons "cited". As for the "Battle", no WP is not a battle ground, but we need to keep the random crap away, as WP IS an encyclopedia and NOT a fanblog. Until we learn to clean out fancruft and triviality, WP will simply degenerate into a spamblog. --Ragib 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Now that it's clear we don't have reliable sources that really justify the importance of this mailing list, I think it fails WP:WEB.  Mango juice talk 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - If we're scrounging through faxes and trivial lists of links, I think its pretty clear there are reliable sources at this point. No sources - even if a notable museum links to another website, it does not make that website notable.  That is pretty much the definition of a trivial listing, regardless of who is performing it.  Even if we granted the faulty assumption that being in a list of links makes it notable, there's no secondary information on which to base an article.  Wickethewok 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for an Example let me point out the fact that Scientists and Researchers from world famous Natural History and Conservation Institutions are members of this network and communicate with it in official manner representing their Institutions:

Here are just two examples out of several, Staff of following are members of this list in an official capacity representing their Institutions, you can search in the Archives and see their communication:

Search for American Museum of Natural History in Archives of the List to see their posts
 * WWF World Wide Fund for Nature / World Wildlife Fund Search for WWF in Archives of the List to see their posts
 * American Museum of Natural History

Atulsnischal 05:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Several other examples abound in the Archives, thousands of posts from this notable network
 * These are just 2 examples I took all top NGOs from the region are members as well and communicate to this important network.
 * Any email sent to this Network signed in an official capacity, with the seal of the company / Institution (Name and Address) is a communication in official capacity. Thankyou Atulsnischal 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you reword the above sentence such that it makes sense, please? "Signed in an official capacity"?  "Seal"?  Just because my email client forcibly adds a company-assigned signature to outgoing email does not make those in any "official capacity".  Chris cheese whine 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet again, your references do not stand up to scrutiny. Nothing in those results suggests that they are acting in an official capacity.  Chris cheese whine 05:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, so what? My university's departmental mailing lists contain Nobel laureates as well. Does this make those tens of newsgroups, mailing lists notable? No. Neither does the presence of any number of professors make a list they subscribe to notable. --Ragib 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP: This article is about something more then a mailing list, it is often referred to as the "NATURAL HISTORY NETWORK" of India or South Asia, it also serves as WILDERNESS TELEGRAM SYSTEM of sorts, the subject of this article has become an NGO in itself helping its members many of whom are grassroots workers in the fields of Nature & Wildlife Conservation, students, scientists, prominent members of other NGOs, many "News Makers" in these field report directly to the NETWORK, simultaneously or before commercial news channels report on the matter, discoveries, poaching, habitat encroachments, proposed government protected area notifications and the unfortunate de-notifications, illegal wildlife trade observed, wildlife trade seizures, Endangered Tiger & Panther etc. etc. bone and skin seizures, proposed government policy changes affecting the environment before they come into effect, proposed dams which will submerge large chunks of the last remaining pristine forests etc are just a few things reported and debated by this NETWORK many a times bringing corrective action in time. This is a list dealing with issues faced by Indian Naturalists, conservationists, and NGOs who network on it thankfully, including members of related Government institutions, IT CAN ONLY BE COMPARED WITH OTHER LISTS OF THE REGION dealing with similar issues and it stands head and shoulders above the rest, most of the top people in the field in the region are subscribers or know of its reputability. It is a notable achievement in India in its field, please understand that before taking the argument around the world comparing ORANGES with APPLES i.e. with just other sundry mailing lists. Thankyou Atulsnischal 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your own words will count for nothing. People without conflicts of interest will readily see that no independent sources are interested in writing about your list. Resurgent insurgent 06:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The game is up, lying and misleading references will not save your article. Resurgent insurgent 06:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- Pete.Hurd 06:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Indian natural history. It's worth a sentence and an external link there. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-29 08:46Z 


 * Delete. Mailing lists should not have their own articles in cases like this. NN. And I'm tired of voting on this one. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mention at Indian natural history, if you wish. It's nice to see the good work being done at this list, but none of the references or sources indicate that it's notable to deserve an article of its own. Since I've been accused of voting delete in bad faith, let me explain the rationale behind my vote in detail -- I'd like to address all the arguments from the first AfD nom, the second AfD nom and this one:
 * Argument 1: The list is "Natural History Network", "Wilderness Telegram System", "NGO in itself": The claim that it is the "Natural History Network" is based on a book endorsement, where the creator of the mailing list mentions himself as "Co-oridinator, South Asian Natural History Network". Other such assertions are based entirely on perception of the creator of the article. Even if such claims are assumed to be true, the subject of the article still fails WP:ORG.
 * Argument 2: The list has been mentioned on websites of notable organizations or the selectivity involved in adding this to their lists is an endorsement of its usefulness or  the list has been "recommended" by ESA, IUCN, and people such as Frederick Noronha: All the "references" provided for these arguements are actually trivial listing among many other URLs. For eg., the "reference" being provided to assert that the list is recommended by the American Museum of Natural History is a fax message that mentions some useful URLs including these: (many dead links) -- do all these pages become notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia? Similarly, this mentions the list among eight others (most of them Yahoo! Groups). This is a list of 100+ links that includes several tripod, geocities, freeservers, 8m.com pages -- do all these pages become notable enough to deserve an article because they have been "recommended" by a highly respected journalist (Frederick Noronha)? Other such "references" are also trivial mentions of list in newsletters etc.
 * Argument 3: The list members are employees of notable organizations such as WII and USFWS: The "references" provided for this are messages like this one (a Reuters news item forwarded to the list by a USFWS employee). How does this make the list itself notable enough for an article? I work with a very notable organization and I subscribe to many lists -- that doesn't make those lists notable. I'd vote keep if many participants of the list were themselves very notable or famous, which doesn't seem to be the case.
 * Argument 4: The list that produced a number of noteworthy predictions (the 2nd AfD nom was closed citing this argument by trialsanderrors) -- the article doesn't contain (and never contained) any information about "number of noteworthy predictions". It contained information about speculation that a subscriber to the list may have predicted the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The reference doesn't assert notability of the list. It just mentions the list once, as a place where one can verify that the prediction was made before the earthquake occured.
 * Argument 5: The list is hosted at Princeton/some of the list members are professors, so the list is notable in academic circles: Just because some of the list members are professors doesn't make it highly notable in academic circles. All the "references" earlier mentioned in the article were trivial one-sentence mentions of the list. utcursch | talk 10:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was cautiously in favour of keeping, but Utcursh's work above is compelling. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB.--Bryson 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Utcursch says it all. Betaeleven 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I Protest & Appeal to all Wikipedia Administrators that This version of this Article passed 3 Deletion debates already, check Discussion page. . Atulsnischal 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Atulsnischal 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had a long history of problems with Ragib, . I have already complained about him once on the Administrators Board. Atulsnischal 16:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Atul, this is NOT really a place to make personal attacks against other editors who vote against you. Thanks. --Ragib 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for all your friendly advices in the past including this one Ragib Atulsnischal 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Atulsnischal 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments refactored to remove excessive bold formatting and "I protest..." spiel. Resurgent insurgent 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Utcursh's reasoning. - Denny 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"NatHistory-India"- Notability Check on Google: Over 900 Results, "nathistory-india@PRINCETON.EDU"- Notability Check on Google: 115 Results and "Natural History of South Asia"- Notability Check on Google: 51 ResultsAtulsnischal 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Atulsnischal has been re-inserting the fake references repeatedly into the article. I have reported him for 3RR (he had been blocked for it before). --Ragib 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I originially closed as a delete (I think this is the one). Its claim to fame is the first mailing list for a specified area.  If that were the case, any mailing list being the first to cover an area would be notable (I.E. almost every mailing list would be notable).  Definitley not encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Looked non-notable at first; info provided by utcursch clinches it. Raymond Arritt 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and utcursch's demolition. Beyond that, the Keep proponents have left one crucial element out of their protests about how vitally important this mailing list is to South Asia - how does that equate to the subject being an encyclopedic article that passes WP:ATT for Wikipedia?  I don't fall for the common presumption that just because Something! Is! Important! that it receives a free pass through WP:ATT, WP:N and WP:NOR as a reward. RGTraynor 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- a search using google produces virtually no hits:.
 * Delete per above. Addhoc 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the other deleters. Acalamari 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Utcursh and nom. Rama's arrow  20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. First question: a mailing list here?  That better be one heck of a mailing list - but just looking around, it doesn't look all that notable.  Sorry.  Cites on the page are fairly trivial.  Good that other things are citing the list, but that's like citing...well, Wikipedia as a primary. (Sorry, Jimbo.) --Dennisthe2 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. (1) WP:NOT a directory, (2) the article is not very interesting, (3) there is a lack of reliable third-party sources specifically commenting on the mailing list. If a new bird species was announced there, that adds to the notability of the discoverer, but not much to the mailing list. The discoverer could have sent email to his personal friends, but that would not make the friends notable. EdJohnston 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Wickethewok and most of the above. --kingboyk 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per utcursch. Pete.Hurd 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and utcursch. --Haemo 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dennisthe2's sentiments exactly: a mailing list? The references fail to impress. Sandstein 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I thought it lost the first debate. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It did. Resurgent insurgent 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So then, what are we doing here? Maybe delete and salt, so we don't have to waste our time on this again? Raymond Arritt 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the nominator the first AFD was overturned on DRV and it survived a second AFD. So that is why we are here. --67.71.77.213 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per dgg--D-Boy 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Utcursh has dealt with every keep argument sufficiently. GizzaChat  &#169; 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a mailing list, for Lord Jimbo's sake. Utcursh has summed it up well enough. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I have made a thorough effort to find the AMNH listing on a public part of their site, and not succeeded. So I agree that it is not an RS. The evidence above that this list is used by senior scientists there and elsewhere seems to be the strongest documentation available, . DGG 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a mailing list with no real notability or anything else particularly noteworthy. Fails Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jayden54 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PLEASE NOTE: Thanks Atulsnischal 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If searched on the internet in Google Search Engine etc. as "Natural History of South Asia", "NatHistory-India" or "nathistory-india@Princeton.EDU", it brings up more then 1000 search results where this list is mentioned in various documents and websites on the world wide web which also speaks well about this List's notability. (I have personally not checked all thousand search results though) Atulsnischal 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PLEASE LOOK INSIDE HERE TOO FOR REFERENCES: Natural History of South Asia mailing list Archives / NatHistory-India List ArchivesAtulsnischal 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't use the list itself for references to support notability. Chris cheese whine 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, why don't you google my name ... that will give you 11000+ links to an exact match of my name. So I'm 11 times more notable than this list, right ;)? Also, calling removal of faked references is quite unfortunate. --Ragib 14:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Isn't that link just a mirror of the mailing list?  x42bn6  Talk 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: See WP:BIGNUMBER. Think sources, not numbers.   x42bn6  Talk 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Cloveoil 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AFD is not a vote. You have to provide a reason for your opinion. Thanks. --Ragib 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy plz Cloveoil 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:AfD and the following section. --Ragib 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't quite seem to find the appropriate text which makes commenting upon my recommendation mandatory. Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote it for me? Cloveoil 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.. Also, Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thank you. --Ragib 09:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe he asked for the text that makes comments mandatory. Have you one? RGTraynor 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE - It doesn't sound useful or important enough. RaymondWinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondwinn (talk • contribs)


 * 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.