Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan Pantziarka


 * 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. The keep camp repeatedly stated that secondary sources exist and/or are in the article but never once named or linked to any. As far as I could see, the only substantial secondary source in the article is the Independent review, and that was only explicitly named by one participant—who nevertheless recommends delete. This is a reasonable policy-based view (multiple sources are required for notability) and hence the the decision is delete. I have searched myself in google scholar to see if his citations could meet the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR but unfortunately he is very poorly cited, even on his supposed leading edge paper on Li Fraumeni Syndrome.  Spinning Spark  15:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Pan Pantziarka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deleted via PROD; later contested and restored. I do not believe this individual meets any applicable notability guidelines, and certainly appears to fail WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a section on Pantziarka's cancer research and patient advocacy work. There are very few public advocates for Li Fraumeni Syndrome patients and patient-centred research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.96.100 (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a promotional service. GiantSnowman 11:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't promotion. It's about establishing notability using additional references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.96.100 (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...which you haven't done. GiantSnowman 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.96.100 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The reason for the delete vote is because the rules for Notability can be found at WP:GNG. It says sources must be secondary ie. newspapers, magazines, books, etc.. about the topic, not by the topic (summarized at WP:42). Of course material by the subject of the article is available, but anyone can show their accomplishments. That is why we need independent evidence from sources unassociated with the subject that this is a person of "note" ie. discussed in a significant manner by other people. There is a single source that does this, The Independent, from 1999. I'm actually impressed with the wide ranging career of Pantziarka and couldn't imagine this was all the same person, yet couldn't imagine two people with the same name either. So I searched many sources both online and off and had no luck, other than the Independent. If there are other sources like it, they should be added since it establishes notability, but I could not find them. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Do citations of primary works count? For example "Lone Wolf" by Pan Pantziarka is listed and discussed in numerous places. For example: http://www.themorningnews.org/article/going-postal-goes-abroad, or http://www.citv.com.au/crime-profiles/detail.aspx?f=66&c=8, or listed in various bibliographies on terrorism and academic papers. 86.31.95.143 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That may make the book notable - but not necessarily the author. WP:NOTINHERITED. GiantSnowman 20:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. We determine author notability based on the notability of their works, as determined by book reviews. See WP:AUTHOR #3. This is true for all creative professions. With that said, these two sources are not book reviews, rather mentions of the book in articles about something else, it's not significant coverage of the work. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

By the same token then does that mean that the George Pantziarka TP53 Trust is more notable than Pan Pantziarka? 86.31.95.143 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems to me that the list of references is pretty wide now, with secondary sources added in as well as primary sources. 195.171.96.100 (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I find this veryt hard to judge, because there is not enough detail on his books. The syndrome of which his son died has no article, nor does the trust, which may be very small, so that they cannot confer notability, but I do wonder whethere notability may be provable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The syndrome does have an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_fraumeni_syndrome. Pantziarka's contribution to this seems to have some recognition judging by things like this: http://livinglfs.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-george-pantziarka-tp53-trust.html 86.25.10.222 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've done searches on google scholar, searched patents, library holdings, pubmed, scirus search and found lots of references to Pantziarka and his various works. Articles of his are included in the syllabus and/or reading lists for various courses (see http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=pantziarka&t=all&sort=0&g=s for examples). 86.25.10.222 (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 86.25.10.222 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 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) 02:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 21:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - While the article has a large number of sources they are primarily primary sources. As is mentioned above, all of the references for the Cancer Research section are primary sources. The most direct claim to notability is being singled out as "leader in his respective field" by the International Climate Science Coalition here, but it ultimately his name is just included in a list and unfortunately no criteria for leader was given, they may have just put his name on the list because it has PhD next to it. In the sentence, "This is one of the few books that looks at the phenomenon of spree killing" I don't think the word "few" is supported by the sources. If there were a secondary source saying that it was "one of the few books" in that category it would help establish the subject's work's notability. Once you remove few it is just a once sentence summary of the subject's book. ParacusForward (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sheer range of this author's writing and the diverse sources suggest that it should be a keep. Even a wikipedia search throws up links in cancer, spree killers, erotica and politics. Pantziarka is also author of a number of tutorials and reviews which are frequently cited - such as "Standard deviation in 30 seconds" https://www.google.com/search?num=50&site=&source=hp&q=%22standard+deviation+in+30+seconds%22 which suggest this is a keep64.134.130.123 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He does have an impressive range. It would be nice if more reliable sources would take notice of his work and make this decision, and writing the article, easier. It seems that he writes useful things and not notable things. The Standard deviation in 30 seconds article you reference, and some of his other works are cited by some people on the internet, in the television industry, and in academic works. But they aren't discussing the work itself, they merely find referencing Pan Pantziarka's works' contents useful in the creation of the content they are creating. ParacusForward (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)