Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Pollock


 * 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. This stub does not verify that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. The scientist may merit a mention in the article Alien Planet if other contributors are also mentioned. As other contributors are not mentioned, merger of this material would be problematic at this time with regards to WP:WEIGHT. Consensus here is that until more reliable sources can be found to verify notability, the individual is presumed insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy Pollock


Has been declined speedy, but I don't feel that it satisfies notability guidelines. I don't feel strongly about this, but it should be deleted unless more verifiable and sourced content is added, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. The Dominator (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Dominik... I do feel the article meets notability guidelines, in that Mr Pollock's research & designs for spacecraft instrumentation for probes outside the solar system will be strongly influential in the construction of such probes.

I dispute the contention that IMDb is not a reliable source. It is maintained by members & is fact-checked daily... Hmmm sounds a little bit like Wiki. Aside from the levity, IMDb's membership are industry insiders with a strong financial interest in its accuracy and any errors are vigorously eliminated.

Perhaps, this would be better handled as a stub off of Pollock (disambiguation)? TexasRazor (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sounds a little bit like Wiki" That is the exact reason it's not considered a reliable source. I myself have been pushing for the use of IMDb as a RS, but if you really check and ask around it's not. I find it acceptable to be used as a source for credits, others probably will not. As for the notability, have any books or academic papers been published where this person has been mentioned? Currently I don't think the article satisfies WP:NN. Oh, and in an AfD in case you don't know, add your "vote" before your reasoning like delete bolded, it makes the organization of it easier. The Dominator (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think the discovery channel paragraph about him is a reliable source (and discovery channel is not his employer, so it counts as third party). That's why I declined the speedy. But I don't think it's sufficiently in-depth, it's only one source, and it doesn't really say anything notable about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Retain or convert to stub? Thanks for your response, David.  I know Wiki policies discourage stubs, but I'll continue to improve the article until a sufficient number of sources are obtained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasRazor (talk • contribs) 19 March 2008


 * Delete the stub that doesn't even effectively assert notability. If he becomes notable it will be very easy to restart the article.  Dimitrii (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)