Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei N. Bauer


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sergei N. Bauer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable bio, meant only for advert; salt, burn and delete. (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Why would you want a deletion of this entry, and how can you consider your claim of: "meant only for advert; salt, burn and delete" to be factual evidence for deleting an article.
 * Reasons not to delete this article

You have not justified your desire for deletion, merely issued condescending remarks without reason

According to Wikipedia's rules: Neutral point of view, verifiabillity and no original research are the three corners of a Biography.

Neutral point of view can be edited if desired. (But for that constructive feedback is needed, not bashing) Verifiability, is provided by the references. No original research is provided by referencing all claims.

Why did you place the Biography in WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Businesspeople? No anticipations to advertisement have been made, merely a claim where the subject has worked! Why did you place the Biography in WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology? No anticipations to advertisement of any products what so ever wree made. Why did you place the subject in the top section of the list?

Please justify these decisions.

This criticism comes since some users already have constructively contributed to the article, showing the articles significance and acceptance. If these are non-objective decisions please revert and remove them. A revision of the article will be made keeping the guidelines in mind.

Furthermore the guidelines state: Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies". Please comply to Wikipedia guidelines!
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serjinator (talk • contribs)
 * — Serjinator (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, well, a passionate defence from "Serjinator," who quite possibly is the article subject. Delete per nom and WP:NOTWEBHOST, which clearly states that this encyclopedia is not a place to "post your résumé." Article subject fails WP:GNG: there are no independent references to be found. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although when you're nominating autobio articles you may wish to be a little more careful in explaining why. Often people who post articles on themselves don't understand they're doing anything wrong -- and there are feelings at stake. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal, I will keep this in mind.Kavdiamanju (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal, I will keep this in mind.Kavdiamanju (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You are right, therefore the article has been reworked in order to comply with WP:NOTWEBHOST as well as WP:GNG. No intention of advertisment or "posting a résumé" was followed when writing this article, even less after re-working it. This article is intended to increase the general knowledge of society about electronic waste, starting with the developers of the appliances themselves. Have you ever wondered where your electronic waste goes when it "dies". It is shipped to a third world country, disassembled and put in a landfill creating toxic wastelands. The subject in the article addresses this problem at the developers of the products and with his contribution of publishing a novel system helps to reduce the amount of waste. Please keep discussing.Serjinator (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Further reasons not to delete this article

Your definition of "notable" according to wikipedia is "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Please justify why you consider a deletion with reason and not with unverified statements. Serjinator (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC) You are right, I do have better things to do, but being in my position I have an occupation in which I simply can contribute to Wikipedia because I get my jobs done well and achieve a surplus in time. But don't worry I won't bother any more,I have understood that Wikipedia can do quite well without me, I'll stop wasting my time arguing with people who do not cherish the art of arguing. Thank you for the lesson Wikipedians, I have never made a mistake twice. Serjinator (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW: to enforce this claim, try googling for Sergei Nicholas Bauer, the subject is not on any social media or posting platforms, hence this article can not be intended to advertise, since no contact can be established to the subject anyhow. Serjinator (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when you Google him/you, there is no coverage whatsoever in WP:Reliable sources for "Sergei Nicholas Bauer." He/you is not notable by our definition and you are not going to get an encyclopedia article on him/yourself. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Contesting Non-Notability
 * Keep, if you review: ftp://ftp.ni.com/pub/branches/germany/2016/events/nidays/austria/einladung_nidays-2016.pdf and search for the subject as well as https://www.k-ai.at/cms/publications/publications/ you will find the subject as well as the publications claimed. These are both reliable secondary sources.
 * Simply taking part in a conference or publishing a paper does not make you notable. Your comments about "unverified statements" is a bit hard to take -- as you don't clearly don't understand the most basic requirements of how WP:Notability works around here. I'm sure you're accomplished. You clearly are. But our notability requirements are quite specific and you don't meet them. Also, Wikipedia is not here to help you promote yourself. And furthermore, your insistence on using this public forum to attempt burnish your credentials doesn't look good, I daresay. Someone who's as notable in their field as you claim to be might have better things to do, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, taking part in a conference does not accredit a subject to be notable, developing a novel system which changes the approach of how hardware is re-cycled effectively, instead of the common industrial approach of discarding electrical appliances, changes a well established practice in its fundamental approach and therefore this is a notable contribution to the dicipline of the subjects field. It is sad, that some Wikipedians, are deceived by their conception of making Wikipedia a better place with destructive input, but do not put the effort into really discussing topics factually. Having looked under the hood of how Wikipedia works I now fully understand why Wikipedia is not recommended as a reference.
 * Delete as it's quite safe to still say this is only a business job listing, regardless of anything, and the honesty is that Wikipedia is simply not a place for a business listing or PR webhost, therefore the current contents simply suggest nothing for a currently acceptable article with the needed substance. SwisterTwister   talk  01:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, this article should not a part of Wikipedia, even though a case can be made that the subject is notable, the community will not approve of this (yet). Serjinator (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is a private charity. It is not a webhost. It is not a place to post your resume. It is not a place to publicize your ideas. It is not a place to publish original research. This technician is run of the mill and not ready for prime time. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2016 (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.