Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Sichao


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen&times; &#9742;  19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wang Sichao
Non-notable. A casual glance through Google results show that although he not unknown, I don't think there's nothing particular notable about this guy. He's just another astronomer? I'm open to be convinced otherwise of course. Enochlau 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability is verified. android  79  22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable, nn as written. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I have a gut feeling that this guy is notable (based on 200 Ghits and the creating writer's earnestness only), but the evidence isn't in the article, so as of now, it must go. I hope a Sinologist comes forth to help.  Please alert me to rewrites, and I will happily reverse my vote. Xoloz 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment: Google "Wang Sichao" | "Sichao Wang" 257 results, "王思潮" 19400 results, so this guy is importance or significance enough. &mdash; Yaohua2000 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are only 258 unique Google hits for 王思潮. Any number of hits doesn't mean anything unless you can add something to the article that says why he's important. android  79  23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope all of you review this carefully. '''Actually, there are only 81 unique hits for "Wikipedia" &mdash; Yaohua2000 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It continues to astonish me that presumably smart people somehow think that sites like WP generate these ridiculously low unique hit counts. I have explained elsewhere, but will do so again When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected. A rough extrapolation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand.  In the case of Wikipedia, you have to correct for your sample; the number of duplicates is so low because the pagerank of Wikipedia itself is so high.  I mean honestly, did you really think that Wikipedia was only mentioned in 81 unique places???  Delete this as nn. Eusebeus 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It was brought here as a disputed speedy. The deleting admin speedily undeleted it. android  79  23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. Enochlau 23:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I was aware of that. I think the disbute has no merit, and so i re-tagged it as a speedy. I was tempted to simply delete, and would arguably have been justified, but I long ago said i wouldn't delete for nn-bio unless soemone else had tagged. DES (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it still fits well within the speedy deletion criteria. However, WP:CSD notes that "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." Hence, it should not be speedied. Enochlau 01:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I take "the assertion" in that phrase as meanign the asserion of notability. taht is, if the articel says "X is notable because he did Y" then saying "no he didn't do Y" makes the assertion disputed. Simply saying "yes he is notable" with no reason given does not make the matter disputed IMO. DES (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I had thought of it the other way. You might just be correct. Enochlau 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If simply saying "X is notable" avoids a speedy, and if simply saying "I dispute the deletion" requires undeltion and AfD, both with no evidece for or indication of notability beyond mere assertion, than A7 is pretty useless and pointless. But I've made my case and will not speak further on this article. DES (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy tag put back on. Enochlau 01:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The deletion policy sounds quite interesting. &mdash; Yaohua2000 01:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a reason why the subject is considered notable is provided and appropriate references are cited. As the article stands, it qualifies for speedy deletion under criteria A7. --Allen3 talk 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone with 19400 hits is not notable, I doubt. &mdash; Yaohua2000 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google hits for people in Category:Astronomers: Bartholomaeus Pitiscus: 207 Jakob Bartsch: 1890 Ben Bussey: 4460 Marcelo Gleiser: 12500 Paul Götz: 1710 Harkhebi: 4210 Joseph Helffrich: 634 Nabu-rimanni: 3610 So do you mean all above should be speedy deleted immediately??? &mdash; Yaohua2000 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we stop worrying so much about Google hits? The main problem is that the article doesn't say anything about why he is notable. You note that your English is not that good; doesn't matter, just add it, and we can clean up your grammar for you if you like. Enochlau 00:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, the Google test is not always meaningful; the thing that saves those articles from speedy deletion, however, is not their Google hits but their content. Prove to us that the Google test has failed us here and add something meaningful to the article. If you are unable to do so in English, as you have indicated on my talk page, there's not a whole lot we can do here unless we get a translator. Does an article on this person exist on the Chinese Wikipedia? If not, why don't you write one? android  79  00:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wang is neither my relative, nor my friend, he has nothing to do with me, if you wan to delete this guy, just delete it. I'm so tired and want a sleep. I'm sorry to bother you all. Thanks. &mdash; Yaohua2000 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: see also Deletion_review. Enochlau 01:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Xinhua News Agency reports his opinions Kappa 02:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn-bio. Stifle 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * HYPERSTRONG KEEP This is a credible scientist, NOT some nut, like the Robertson Panel protocol would have people believing.Martial Law 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep I agree that the article is somewhat skeletal, but I think the notability is addressed. If my chinese was better, I'd try to flesh it out, but I think we'll have to wait for someone more qualified to expand this kernal.  In any case, it should be kept as a good start Erudy 14:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be notable because of the media attention. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:39, 21 December 2005 (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.