Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gideon Polya

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. Based on the discussion this appears to be considered a marginal case in terms of notability, but the fact that more editors are finding the sources presented here inadequate swings this towards deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Polya

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article cites no sources, references consist entirely of subject's own works. Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. userdude 01:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article was written almost entirely by User:Philipivanov. This is the only article this user has contributed to. userdude 02:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As best I can find, he retired as an associate professor in 2003. He doesn't appear to have been granted emeritus status per [1]. Citation record is marginal. In short, the case for WP:NPROF looks weak at best. Not sure about WP:NAUTHOR. The material about his left-wing opinion pieces looks WP:UNDUE. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure the article is poorly written from more than one aspect, but this is not about CLEANUP. From what I can tell there is quite sufficient to support WP:NEXIST for WP:GNG even if the subject does not meet a specific NSUBJECT. The subject seems to be quoted across many genres and in many languages. Just a very very small sample of what can be very easily found are:

The above are highly reliable and respected sites. An article written by a single purpose account does not by itself mean that a subject matter is not notable. Aoziwe (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe works by Polya can be used to establish notability (per WP:GNG). Although multiple sources quote or cite Polya, I could not find any reliable sources about him beyond one or two sentences acknowledging that he is a former associate professor of biochemistry. userdude 17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is sufficient to write more than a basic stub, and a balanced article. The person is a polarising subject and there are sources which "love" him and sources which "hate" him and some objectively critique his veiws. For example:

and some others with bio details, for example:

And the quoting and referring to the subject is broad and sustained, and across multiple langauges. Aoziwe (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some of the sources you listed are invalid for consideration for WP:GNG:

[2] This is a blog post and essentially says no more than 'Polya is far-left'.
[3] This is the only source I believe qualifies as "significant coverage"; however, I do not believe the source qualifies as a reliable source.
[4] This source only briefly mentions Polya to say Polya's claims about Churchill are incorrect. I do not believe this qualifies as significant coverage.
[5] Biographies on Academia.edu are written by the user. This is not an independent source.
[6] This says nothing about Polya, just lists him as having been a member of ASBMB for 50 years. I do not believe this qualifies as significant coverage.
[1] This is just a passing mention of Polya saying he was a La Trobe staff member, a plant biochemist interested in regulation of signal transduction pathways, and retired in 2003.

userdude 01:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying that any of the individual references are significant coverage, and I agree, each on their own is not. All I am saying is that there is sufficient WP:NEXIST to write more than a stub article for what is a likely (especially given the way the subject is referred to across the world it seems) search subject of encyclopedic interest to people. Which, is what Wikipedia is here for? Aoziwe (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Fails WP:NPROF as I discussed above. His CRC book had a review, but his political books look to be self-published and unreviewed. I don't think that makes WP:NAUTHOR. The coverage found by Aoziwe is marginal at best, and most of it not in reliable sources. With marginal-at-best notability and moderately serious sourcing problems, WP:TNT looks like the best solution. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. His academic publications are on the borderline for WP:PROF#C1 but if that were all we had to say about him then I think we wouldn't have material for an article. The rest is unsourced political detail and badly-sourced and somewhat inflammatory-sounding (from the titles) self-published political material. With little way to get a neutral mainstream-sourced judgement on its significance, I think we're better off without it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.