Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep.

Uwe Kils[edit]

Vanity. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Oceanographer and Kils. RickK 23:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, lack of reliable, verifiable material that can be used to support an article. --Michael Snow 23:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bio vanity. - Etacar11 00:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Neutralitytalk 03:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whatever this guy did or did not do on Wikipedia, he seems to be quite notable in his field [1]. VFD ain't RFAR. Zocky 05:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of what I've observed showing up in a Google search this way is his photo credits. From what I've seen he has good pictures, and I appreciate the images he's contributed to Wikipedia; however, I haven't seen anything yet from these results that we can make an encyclopedia article out of, or else I might reconsider. --Michael Snow 06:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that his photos are widely used in scientific circles alone makes him a notable science photographer. His CV [2] might be a good place to start looking for verifiable sources for his other activities. Zocky 07:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 13:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: notable person in the field, readily verifiable - anyone claiming otherwise is a fruitcake. Seriously people, we are talking over 3000 Google hits here. Tannin 13:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - note that Prof. Kils himself wants the page deleted. Karol 13:43, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I wanted only the crippled version deleted Uwe Kils 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is irrelevant. Tannin 13:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject wants it removed; it won't be a serious loss. Otherwise I would vote to keep. Scimitar 14:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable. Named author on 13 journal publications (7 peer reviewed) and 15 articles in books (mainly ICES meeting proceedings), according to the ASFA abstracts database (after excluding duplicates). A good number of those google hits are simply mirrors of User:Kils or mirrors of wikipedia pages which give him a photo credit. Anilocra 15:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hallo marine biologist Anilocra - my work was at least cited in Nature magazin and in Science magazin, that happens not to many marine biologists Uwe Kils 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep 3000 google hits indicates some notability. JamesBurns 11:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral For those who are really interested in verifiable material: Achievements - Uwe Kils 68.46.71.104 18:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC) - it would be good for our proposals for a Virtual University and coursework to have such a page as teacher ref Uwe Kils 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. --Sn0wflake 03:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After much thought, I have decided I'd like to keep this article. We have articles on far less noteable professors. Also, a lot more than what is currently written can be verified through third-party sources, even if it admittedly isn't exactly always easy. I just hope it doesn't turn into a biased "faculty testimonial" again. (Yes, that's biased, because it is designed to convince the immigration office what a great guy he is. It is also quite dated, still referring to him as a "young marine scientist"!) Lupo 08:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: as this starts to look like it will be kept, I've given the article a thorough work-over. Lupo 08:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I feel. James F. (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Lupo on this matter. Considering that Wikipedia has articles on subjects far less notable, this article should be kept, as long as it is NPOV, reliable, documented info. Flcelloguy 20:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kingturtle 03:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. jimfbleak 05:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and seems notable in field. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm not convinced of his notability. --W(t) 07:57, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. --Magnus Manske 08:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficient notability established. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies -- Egil 09:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in his field. El_C 07:54, 31 May 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils&oldid=1079975343"