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. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Adini

[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only two references actually mention him, one is a primary routine source and the other authored by a co-worker. PROD removed by IP who added a large amount of also-unreferenced material. Searching in google is finding many non-independent sources, but no independent ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted - it is a work in progress. The finished article will include a significant list of publications and data on Adini's works which are used by educational institutions taken from his overall education, experience and knowledge in the field he has been a pioneer in. MDHwriter(talk) 20:00, 27 June 2013 — Mdhwriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This article should not be deleted. The article is currently missing relevant information on the use of Ami Adini's publications and findings in the field of water clean up and brownfields both for educational purposes and environmental projects both in Israel and in the United States. This article should be labeled as a work in progress and completed. Mggpublishing 03:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Mggpublishing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I've just discovered Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ami Adini. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a list of publications have been added, perhaps from http://www.amiadini.com/newsletter-archive.html What is needed is not publications by this person or their company, but by independent third parties with in depth detail about this person. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ami Adini’s research and actions have resulted in environmental improvements both in California and Israel and a multi-million-dollar government supported enterprise for concentrating on petroleum cleanup. Hopefully this endeavor will be implemented in other states besides California but even if it doesn’t it can safely be said that the California environment and therefore the lives of 38 million people were improved because of Ami Adini’s research and actions.
Mass media organizations tend to specialize in destruction, crimes, scandals and controversy as they feel those items are newsworthy, unfortunately Google is not excluded from this, but I believe Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia and not a news organization, should also feature figures that have greatly assisted the environment or others.
Stuartyeates I understand you are just trying to improve Wikipedia by counting number of external references and I’m researching additional references to include in the article but if this results in major figures that have assisted the environment not being featured than I am convinced Wikipedia does not have firm rules applies to this situation. Mggpublishing 22:43, 01 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some independent references and am in the process of adding more independent references. --Mdhwriter (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. An article being a work in progress is not a reason to keep it; the vast majority of all articles could be said to be in that stage. Two clear SPAs trying to keep the article - one has a name that is a clear violation of the username policy, the other also suggests a COI, or paid editing. Anyway, to the merits of this article: there are simply no non-trivial, non-routine, in-depth, secondary sources on this person, and thus he fails WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominiator. The whole entry is irrelevant drivel that has nothing to do with the person the article is about. The parts that are about the author sound like an advertisement. A few publications and newspaper mentions don't make somebody notable. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2013 (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.