Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel George Cefai

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. Sr13 05:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Emmanuel George Cefai

Emmanuel George Cefai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Apparent self-promotion of a person generally unknown. Drieakko 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Cannot find any evidence of publications about this person; it seems all that exists are publications by him. And not enough of those to justify this article, either. May also want to consider the following additional articles:
  • Idea of Infinity
  • Mentalism by Emmanuel George Cefai
  • Specificity by Emmanuel George Cefai
  • Assertion rather than proof
  • The Gallery of Distinguished Thinkers
• all of which relate to work performed by this writer. JulesH 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete- not notable and has only been the work of 1 author/ IP address WP:CSD#A7 ChrisLamb 15:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources on the man in question. Might be willing to reconsider if someone else were able to do so and thus demonstrate notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom; no apparent references about the guy, just by him. These articles are weird. Propaniac 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all for any page that only has Emmanuel George Cefai's information and is not notable on its own. NobutoraTakeda 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1]

• Please do not delete before considering.

I object to the proposed deletion of the article on Emmanuel george Cefai because

1. all data and contents in it are easily verifiable and exist in public records (in this case mostly the news paper daily news of Malta)

2. Emmanuel george Cefai clearly merits this reference. : to delete this article would be to deprive other wikipedians from knowing fully about this important series of articles published by Dr. Cefai and the resume’ and critique of which forms basically the contents of the article.

3. The series of articles in question is clearly a very important academic contribution made by a Maltese scholar: and it would be unjust and discriminatory to exclude Dr. Cefai when so many other Maltese people are included.

More over should it be necessary to edit or change or remove any part or parts of this article this would be done reasonably ( communicating with the undersigned) without removing or deleting the article on Emmanuel George Cefai. 16th July 2007 user SunTrax

Suntrax, kindly note that the person in question is a lawyer gone to newspaperman gone to a self-proclaimed philosopher having no other scientific approach in his newspaper articles than his personal likings. As such he is on the same line than any blogger in the Internet. --Drieakko 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can show that ANYONE besides Dr. Cefai or yourself has called Dr. Cefai's articles "very important", it would go a lot farther towards saving these articles from deletion than anything else you could do or say. (To be fair, such a source would have to be reliable by Wikipedia standards.) Propaniac 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all a contemporary writer whose only published works--even asserted-- seem to 9 newspaper columns. DGG (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please read I object to the comments of the proposers for deletion of the article Emmanuel George Cefai, because:

1. there must be a free flow of ideas and the ideas of Dr. Cefai have every right to be represented in Wikipedia and all the other wikipedians have the right to have access to these ideas.

2. Not a single ‘critic’ has succeeded in criticizing in a technical way or presenting technical and intellectual contra arguments to the ideas of Dr. Cefai.

3. The ideas of Dr. Cefai speak for themselves.

To these Critics I say please do not hinder the free flow of ideas and withdraw your objections. (SunTrax, 17/07/07 21:32)

Please note that Wikipedia is not the correct forum for any of the above. Like Propaniac asked, you need to provide reliable secondary sources establishing the notability of the subject. --Drieakko 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all Clearly non notable, author unfortunately mistaken as to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not intended to facilitate the free flow of philosophical ideas (although a wikiPhilosophy might not be a bad idea if it doesn't already exist) it is intended to be an encyclopedia of notable topics. I also think that we might have a COI issue as user SunTrax is also the creator of Emmaunuel Cefai's father's page Joseph Cefai this should also be checked for notability issues as currently it is sourced from Malta public record. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All - articles are essentially being used to publish original works -- Whpq 21:57, 19 July 2007 (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.