User:Ruud Koot/Feed

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

AA: Computer science

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(17 more...)

AA: Computing

Shortcut

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(8 more...)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Requested moves

(42 more...)

Articles to be merged

(30 more...)

Articles to be split

(17 more...)

Articles for creation

(41 more...)

AfD: Computing

Computing

Turkish Informatics Olympiad

Turkish Informatics Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged uncited for 15 years and does not exist on Turkish Vikipedi. If it is notable maybe some competitors or former competitors could cite this? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Spindle (disc packaging)

Spindle (disc packaging) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really notable compared to any other kind of spindle Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation

KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see evidence that the organization would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about the organization. But this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as its own self-published content about itself, the self-published websites of partner organizations and directory entries, that are not support for notability -- and meanwhile, the very few GNG-worthy media hits here just glancingly namecheck the organization's founder as a provider of a short soundbite in an article about something else, which is not about this organization and thus does not support its notability.
We're looking for reliable sources (not just any web page that exists) in which this organization is the subject of the coverage (not just a name that happens to get mentioned within coverage about something else), but none of the sources here footnotes here meet that standard at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources and references do exist.
Here are two more:
Cyber Security and Privacy: Key Principles and Tools for Older Adults - Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario (eapon.ca)
https://etalentcanada.ca/for-educators/programs/ictc-knowledge-exchange-hub Emmajp377 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

DB2 SQL return codes

DB2 SQL return codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These were created for ease of reference for people using the IBM Db2 software. Per the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy (see WP:NOT), an article listing the error codes for an arbitrary system is unnecessary. There is almost certainly no coverage of the error codes specifically: have done some minimal WP:BEFORE and nothing showed up obviously; and if there is it can be better put into the main article for the product. Should be deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Inbox Business Technologies

Inbox Business Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a platform for corporate advertisements. This is related to Ghias Khan paid-for-spam. IPO of this company didn't happen so WP:LISTED is not applicable. Other than that there are routine press releases or brief coverage in WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. DeploreJames (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: @DeploreJames, Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the Ghias Ali BLP is paid-for-spam or are these just allegations? Regardless, the focus should be on removing promotional content per WP:ATD rather than seeking deletion. Also, you should notify the page creator @Crosji: on their tp about this AFD. PS. declare your master sock account, please. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    Crosji (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I agree with @Saqib to avoid WP:Popularage, this article is consistent with WP guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:RS. It also does not fail WP:NCORP as the primary criteria for WP:ORG is “A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
Faraz.salim (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

EveryoneOn

EveryoneOn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete as stated above by SafariScribe. Article reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedic entry. Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Nokia Morph

Nokia Morph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concept design for a mobile phone which was never manufacturable (it relied on fantasy tech) and which, in retrospect, had little to no meaningful influence on the industry. Some limited news coverage when it was announced in 2008, but nothing substantial since then. Omphalographer (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Tuleap

AfDs for this article:
Tuleap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I note the two prior AfDs. I also note the banner at the head containing multiple flags for improvements not addressed since September 2018. I suggest that they have not been addressed because they cannot be addressed. Fails WP:GNG, is improperly sourced, and is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent What do you have to say for Stephen Schulz's argument towards keeping? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Nothing whatsoever. If you wish to make that argument in this discussion please make it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep then. It has been brought up before that many sources such as Infoworld, LinuxFR, Silicon, a lot of stuff from Opensource.com, etc confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I removed the links to Tuleap's own web site and slide decks. There is the one long article in opensource.com which is, however, an interview with one of the founders. This article has a decently long section on the software. And it has been listed as a "top X" software package. I think we need at least one more substantial article to make this a solid "keep". And ideally it shouldn't be from opensource.com because we already have that as a source many times. Lamona (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete as I believe this reads too much like an advertisement WP:PROMO. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    That can be fixed. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science

Shortcuts


Science

JSS Science and Technology University

JSS Science and Technology University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Private universities must pass WP:NCORP, this one fails it. The article is a brochure for the organisation with many primary sources and dead links. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

LabPlot

AfDs for this article:
LabPlot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find independent coverage to demonstrate WP:NSOFTWARE is met. The previous AFD did a poor job of testing notability, with the rationales to keep revolving around google hits, not sources. I have searched extensively and been unable to find any independent coverage. Note that the article has been substantially trimmed recently and led to the developers writing a blog post. At least one commenter on that article, as well as posters in the accompanying wikipediocracy thread also noted the lack of available sources. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: LabPlot provides a list of citations on their website. While most of these are academic papers that don’t seem describe LabPlot (at least in my sample of them), the GNU and NLNet links may be useful. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, these published education papers discuss LabPlot, albeit in Russian:
I’m tentatively going for keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
> albeit in Russian
According to the language detection of Google Translate, both articles seem to actually be in Ukrainian, not Russian, which seems plausible given that they have both been written in Ukraine. 80.109.233.43 (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Oops, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
There is independent coverage:
80.109.233.43 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
PS: Hence (see the 2 links I posted above): keep. 80.109.233.43 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: This seems to be about LabPlot in comparison with another graphing software. [1] Here's another source, but I'm not sure how reliable this website is. [2] Seems to be enough to scrape by. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: The software is an important one in the scientific community and is supported by NLNet, which means is not a small software that will disappear in on year. Most people hearing about it will expect to find it on Wikipedia. Lioploum — Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment This AFD has been mentioned on the LabPlot website here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    Wow! Perhaps someone should have introduced them to talk pages. They seem to have gone in and edited, then edit-warred, then written a screed on their own site that is many screens long. All they had to do was offer some reliable sources and the community would do the rest. Sheesh! Lamona (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I've found this conference proceedings paper that also compares LabPlot to different graphing software: [3] [4] Whilst it appears the original site hosting the pdf is no longer live, the PDF can be accessed from archive.org here: [5] - page 1117 discusses LabPlot. Adding this along with some of the other sources listed above could perhaps be enough to improve it for now, and it seems that it's no less notable than other similar software with similar articles e.g. QtiPlot, SigmaPlot, SciDAVis - perhaps you could argue that these should also be deleted, but otherwise I think I would lean towards keep. WikiJN10 (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    Great find! Thanks for the paper. (Note that arguing that similar articles exist in a deletion discussion can only imply that the other articles should be deleted as well.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hani Al-Mazeedi

Hani Al-Mazeedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see that the person meets the notability criteria; I couldn't find reliable sources that talk about him.-- فيصل (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Life origination beyond planets

Life origination beyond planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:FRINGE of the highest magnitude. I mean, come on, extraterrestrial life in stars? I may finish the deletion proposal right here... but, just in case, let's go on.

Life in the sun? A 1774 rant may have a place elsewhere, such as in History of the extraterrestrial life debate, but only if placed in context (meaning, detailing the notions held at the time that allowed it, and the way they were eventually refuted), or contrasted with the actual knowledge we have of the sun that forbids such nonsense.

Life within other stars? According to Science alert, yes, it may be possible... if a proposed arrangement of particles can actually exist, and if we change the definition of life. Neat. But what if we don't? What if we stick to our current definition of life (which is flexible enough already) and the chemistry that we know for sure exists? Then this is just bullshit, a sensationalist clickbait article... and according to their article, Science Alert is already known for sensationalism.

Life elsewhere. I can't check the source (I already passed the quota of free articles per month), but the way it is written, it seems as just an Argument from authority. Has Drake provided an idea of how or why life on neutron stars may be possible? Or was it just a hasty generalization or a wishful-thinking argument?

Not even the "In fiction" section is salvageable. Just "some works of science fiction", with no specific examples. And we follow the link, just 2 obscure novels (life on neutron star systems does not count, and neither does "Star-Trekking" around neutron stars). Even for TV Tropes that would not be enough. The idea of life on stars is so absurd that not even the suspension of disbelief required for works of fiction can cope with it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    • A 1774 rant may have a place elsewhere - this 1774 rant was noted by a notable modern astronomer. --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Life within other stars? According to Science alert, yes, it may be possible. This article was seriously discussed in several reliable sources. I cited only one because I am a lazy writer and I didnt want just to refbomb, but I can readily do it. --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Just "some works of science fiction", with no specific examples, do you want me to copy the text from the wikilinked articles? Sure I can easily do this, but I didnt wasnt to bloat this section. (Added some refs just now.) --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    • WTH is "Argument from authority" doing here? If you question Drake, read it first. Not to say that Drake's hypothesis was discussed by serious sources. Againg, I didn want to refbomb, but I added one more, from the Astronomy magazine --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • keep Nomination without merit. Several reliable sources are cited. Yes, it is a speculation, but it is a notable speculation, and there have always been many bold scientific speculations. That's how science evolves. --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    • delete changed an opinion during discussion which convinced me I am an overconfident ignoramus in the subject. --Altenmann >talk 03:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
      To be clear, I think that there is likely something here. I just don't think as it is presently constructed the article is quite up to the standards that we would want for a search-engine-facing article. I think of the general philosophy at Wikipedia these days to be, fundamentally, a non-innovative reference work. I think there may be ways to look at how the literature discusses these "out there" ideas you have identified, but doing so requires a bit more care in framing. jps (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Much better than many of the articles I read on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call this article "fringe of the highest magnitude", but I would call it "fairly unbothered speculation". I mean, Frank (RIP) was fairly notorious for this kind of extrapolative excitement over the possibilities of life out there in the Universe, but unlike the actual fringe-y characteristics of certain present-day actors, he wasn't claiming empirical basis that was not actually there. This is akin to the rest of the speculation included in this piece. If it is a problem, it may be because it is WP:SYNTH rather than it being WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    • WP:SYNTH means "to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". If you see any of them, I am happy to rework the text. --Altenmann >talk 19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
      If there is any indication that these examples were identified by third-parties as being relevant to each other, I'd like to see it. Preferably more than one source on identifying the compendium. jps (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, there is a certain WP:SYNTH concern here. Has anyone pulled together these particular bits and pieces before? Are fictional speculations about sentient black holes really the same topic as ruminations from the 1700s about sunspots? XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    In "Stellar Graveyards, Nucleosynthesis, and Why We Exist" Clifford A. Pickover does discuss the topic of various weird aplanetary lives in the universe. Other authors question the conventional wisdom that any plausible extraterrestrial form of life must resemble the life on Earth. I dont think that to cover a topic in general by "pullin together these particular bits and pieces" without drawing extra conclusions is SYNTH. And assigning "a bit" to the topic is just a common sense, I believe commonly used in Wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 20:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    This is the chapter in The Stars of Heaven? Unfortunately, I don't have access to it. Which of the examples does Pickover include in that chapter or is it just a recounting of the general critique that, really, the question of "life beyond Earth" is perhaps malformed? jps (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    I got access to it due to a weird Google Books bug: it showed the content of Stars of Heaven instead of Shades of Freedom. The author had a multipage speculation on non-planetary life forms I mentioned in the article. He also discusses Dragon's Egg, ventures into metaphysical/religious musing on why God created life, about one in 10100 chance of life, and Cosmological Darwinism, and other cabbages and kings. --Altenmann >talk 21:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that what you describe is speaking to the topic of this article. It's a collection of novel, obscure, and even wacky astrobiological proposals, but it isn't "life origination beyond planets". jps (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep: the concept of Panspermia is also considered fringe science by some, but it still gets studies in astrobiology. I don't think we can completely rule this out, so it seems like a valid topic for an article given suitable sources. I'll also note that there is also a paper on the topic of life in a cool brown dwarf atmosphere, so technically not a planet either.[6] Praemonitus (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thx for the dwarves; it turns out there was a wider discussion of this. I added a bit (three bits :-). --Altenmann >talk
  • Keep. I see enough independent coverage of the concept to meet WP:GNG. New York Times, Scientific American, Astronomy. I'm unfamiliar with many of the others to evaluate how reliable the others are, but it's possible that more of them add to GNG, and I haven't bothered to independently search for sources, feeling that there are already enough to meet GNG. The "in a nutshell" summary of WP:FRINGE says, "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." (plus one more sentence which I don't think applies here). This isn't an article about a mainstream idea, so the second sentence applies, which I think is met, so I really don't see FRINGE as a reason to delete. From what I can see, the rest of the nominator's statement appears to be complaints about how the article is presented as well as a complaint about the validity of the concept itself. Yeah, I get that, and they are all valid points, but it's still not a reason to delete an article about what others have written on the subject. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Draftify per jps. Though covering a heavily speculative topic—as do pretty much all articles covering extraterrestrial life as well—this is still notable speculation with appreciable academic coverage, and FRINGE alone is usually not grounds for deletion. Of course, this article has multiple issues (possible SYNTH, organizational and prose issues, and scope issues), but these are also not grounds for deletion. ArkHyena (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I think at the very least we need a new title for this article and a better identified scope. This might serve as a place to include the most speculative proposals about life in unusual contexts. Might I suggest something like "Life outside the habitable zone? which is perhaps a better framing? jps (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    • The point of the text about brown dwarfs is the extension of the traditional "habitable zone", not to say the title will be an oxymoron. In any case, article scope and title must be discussed in the article talk page, not here. --Altenmann >talk 16:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Non-planetary biogenesis. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
      Whether the life is on planets or something that is not a planet is largely a semantic game. The more interesting question is whether life can arise in environments that diverge substantially from Earth with its solid surface, liquid water, primarily stellar energy source, and protective atmosphere. A brown dwarf is just a wacky as life in the atmosphere of Jupiter from that perspective, and that's the real categorical. jps (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
      I would certainly agree with Praemonitus's suggested title. Regarding the scope of this article, we can pretty solidly go by the geophysical definition of a planet, as the dynamical definition of a planet has little bearing on if an object is habitable beyond controlling elements like instellation or tidal heating.
      This would exclude "classical" planets, dwarf planets, planetary-mass moons, and sub-brown dwarfs. It would probably include brown dwarfs, however, alongside stars, stellar remnants, small minor planets, or other objects. ArkHyena (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
      The question for me is, why would we want to distinguish between life appearing on geophysically defined planets and as opposed to other contexts? What is the organizational principle or logic behind dividing into these two categories? Why would we include brown dwarfs but not giant moons? Getting hung up on whether the life is on planets or not is increasingly WP:OR argumentation as we try to isolate the topic. jps (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      Good point. It should also probably be pointed out that sourcing on hypothetical life on stars and stellar remnants is probably not broad or thorough enough for there to be an entirely separate article dedicated to it. There is appreciable coverage over the potential habitability of non-planetary asteroids (so excluding Ceres), and the possible role asteroids and comets may play in abiogenesis—as far as I can tell, there's no dedicated article for that form of non-planetary biology. However, this would be such a massive scope change it might as well be an entirely different article. ArkHyena (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify as WP:SYNTH. This article is not yet ready for prime-time, and I'm not convinced that it is framed correctly. jps (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Please cite the lines of WP:SYNTH policy that are violated; I believe there are none. --Altenmann >talk 23:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
      You have not demonstrated that there is anyone who has written about "life origination beyond planets" as a topic. jps (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      You must be kidding: just google "life beyond planets" or "life beyond Earth". --Altenmann >talk 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      Repeating: Please cite the lines of WP:SYNTH policy that are violated --Altenmann >talk 01:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The conclusion this article makes is that all these ideas are related by being part of some overarching category of "life origination beyond planets". The sources do not make this synthetic claim. jps (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      Well, the article makes no such "synthetic conclusion", it merely reports on the subject stated by a descriptive title. --Altenmann >talk 01:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      If I write an article Novels where villains eat beets, there is an implied synthetic conclusion that such a topic has been the interest of some other source, and it isn't good enough that I can quote directly from the novels illustrating that everything is impeccably soured. Remember WP:TERTIARY and that Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate collections. We collect things that people have said are worthy of being collected. In this case, no one has declared these disparate ideas as worthy of being in a single article except for you... at least not that I have been able to find. jps (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I dont think moving it into draft space is a good idea. Nobody will see it there, and the article surely can benefit from extra eyeballs. --Altenmann >talk 23:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
      The idea is for you to improve it and resubmit it to WP:AFC after you address the criticisms. jps (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      This is a bad idea. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. There was no catastrophic criticisms which make the article critically bad. Draft space is for novices who do not know how to write articles. --Altenmann >talk 01:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      You and I have been around these parts to know that it has changed. Sure, there was a time back when you were writing articles fast and furiously when it was just get it all up on the site and let the collaboration take over. We have a responsibility as a top-10 website to not mislead our readers too badly. We cannot be perfect, but in this case I worry that we are presenting a novel interpretation that has not been validated.
      Anyway, I am happy to help you with the framing and trying to address the concerns over the topic being "invented".
      jps (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      Red herring, strawman, barking at wrong fence, whats not. How in Universe my article is "to mislead our readers too badly"~ --Altenmann >talk 01:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      You have no source which distinguishes between "life origination on planets" and "life origination beyond planets". Thus, you are misleading readers into believing that such organization schema exist outside of Wikipedia. I take WP:NOR very seriously. I think the idea you have is fine for a blog or external publication. But until this idea takes root in the relevant sources as an entire topic, it strikes me as being completely arbitrary. jps (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      You must be kidding: just google "life beyond planets" or "life beyond Earth". --Altenmann >talk 01:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
      The article is not about Life beyond Earth. "Life beyond planets" does not return any sources similar to what you have presented. You are it, as far as I can tell! jps (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Even if the ideas themselves have merit or some modest acceptance, they must be still contrasted with the mainstream ideas (that's what FRINGE is about). And the mainstream idea is that life on stars (the Sun or others) is not possible, at all. The article does not mention that, at all. For starters, there's NASA: "The Sun could not harbor life as we know it because of its extreme temperatures and radiation. Yet life on Earth is only possible because of the Sun’s light and energy." Cambalachero (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    This is kinda why the true topic of the article is life as we don't know it (lol at that redirect). I agree that addressing these points of how unlikely life as we know it to be able to survive in hostile environments is an organizing principle with a lot of usable sources! jps (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    you are implicitly assuming "life as we know it", while the article is about not it. --Altenmann >talk 02:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    ??? I explicitly wrote "life as we don't know it"? jps (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    The redirect you used is an "easter egg" linking to Hypothetical types of biochemistry, which is still "life as we know it" only slightly different. --Altenmann >talk 16:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    Well, that page does already have a section on Nonplanetary life, which includes speculation about neutron stars. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    By your logic the section Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#Nonplanetary_life must be deleted as WP:SYNTH because google say nothing about "nonplanetary life". --Altenmann >talk 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't say anything about Google (and I would in fact advise everyone to treat them as untrustworthy). Maybe that section does need to be cut, or heavily revised, but we're not here to debate that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    I... don't know what to say here exactly. I guess I shouldn't have put in the wikilink? My point is that the topic is something other than "Life origination beyond planets". It's more "life as we don't know it". Okay? jps (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    Even if extraterrestrial life is speculative, any speculation must be based on things we do know, that's the way science works. Astrobiology usually considers "Life as we know it" because it is a known example of life that actually works. Ideas about "Life as we don't know it" are not usually taken very seriously outside of pop science pages in need of a clickbait, because it would not be enough to point that an aspect of life may be replicated in a context that wouldn't allow life, such as the surface of stars: they would need to explain how the proposed idea can meet all the requisites we would expect from a lifeform. Cambalachero (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
    Right. This is the most straightforward criticism of these proposals and absolutely deserves to be frontloaded in any future article that deals with these subjects. An interesting aside is given by those like of David Kipping who points out the lamppost reasoning that necessarily is invoked when making this point. But it's also nearly impossible to decide what is or isn't plausible when fumbling around in the dark. Suffice to say, there are often a few lines here, a page or two there, about these kinds of speculations in secondary sources trying to summarize astrobiology as an emerging discipline. jps (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
    That's a good point about frontloading. How about that some of the content may be merged into Hypothetical types of biochemistry, section "Nonplanatary life"? This article has plenty of frontloading and appears to be overlapping in subject with mine? --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
    Absolutely help work on that other article, but I think you have made good points that this other article cannot contain the entirety of what is possible to write about this subject. It is, after all, limited to discussions of biochemistry and there are some hyperbolic speculations about processes (as on neutron stars) which are barely recognizable as "chemical". jps (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify I remain unconvinced that there is a well-defined, recognized-in-this-form-by-prior-sources topic here. Assembling bits and pieces of speculation under a common heading advances the idea that all the pieces so assembled really are parts of the same thing. Whether that is legitimate here is unclear. The current text is overly dependent upon primary sources and pop-science media. All things told, it reads more like a blog post or a 2004-era Wikipedia article than what we need now. (The title is also awkward.) So, let's incubate it for a while. XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30. (edit | history)
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate


Deletion Review

AfD: Academics

Academics and educators

Saeed Bhutta

Saeed Bhutta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find sources to show that other individuals with the same name are notable, but not this one. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

John Sharpless

John Sharpless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article is not notable whatsoever, coverage seems routine for the election at the time, if there is even any coverage at all, subject does not fulfill WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. -- Talthiel (talk)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}}, as there appears to have been malformed formatting here. No opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, History, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not enough to pass WP:Prof or WP:Politician or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete. The political career does not pass WP:NPOL, clearly; the more interesting question is whether he might pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. But Google Scholar has only 11 hits for him giving a single-digit h-index (unsurprising for a historian), not enough for WP:PROF#C1. He retired as professor emeritus (in this context just meaning retired) apparently without any high-level awards or title of distinction beyond an ordinary full professor, making no case for other criteria of WP:PROF. I found only two books by him: City Growth in the United States, England and Wales, 1820–1861, his dissertation, was reproduced without additional polishing according to the one review I found (JSTOR 44609346). For the other, Wisconsin's 37: The Lives of Those Missing in Action in the Vietnam War (credited to Erin Miller, with John B. Sharpless in smaller type on the cover) I found no reviews at all. So I'm not seeing a pass of WP:AUTHOR. And there's a profile of him on the occasion of his retirement in his local newspaper [7]; I don't think it's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Taufik Rosman

Taufik Rosman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a BLP1E. Also, Wikimedian of the Year is not a major award recognized by the public. I'd say something like an Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor would be and WotY isn't in the same category at all. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete BLP1E Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC).
  • I would say the article is non-notable. First of all, the only thing this person is known for, is the Wikipedian of the Year award, which barely passes any notability guidelines for people. Secondly, little information is known for the person nor any event he is involved, is consider significant. I'm inclining towards the Delete option. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to !vote because I met Taufik recently and it feels improper to specify a desired outcome when I'm at risk of a COI. In regards to other PAGs, I think he has more significant coverage and passes GNG where I wouldn't. From there, I think it's a debate about whether BLP1E or ANYBIO is more applicable. I'll leave that for others to decide. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Bullock

Taylor Bullock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC or other notability criteria. Scopus search shows 20 documents with an H-factor of 4. Klbrain (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Piotr Napierała

AfDs for this article:
Piotr Napierała (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is almost entirely based on self-published and primary sources. The article had been deleted before. NicolausPrime (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I have failed to add this article to any deletion sorting list. Can anyone please do this for me? NicolausPrime (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Poland. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt. Negligible impact on citation landscape. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete. Our article lists the titles of over a dozen books, and often someone with many books is notable through WP:AUTHOR, but that does not appear to be true for Napierała: I could not find any published reviews. And as noted above his single-digit citation counts are far too low for WP:PROF. The previous AfD agreed that he was not notable as a YouTuber and it was recent enough that little seems likely to have changed. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I concur he has little visibility from independent outlets, but it is worth noting his bio was discussed on pl wiki five times, with the thirst two discussins ending in keep, and the last three, in no consensus: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja:Piotr_Napiera%C5%82a --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Partha Chatterjee (scholar)

Partha Chatterjee (scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage. Notability issues. Other than the primary sources cited, nothing reliable found when performed web search. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Scott Lassiter

Scott Lassiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously declined in draftspace for notability reasons, but was forced through to mainspace anyway. Political candidates (especially state-level figures) rarely if ever meet WP:NPOL, see WP:POLOUTCOMES for common outcomes for candidates. Even if one were to look at Lassiter's political career as a town council, Apex, North Carolina is not a city of global reputation that would make their municipal politicians inherently notable (the Bearcat test). If we were to look at the article through a GNG lens, the current sources point to Lassiter's campaign, his foundation, and Ballotpedia; none of which are reliable in establishing notability. One could make a weak case that the secondary sources about his wife's affair with the speaker of the NC house and the lawsuit, but that is not enough to establish notability either. Bkissin (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand who forged this? SJones919 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Who said anything about forging? Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the record, the notability test for municipal councillors isn't "my" test, it's standard consensus — but indeed, municipal councillors are accepted as notable enough for Wikipedia articles only in two specific scenarios: either (a) they serve in an internationally prominent global city on the order of London, New York City, Toronto, Paris or Berlin, or (b) they can be referenced to such an unusual depth and volume and range of coverage, far, far beyond just what all municipal councillors routinely get in their own local media, that he would have a credible claim to being a special case of much greater significance than the norm. But Apex NC is not the kind of place that would pass criterion A, and this article is relying principally on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and thus is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to satisfy criterion B. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete as a current candidate for state senate with no other major office or other claim to notability, per WP:NPOL. If he wins the seat we can revisit the case, but even then this blow-by-blow description of very minor events should not be kept. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list and although he has enough academic work experience to be validly on that list, none of it rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Town council for a mid-sized town in North Carolina is about on the fence for notability (this isn't a small, middle of nowhere place, nor is it NYC). This reads as a standard resume, nothing terribly notable. There is some coverage about the "scandal" [8], but I don't think that makes this fellow notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Bkissin and Bearcat's arguments.50.46.167.81 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Reynolds (political scientist)

Andrew Reynolds (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article originally created to promote this person; it has been toned down a little since then but it remains obvious that it is paraphrased from what was originally a self-authored bio. No evidence of notability. I'm tempted to tag A7/G11. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

50.46.167.81 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Peter Seidel

Peter Seidel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Came across this article while looking at orphans. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPERSON. Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and Google came up and the best were interviews and a single book review in a journal here}. The page was created a long time ago by the author himself. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Shirley Ho

Shirley Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.

  • Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
  • Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:
  1. Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
  2. Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Wikipedia page
  3. Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Wikipedia page itself lacks secondary sources)
  4. Impact on Higher education: no evidence
  5. Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
  6. Administrative post: no evidence
  7. Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
  8. Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Wikipedia page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize [27], (state-level) Carnegie Science award [28], Blavatnik finalist [29], and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation [30]. I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
    • Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA [31]) generally do not seem to have Wikipedia pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
    • The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
    • It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
    • Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation [32] comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
    It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).
    Trying to understand whether this should be considered extraordinary impact, I just had a look at Web of Science (which usually only considers actual citations to peer-reviewed journals). It reads 9 publications as first author (2 of them with more than 50 citations) and 23 as last author (3 of them with more than 50 citations). In addition, there are ~20 publications with more than 50 citations on GS where Ho is neither first nor last author. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases
It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.
Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.
Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: [7], [8] [9], [10] [11] Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to the 11 edit (all on this subject) for these comments. Do you have any connection with the subject that should be reported under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC).
WP:COI: It is indeed an interesting coincidence that "Surely" in User:Surelyyouarejoking is pronounced similarly to "Shirley", and that the page was originally created by a similar single-purpose profile User:Shirleysurely and soon deleted for lack of notability. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
@Georgebrown5566, you are also a new user account, and nominating Shirley Ho for deletion is your third edit ever. Doesn't this suggest your account to also be a similar single-purpose profile? CaptainAngus (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
It was more of a triggering event. As a scientist too (in a different field) it hurts to see relatively young scientists using this site to boost their notoriety. Instead of complaining, I thought I could make the difference, and more is coming! You can see more contributions on my side (time permitting), I asked my mentor if I am following the right procedure, and yes, please feel free to give feedback or suggest other ways to help! I don't know the person or the specific awards, this is what I could find online, so please double check :) Georgebrown5566 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Impact: (please see the comment above for the discussion about the questionable impact, considering both first and last authorship); papers should be peer-reviewed to be considered, and [33], which appears to be only a preprint, does not contribute to WP:PROF#1; according to Web of Science, Ho appears to be the senior person on about 14% of her publications
  • Awards: the question is whether the Blavatnik Prize is a major award comparable with the Nobel prize or Fields Medal, or whether it still conveys a high level of academic prestige; in the case of Blavatnik, Ho is a finalist but did not even win the full award [34].
  • Media coverage: should we consider the contributions to "Polymathic AI" as general notability WP:GNG? the organization does not have a Wikipedia page and does not seem to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research (I could only find one published paper of arguable impact). The mentioned articles show media coverage but do not show impact, since they mainly refer to the beginning of the collaboration but not to its achievements; it is written in an interview style and many of the articles come from institutions affiliated with the initiative [9, 11], probably not independent.
Maybe this could be considered for WP:TOOSOON? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
TOOSOON is what you say, after justifying a delete opinion, when you think they are on track to become notable later. It is not a justification in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Jana Jones

Jana Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:notability, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Fails notability criteria, WP:notability and Notability for academics criteria Wikipedia:Notability (academics) She was never a professor and the number of citations arising from her PhD is small. Anubus13 (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep What is the evidence that she was not notable? static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. This appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. Her "Evidence for prehistoric origins of Egyptian mummification in late Neolithic burials" (first of five authors) has 107 citations on Google Scholar, which may be high for Egyptology (I'm not sure), and appears to be the basis for all the mainstream-media coverage in our article. I don't think we can base WP:PROF#C1 on a single work, and the rest of her publications are not as well cited. I cannot even verify the basic biographical milestones listed in our article (degrees, employment as a research fellow, and date of death). There's a more colorful biography than ours at [35] but equally unverifiable and I think not really usable as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
The book on Helwan excavations of which she is co-author is also cited 44 times, and "Excavations at Hierakonpolis" 39 times. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 21:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete She meets neither the notability guidelines nor the notability for academics guidelines. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the field of Egyptology ? Again I ask what makes her not notable? According to notability guidelines: A person is notable if
  • The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; or
  • The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).
Her contribution to textile analysis from ancient Egypt is widely cited and widely known in the field. Her most famous work was shortlisted for a 2015 Times Higher Education Award as mentioned here. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The question is whether she is notable (ie, it requires a proof of a positive case for notability). And in terms of these specific points:
1. She has not received a well known or significant honour or been nominated for one several times. A single shortlisting for an award which is, with respect, not a particularly significant honour cannot satisfy this criterion.
2. Her contribution is not widely recognised. She has done no more than most other PhD and single contributing authors. I have several family members with PhDs and academic publications who have exponentially citations than her and are not in Wikipedia. 107 citations of her Phd, 44 for a co-authored book and 39 for one article is not something which, by itself, is objectively capable of being considered "wide". Unless some verifiable identified expert and notable person in the field gives such an opinion despite her limited contribution and citations, this criterion cannot be met.
3. She does not have an entry in any country's standard national biographical dictionary. Again, this criterion is not met. Anubus13 (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete agree with the above. Not notable. Bduke (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Han Zuilhof

Han Zuilhof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not pass WP:BLP for multiple reasons: almost all of it seems to be unverifiable original research, it contains no reliable secondary sources, is written in a semi-promotional tone, and the quasi-entirety of its content comes from one single user (including article creation and portrait photo, described as their "own work", strongly hinting at an undisclosed conflict of interest. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Netherlands. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. That alone satisfies WP:NPROF. If the page is too promotional then it needs editing, but the subject is clearly notable. If there's a COI by its author, that need to be clarified. Qflib (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Apparently for FRSC one needs only five years of professional experience and a credit card [36]. That doesn't sound like the level of highly selective and honorary membership that WP:PROF#C3 is intended for. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    I had no idea, thanks for the correction. I withdraw my recommendation. Qflib (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    They do have a more selective list of honorary fellows [37] but Zuilhof is not listed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    That is correct indeed, getting the FRSC badge is more of a networking opportunity that provides a self-aggrandizing title than any kind of recognition of achievement, thank you @David Eppstein for pointing that out, and @Qflib for adjusting the recommendation. I should have mentioned the guidelines at WP:NPROF but did not want my nomination statement to be too long ; in hindsight had I done that my case may have been more solid. Essentially I do not think the subject passes any of the criteria: he is simply a relatively successful late-career academic with reasonable contributions to his field, but in my opinion passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPROF, and that is why I am confident that the page should simply be deleted. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 11:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. (Note: the version I am looking at has been cleaned from the original one nominated.) He has no single massively cited paper, but his citation record is strong. I always want to see some prizes to indicate that others consider a Prof notable. The click prize does this slightly, but it does not appear to be that major from the source. His editorial board is WP:MILL, and the RSC award has been (correctly) removed. However, I don't think we can ignore an h-factor of 75 where he seems to be maintaining a respectable number of cites/year with 16 published in 2024 so far, albeit not all in the highest impact factor journals. Keep, but it has to be weak because there is not that much more than his pubs to pass notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, more or less on the same grounds as Ldm1954: a strong citation record but nothing else that stands out. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Roger D. Nelson

Roger D. Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm having trouble finding secondary sources independent of this subject. WP:FRINGE is also a concern here. 0xchase (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Might pass AUTHOR with book reviews [38], [39], but I wonder if those are about the same person; wiki article is about a parapsychologist, this seems to be about a more mainstream psychologist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
    AUTHOR is just passing book reviews, no matter how good or bad they are. I suppose they aren't RS? Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Whether they're positive or negative is not so important, but whether they're reliable is important. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Fringe publications aren't a reliable source of information, regardless of the valence of the review 0xchase (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
    KEEP this and improve it. It is the way of the future; the Global Consciousness Project is now in it second phase and is set to be a vital source of information about the interaction of consciousness with the material world. Those who cling to materialism are a dying breed. 197.88.230.219 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    None of this is relevant the notability or lack of sources here Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, for articles on fringe subjects, we must base them on reliably-published mainstream sources, we have no independent sources at all in our article, I don't think the two reviews listed above are mainstream, and I could not find better in my searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of usable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep For all the nonsense his work is, there does appear to be coverage of Nelson and his work over the course of multiple years. Some examples:
The exact sort of paranormal work he does appears to be the kind that gets the clicks and notice from the news media. SilverserenC 23:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think most or any of these pass both WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV
  • Some of these uncritically embrace the paranormal stuff and clearly aren't mainstream
  • Most of these sources are primarily covering the Global Consciousness Project and only make passing mention of Nelson. The GCP already has its own article, and Nelson doesn't get inherited notability.
0xchase (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
So you're claiming mainstream major newspapers aren't "mainstream" just because they are uncritical? Whether they embrace a fringe topic or criticize it is irrelevant. It is significant coverage regardless. And it is coverage of his research, which is relevant for coverage toward him, since while he's fringe, this still falls under notability for academics. And, for this fringe field, he is clearly both a discussed and noted expert that has received significant news focus. SilverserenC 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  • No opinion --Altenmann >talk 21:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC) delete The refs listed by Silver screen above are sensationalist blurbs and other not very reliable sources. In topics like this an encyclopedia needs references from mainstream experts. --Altenmann >talk 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, your opinion on "topics like this" is irrelevant toward notability, including for those of academics, fringe or not. Are you seriously claiming entire multi-page articles in major newspapers are "sensationalist blurbs"? Please explain how significant coverage for notability works in your view, Altenmann. SilverserenC 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didnt pay attention that some texts are really long. Reclusing for now; lazy to do research. --Altenmann >talk 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps we should redirect to Global Consciousness Project?. 0xchase (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete I've read the assessment of my sources above, if they aren't RS, we don't have much of anything left for notability. I don't think a redirect would help, I question the notability of the Project as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • What assessment? I'm seeing none above and no actual discussion of the sources I presented. Especially if you're claiming that large page news articles don't count toward even notability of the project in question. How exactly are you determining notability, Oaktree b? SilverserenC 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    David Epstein commented on the two sources directly below my first comment to !keep, which I've since changed. I was talking about my first vote. I've not reviewed the other, newer ones identified further down. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    I might take a look at them later, I have no time to do so now. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ruud_Koot/Feed&oldid=807663388"