User:Ruud Koot/Feed

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

AA: Computer science

Articles for deletion

  • 19 Aug 2024 – Roblox Studio (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by NegativeMP1 (t · c) was closed as merge by RL0919 (t · c) on 26 Aug 2024; see discussion (9 participants)

Proposed deletions

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(14 more...)

AA: Computing

Shortcut

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(13 more...)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

(42 more...)

Articles to be merged

(29 more...)

Articles to be split

(17 more...)

Articles for creation

(35 more...)

AfD: Computing

Computing

Fidelis Security

Fidelis Security (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news, press-releases and business annoucements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creepTalk 11:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Frutiger Aero

Frutiger Aero (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 was nominated for deletion by User:Seocwen. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Some of the sources are a bit lower-quality than I'd like, but that's no reason to delete the article. It passes GNG like Di said, exemplified by its mention in The Guardian (even if they did mischaracterize it as a screensaver style). Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    How does it pass GNG? Make a case if you're going to assert something controversial. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Given the proportion of keep !votes here, I doubt the claim the article passes GNG is "controversial", but here is my case.
    The General Notability Guideline is:

    A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

    Let's apply it to this article.
    When a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article, the subject is assumed to deserve its own article unless editors come to a consensus otherwise. The consensus here in this deletion discussion (as of now) is that Frutiger Aero does deserve its own article.
    Significant coverage is...eh, I'll stop restating WP:GNG now. Multiple articles solely about Frutiger Aero are significant coverage.
    As for reliable sources, we've got Dazed and Creative Bloq (those are the ones I'm familiar with) which are quite diligent when it comes to the arts, and The Guardian, which is The Guardian. I'm not familiar with the other sources cited, but I trust my fellow editors.
    None of these sources created Frutiger Aero (inasmuch that Frutiger Aero can be said to be "created") or named it (that would be CARI), so we can comfortably consider them independent. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a democracy. Getting a fan club together to vote in favor of hoaxes and misinformation is not supposed to carry water. Furthermore, a single mention of a fad or trend in a good newspaper like the Guardian does not make something in itself notable. Also, don't trust your fellow editors - if you're getting involved do your job a peer reviewer.
    Did you read the Re-Edition article? It is very plainly stated and obvious that the term was created and defined by Sofi Lee, a contributor to CARI - which is just an online community, not a reliable source. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    You're right that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is based on consensus. You are literally the only person who holds your opinion on this article. The consensus seems to be that you're just wrong. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a democracy. Getting a fan club together to vote in favor of hoaxes and misinformation is not supposed to carry water. Also it is not a consensus if there is disagreement, by definition. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    There is no "fan club". Everyone in this thread is a normal editor. You're just wrong. That is the consensus. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    A bit of friendly advice: it may be time to step away for a bit. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Seconding Bowler. Di, you can disagree with this editor without resorting to this approach to the conversation — we don't need to go there. Seocwen, for your part, please refrain from making accusations of foul play against your fellow editors and assume good faith. I am not here because I'm part of a "fan club" or "pushing an agenda", but because I believe this article would be an improvement to the encyclopedia if it existed, and I think the same applies to the other participants of this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    After the number of times I've been reverted, in the entirety, without discussion, and without any consideration of the individual contributions I've made, it feels like a stretch of logic to assume good faith. I'm sorry that's the case, but I can't trust people setting my work on fire and then refusing even to talk about it. I recognize that my language has been unduly harsh at times, but I have not found the atmosphere collegial and that impacts my ability to communicate at my best. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    If Frutiger Aero is a hoax, perhaps deleting the article is counterproductive. Wikipedia has many articles about hoaxes, which make it abundantly clear that the subject is a hoax, and have reliable sources disproving it. If you have reliable sources disproving Frutiger Aero as a genuine phenomenon, we can rework the article to incorporate this contrary evidence. But simply deleting the article would be counterproductive either way.
    On another node, as Di said (a bit indelicately), this seems to be a one-against-many situation. What may help you right now is reading the essay I linked and following its advice. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Believe me, if the article does stay, I would strongly advocate for it to be rewritten. I have already attempted to rewrite it to be more accurate, but my edits just get reverted and without discussion. As to evidence - the original authors maintain that their cultural commentator sources are automatically legitimate and the onus is on me to "disprove them with evidence," whereas the cultural commentator source evidence I have provided as a refutation are deemed automatically unacceptable and dismissed out of hand. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    If the "cultural commentator source" you're referring to is the JJ McCullough YouTube video that you tried to add, it has already been explained that the video is not reliable because it is a user-generated video with no editorial oversight. It's literally just some random guy's opinion. It's quite bizarre that you consider the sources in the article to be "blogs" but you tried to add a video blog. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia considers a YouTube video published on a personal channel a self-published source and therefore not reliable. If you wish to give sources to back up your claims, make sure that the sources you give are acceptable under Wikipedia's reliable source policy.
    Additionally, your comment about what you would do if the article stayed suggests to me that you think the article can be salvaged. In that case, this is definitely not the forum you should take your concerns to. If you wish to keep advocating for deletion however, you should read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Fine. The independent journalist with nearly a million subscribers isn't good enough, but an anonymous rump of an article from the ilk of Re-Edition magazine is. The TV journalist who interviewed the likely next Canadian prime-minister is of no consequence to Wikipedia, but Natalie Fear of Creative Bloq is. I mean, if that's Wikipedia's policy what more can I say other than I believe that's a ridiculous, bad, dismissive, and overly bureaucratic policy I don't agree with and know you won't care. Do I need to get a contributor to Peculiar Mormyrid to write about this? Or will it be the "your magazine isn't good as my magazine" kind of thing?
    The fact that I believe the article's contents are best addressed on the Microsoft Aero already , where the distinction between it and the Frutiger Aero microgenre is more clear, does not mean that, if I were forced to accept the independent status of the page, I would not want it to be accurate. One does not follow from the other. You could argue a merge proposal would be more appropriate, but the key information is already present on the Microsoft Aero page so I believe there would be very little actual merging going on. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    With all due respect, this is not the place to debate Wikipedia policy. For the sake of the discussion, please take your policy concerns to the village pump, and on this page please make arguments based on the policies as they are written now. Bowler the Carmine | talk 01:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    I can indeed take those concerns up in that venue. Notwithstanding the subject of discussion is a contemporary neologism describing the a retrospective aesthetic conceptualization. The kind of "editorial" oversight you are pointing to hardly pertains when the entire subject of discussion is opinion. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not pass GNG - ie. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Most of the sources cited are fashion blogs dedicated to contemporary aesthetics and qualify as neither reliable nor notable sources. Even the genuine news sources are essentially brief reports on a fad or trend. I think it would probably be enough to place a mention on Microgenre along with the other nostalgia aesthetics, but in any case, the mention on The Windows Aero page is clear and accurate about its relationship to Fruitger Aero. Windows Aero was itself "the design language introduced in the Microsoft Windows Vista operating system." It is a well-established part of the Windows Vista brand. Frutiger Aero is a recent coinage, from 2017, signifying a retrospective look at Windows Aero and similar. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    The National, The Guardian, Re-Edition Magazine and Dazed are all blogs? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    I have addressed the Guardian. Please make a real response there. And no, Dazed is not a journal of record. I have personally published magazines of that caliber. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Nobody is saying that all the sources are journals of record but that isn't actually the requirement for WP:Reliable sources on Wikipedia, that would be editorial oversight. You'll find plenty of magazines of that sort on on WP:RSP. This is the reason blogs, YouTube videos and other WP:SPS are not RS because they are don't have editorial oversight. You'll note that you first claimed that the articles sources were mostly blogs and then when asked to explain how published magazines with an editorial staff was a blog, you switched the question to be about journal[s] of record. So I'll ask again: how are the above listed sources blogs as you originally claimed. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Blogs are opinion pieces with very little oversight posted online, whether by a group or individual. Whether that group has a name with something like "Research Institute" in it, and whether it produces a print copy does not make it independent or reliable. Many such website exists that amount to little more than cliques. Seems to me that if Peculiar Mormyrid magazine printed a piece criticising the term, it would be immediately rejected regardless of how well-research or articulate it was. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Can you please list the sources that you consider to be "fashion blogs"? Di (they-them) (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Except the "Consumer Aesthetics Research Institute" (which I assume your alluding to here) isn't cited in the article. Reliable sources are. We fundamentally trust RSs more than editors own judgment (and have for 20 yrs). Of course more reliable sources may come along and change the balance of the articles tone. But again that is not an argument for deletion (I will, for a third time, link WP:NOTCLEANUP in hopes you might click it this time) Please stop having content discussions unrelated to the AFD.
    Blogs are opinion pieces with very little oversight posted online, and your evidence that say Dazed, a lifestyle magazine with an editorial team, and whose article isn't listed as an opinion piece fits your definition here? And then maybe do that for all the other articles your out of hand dismissing as blogs here. Many thanks in advance. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Moreover, the most glaring issues with the article is that it represents descriptor of a history which does not exist. It is misinformation. It in is an invented neologism and concept from 2017. In the 19th Century, colonial scholars invented the notion of an Oriental Style - doing so did not make such a style exist since, the art and culture of Turkey, India, China, Japan, etc., were never "one thing." What we report now is on "Orientalism," - the nonsense in itself. The concept of Frutiger Aero is similarly nonsense because it imputes onto existing and real brand guides of the early 20's a kind of Utopian aesthetic master plan or vision, which is false. You can read real sources about what Windows Aero or Mac Aqua were about. How do you dismiss the evidence of actual design history?
    Based on the tone I've received so far in the comments I fully expect you to dismiss this very basic obvious factual evidence as "original research" on my part. To have any reason not to agree would be "original research." The better articles like the Guardian report on Frutiger Aero as a contemporary retrospective aesthetic, not a historical one, but of course, the editors here refuse to abide by that editorial direction because they are pushing an agenda. Fine - if you believe Frutiger Aero is verifiable, explain to me what would prove to you that it represents a mistaken understanding of design history? For my part - show me one Art History Scholar that confirms the claims being made here and I'll shut up and go away. I maintain that it is sufficient to add to the Frutiger Aero section of Windows Aero to note a minor pop culture fad in the present inspired by the operating system. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    "show me one Art History Scholar that confirms the claims being made here and I'll shut up and go away" - That's not how it works. You're the one making controversial claims that go against consensus, the burden of proof lies on you. If you think Frutiger Aero is a hoax and does not exist, prove it with reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep this seems to stem from a content dispute between Seocwen and Di (they-them), which is not what AFD is for, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. In terms of actual arguments this seems to pass WP:GNG, Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    The basis of the article in reliability, notability, and original research is what's in dispute. It is not verifiable. Please address the talk page. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    This is the deletion discussion so I expect, as somebody who wants to delete the article, that you will address the claims about sousing and GNG (a question quite separate from what the article says, per WP:NOTCLEANUP) here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    If you could tone down the inaccessible acronyms and jargon for just a second (apologies, they don't teach wikipedia in grad school) what is sousing?
    As to GNG, my issues, per the guideline, are with presumed and Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    I believe "sousing" to be a typo of "sourcing". Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, got cut off.
    As to GNG, my issues, per the guideline, it is noted that coverage must be significant and reliable. That a named online group would publish an individually authored article does not meet the criteria for significance or reliability. Moreover, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". That aesthetics wiki would publish such an article does not mean Wikipedia must. Moreover, it's noted the sources should be secondary sources, not anything like Sofi Lee who made the term up, and the others who are attempting to create, define, and control it. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    All of the sources in the article are secondary. Sofi Lee did not write or contribute any of them in any way. Just because you don't agree with the term being used doesn't mean that these sources aren't reliable or secondary. As for "indiscriminate information", there is none of that in the article. Everything is backed up by sources and relevant to the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily passes the general notability guideline and editorial issues such as the reliability of sources can be discussed (and are being discussed) on the talk page, not at AfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sources 2, 5 and 6 are RS per Source Highlighter, so we should have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    For the sake of clarity, which sources are these? Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    The Guardian, Dazed and Pop. The last two have been evaluated as RS prior to being added to the database in Source Highlighter, so they pass the sniff test. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep, per above- sourcing is lower quality than preferred but the subject is generally notable Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite claims above, precisely zero of the article's sources are 'fashion blogs'. - MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: And here's a journal coverage of the concept [1] for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    That's neat! We should save that for improving the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
     Done; added a further reading section with this paper and another essay. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    I also found that Artnodes one, but I couldn't open it. Good catch. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Backdoor.Win32.Seed

Backdoor.Win32.Seed (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)

non notable trojan, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Bolgimo

Bolgimo (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)

non notable worm, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Bohmini.A

Bohmini.A (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)

no non-listical credible RS found on WP:BEFORE. Seems non-notable Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

For reference: I think relevant trwiki article is this: tr:Ulusal Bilim Olimpiyatları Tehonk (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
There are propably enough sources. But in Turkish, unfortunatly. Luhanopi (talk) 19:43, 28 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)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Optical disc packaging#Spindles and other bulk packaging ATD, concept is notable but better as part of an existing article more than its own. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • INdifferent Either retain the article or merge it into that other one. (But I wonder, how does the existence of that article harm wikipedia, exactly?) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Meh Either redirect to the optical disc packaging article or retain. It doesn't make sense to combine with any other article on spindles (that kind of organization makes sense on Wiktionary, where wikt:spindle lists it as the 14th sense currently, but not here). --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:51, 28 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)
We require reliable sources, not just any web page you can find with the organization's name in it. Reliable sources means journalist-written media coverage and/or books, not the self-published websites of directly affiliated entities. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 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)
  • Keep it @Saqib Inbox, plays a significant role in Pakistan's IT sector. However, I've noticed that the article has been gradually shortened over the past few weeks. While changes are healthy, it's clear that anonymous users have removed entire sections, and after suggesting AFD, sourced content has been removed to further weaken it. Given the company's recent media presence (here, here, here and here), I recommend updating the article and ensuring its preservation. Insofar, I would suggest to keep it. @DeploreJames is your account only focusing on Pakistan to delete articles? Crosji (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Can you point to sources which you believe meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability? You've pointed to 4 sources but this in Tribune is about the company being warned to pay minimum wage but has no in-depth information about the company, this is in Techjuice which does not appear to meet the criteria for a [[WP:RS|reliable source] as it has no "about" page and may not have any editorial control - in other words it is a type of news blog, this in The News is a mere mention in passing because one of the directors was being written about in a totally different context, and this in the Tribune is a single sentence about a company announcement. "Media presence" is not one of the criteria for establishing notability, rather the content must meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    Comment: @HighKing I came across this link to an article that discusses a notable aspect of their business, specifically their "web monitoring system"), which is central of this story. This may clarify why it's challenging to find many sources. Additionally, I found another reference, though it's a bit out-dated, that also highlights the company's significance. Crosji (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Response Crosji, the article in Dawn mentions the 2nd article and paraphrases it without adding anything extra about the company, so as a source in its own right (for the purposes of establishing notability) it can be ignored. Looking then at the article in Coda, it says that the topic company has partnered with a Canadian company to provide a solution to monitor web and call traffic. The article only says that the topic company were licensed to install the Canadian company's technology. It attributes the technology enabling "web monitoring" to the Canadian technology, not that of the topic company. But of more relevance to here, there is insufficient in-depth information provided about the *company* in this article, and it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. As to this in The Express Tribune, it is a regurgitated announcement of the company receiving an industry award, the same story carried on the same day in several other publications such as here and here and here. It is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 18:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Welcome back after an absence of 10 years to !vote at this AfD. Can you perhaps point to any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing++ 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Routine funding announcements, leadership changes, republished press releases, etc. all do not count towards WP:NCORP notability. Don't see much in-depth coverage about the company. C F A 💬 17:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science

Shortcuts


Science

Phenomenology (general science and discourse)

Phenomenology (general science and discourse) (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 first draftified this, but it was recreated. A rather unfocused essay, linking to a long youtube video uploaded by someone with the same name as the creator of this article. No idea what e.g. "Homo Erectus, Habilis, and then Sapiens also followed each other with great diasporas; that evidence shows also kept in touch, at least for new ideas to spread from end to end over a few decades, as how they formed diverse languages that spoke about the same experiences of nature. " is supposed to mean, and something like "a broad model of how the great early languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, might seem to have emerged fully formed as they were written down following the Bronze Age." seems decidedly un-mainstream science. Fram (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • JLH - I updated the page today. I finished late, but before reading these notes, I significantly reshaped them in the way the above notes suggested. It's one heck of an important topic, though: the long view of what gave language reliable meaning, viewed at this time when the usefulness of language is breaking down all around us, for not anchoring our meanings to things everyone can relate to. I suggest you leave it up unless you find it polluting in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessieHenshaw (talk • contribs) 2024-08-30T04:52:56 (UTC)

Masoud Salavati-Niasari

Masoud Salavati-Niasari (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)

Nominated per WP:NACADEMIC, some relevant information will follow in the comment below. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a scholar in the field of chemistry / chemical engineering with excessive publication output (1084 items per Dimensions.ai, link requires login).
There is a retraction for image concerns. 36 articles by Salavati-Niasari received comments on PubPeer, typically for image and content concerns. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course, none of these asserts notability. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:59, 26 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 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not going to support this BLP until an explanation is available for the unusual GS citation record and the retractions Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC).
    @Xxanthippe, I'd be curious what you make of what I found below in academic databases. This is definitely an odd situation outside the "norm" of already iffy measures of notability by citation metrics, but I just get more questions than answers as I dig. KoA (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to me that the subject has notability, albeit not verified by the references. If they have somehow falsified data (etc) and thus retracted papers, then that fact, if in sufficient volume, is likely to confer notability, also notoriety. This should be recorded in the very stubby article. Otherwise their papers appear at first sight to have sufficient citations themselves to qualify under WP:NACADEMIC. I note the comments in the link provided by the nom, and feel they may indicate 'lack of scientific rigour'. I leave this as a comment rather than a !vote because I do not feel able to reach a conclusion on this. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    I propose to proceed with deletion at this time. One retraction is quite weak to imply notability / notoriety of the subject, and references to their PubPeer record are contestable through WP:NOR.
    If any significant number of retractions arrives in the future, then we will have a firm reason to restore the page. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm seeing a red flag with the citation counts here too and tried to do some poking around on more reliable databases like Scopus or Web of Science. At their peak, they somehow put out over 100 papers in a single year. In Scopus you can remove self-citations by the author and their co-authors, and this often removes about 1000 citations per year. There still appears to be citations that fall outside this category, but it does play a part.
What's a bigger red flag for me is that they are last/corresponding author on 84% of papers, but first author only on 16% of papers checking Web of Science (apparently never a regular co-author/contributor). Maybe it's an irregular power structure thing at their university, but claiming corresponding editor on that many papers seems to suggest they are getting credit for work they didn't directly do beyond a typical corresponding author situation. At least in this case, I would say the citation metrics part of WP:NACADEMIC is not reliable standalone for notability, so I'd be inclined to say delete considering everything else I've seen here. KoA (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
In the last few years there has been a vast increase in citation gaming, see Research paper mill, which tends to bamboozle inexperienced editors. If in doubt Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC).

Alaeddin Qassemi

Alaeddin Qassemi (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)

The only sources for this WP:BLP1E refer to a stunt over five years ago where he claimed to have produced a water powered car - a claim which was, needless to say, never independently validated. Note the conspiracist language at the end. Water powered cars are, of course, impossible: it takes more energy to split hydrogen from oxygen than you get from the hydrogen, because the laws of thermodynamics are a thing. We can describe notable bollocks (see Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car), but we can't do it without reality-based sources, and the sources here are (a) not good and (b) not truly independent, since all reference the same stunt and take his claims at face value. It is inconceivable (and yes that word does mean what I think it means) that this would not have had ongoing coverage if it were genuine. And by "ongoing coverage", I mean at the very least an all expenses paid trip to Stockholm. In the end, this is just another instance of the water powered car hoax, with its attendant conspiracy theory. Any content online is always related back to the same initial stunt. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I'm seeing a lot of WP:PUFFERY in the article itself, so when I went to go look at sources, they looked pretty low quality, especially for the accolades that would have issues attributing notability. Like Guy alludes to, there are some independent coverage issues, and this ultimately doesn't reach WP:SUSTAINED coverage in depth needed for notability. I thought it was worth seeing if they could reach notability through WP:FRINGEN, but I'm not seeing that here either. KoA (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

List of important publications in geology

AfDs for this article:
List of important publications in geology (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)

Currently this article is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:coatrack. There is no clear criteria of what counts as a "important publication" and no prose explaining why an entry is noted enough to be included. Vast amounts of the list is unsourced. The previous discussion, which closed as "keep" in 2011, did not adequately address the WP:Indiscriminate concern. Foundational works in geology already have a place in the History of geology article. the majority of the list is POV inclusionism with no Secondary or tertiary coverage actually calling the entries out. Kevmin § 22:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete --- I attempted to rescue this list article in January 2023 so that it obeyed a reasonable list selection criteria and was not indiscriminate. My rescue attempt was reverted by another editor, and no one else appeared to want to clean it up. I believe that the topic of the list is notable, but the article as it stands is hopeless. — hike395 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete We've been here twice before, and not much has changed. I think it's time to pull the plug. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete As per the nomination and above comments. The list is too indiscriminate to save. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep, rather than an indiscriminate list it is an incomplete one. Critical advances in science are numerous and often explicitely recognized with a certain lag. There has been an effort in the article to explain with sourced material why each publication has been important for the science of geology. I doubt the pro-deletion camp so far has any real grasp of the science of geology because I havent seen an objection or discussion around the inclusion of speicific objects. If anything this article could be split up as some subjects like geophysics, geochemistry or geomorphology are often considered apart of geology. Lappspira (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This list has no value in Wikipedia and it is considered vague in the sense most of the content is unsourced. Galaxybeing (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete primarily due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE already discussed. What opposition to deletion I've seen here so far would run counter to WP:CRYSTAL policy. KoA (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete can't find sources in English to meet WP:BIO. I would reconsider if there are sources in Arabic but there's no Arabic version of this article. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 27 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.[2] 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)
  • Delete per WP: TNT. This is the second of two articles proposed for deletion on a single day that does not contain any information about what it purports to cover, which is speculation. The title doesn’t match the content, and what content is in there is poorly written and sourced. We have two other options: move to a “correct” title and cut it down to fit the actual content, or ask someone who is willing to work on it to userfy it. I can do the former, but the latter is exactly why we have TNT. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hypothetical types of biochemistry: possibly with very selective merging. The article is clearly a mess, but the topic is notable, and already covered nicely by the proposed target. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - in an attempt to rescue the article I googled the term "nonplanetary life", with little success: got two reliable refs only. While the texts were reasonable, not enough for WP:GNG. --Altenmann >talk 22:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: The article has lots of problems but the topic exists and has been discussed in sources. I agree WP:FRINGE does not apply here; I squint some possible WP:SYNTHESIS issues but they are not a reason to delete. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: nomination without merit; has been discussed in sources. Skyerise (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify is the most WP:PAG-based reasoning I saw while reading all the comments here. This definitely is not a straight keep. There are clear synth issues, and XOR'easter caught what I found too with primary sources and pop-science being used to a degree they should not. Some is just speculation that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and others are either old or just primary journal articles on concepts that haven't gotten traction in the scientific community. Draftifying would at least give it a chance for cleanup so that it could be reassessed later if there are any decent secondary scientific sources out there or possible title changes that would help focus the scope. I do think thre is some weight to Bearian's TNT comment, but draftifying threads the needle much better for policy and guideline issues right now. KoA (talk) 21:05, 28 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

Friedrich Litten

Friedrich Litten (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 notable on his own. Fails GNG. Perhaps could be merged into a list but, not notable on his own. NeoJade Talk/Contribs 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Josh Habka

Josh Habka (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 is a non-notable undergraduate student at Florida Institute of Technology: I did a due search for significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and did not find it. Biogeographist (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography of Gilbert Hegemier

Bibliography of Gilbert Hegemier (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)

As the title says, this is a list of an academics articles. If he was a nobel laureate then perhaps one is appropriate. He is not, just a routine academic who may not pass WP:NPROF. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Not suitable for Wikipedia. It does not provide a free web hosting service. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete. We might maintain this sort of list for someone whose name is known to all, such as List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. For someone who passes our notability standards for academics but is not really famous, no. We should at best keep a handful of selected publications, those that have been particularly heavily cited or are themselves the subject of in-depth publications by others (like books with published book reviews), as a subsection of the main biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete; I basically agree with David Eppstein. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree that such lists are sometimes useful for extraordinary scholars and cases, but this is not one of those times. Qflib (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: I know understand why you nominated it for deletion. I agree and I believe a selected publications/selected works in his main article is what I should had gone with in the first place.Particleshow22 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Flavio Geisshuesler

Flavio Geisshuesler (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)

A lot of the sources are merely authored by himself or primary sources from institutions where he has worked. Fails WP:PROF, a low citation count at 37 in Google scholar. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Switzerland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. He has published stuff, but citations to it are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete. I agree with above. Bduke (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, regrettably. Religious studies is not a high-citation field, but I was unable to find any reviews of his books, either. Maybe this could be revisited in a few years. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, if not SNOW keep ("exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior"). I am honestly surprised, if not appalled, at this rash decision to nominate this article for deletion. While I appreciate LibStar's efforts to trim down unnecessary new stubs about athletes and embassy branches, this scholar isn't one of them. There is comparatively little serious academic research done on Dzogchen and sky gazing. For specialists working in these areas, Geisshuesler is absolutely notable, without a doubt. This article fits perfectly when you look at everything in context: Geisshuesler figures prominently in Wikipedia articles about these kinds of topics that are inherently arcane and obscure (Nyingma Buddhism in particular). An article about him is definitely relevant and important for the WP:TIBET and WP:BUDDHISM WikiProjects. We would be doing a major disservice to these WikiProjects if we were to delete Geisshuesler on the basis of completely arbitrary, vague Wikipedia guidelines that are much more fitting for STEM scientists than for religious studies scholars.
Looking purely at raw citation counts and scores is also inherently flawed, because religious studies is a discipline where much of the most important research just doesn't get cited as much. This isn't high-impact, highly cited bioengineering or quantum computing research, so we can't simply apply the same standards to underfunded, under-represented academic disciplines.
Now look at the references cited in Sky gazing (Dzogchen) and other related articles, and the wikilinks pointing to the authors. We mostly have a bunch of generic handbooks with outdated information, non-academic sources authored by monks and new-age self-help types that disseminated by little-known New Age-type publishers, while Geisshuesler publishes with Brill Publishers, Bloomsbury Publishing, and other serious academic publishers requiring stringent peer review. This subdiscipline is in very sore need of serious academic researchers such as Geisshuesler, who bring academic objectivity and sorely needed historiography into the field. That is why it is essential to keep this article and not delete based on arbritrary interpretations of vague Wikipedia guidelines don't always serve the needs of the audience who actually need to consult these kinds of articles.
At the moment, Geisshuesler is currently Khyentse Macready Senior Lecturer of Tibetan Buddhism at the University of Sydney, not just a postdoc or research assistant, and certainly not some random yoga master trying to teach hippies about how to become enlightened via Shambhala Publications' books. None of the deletion votes above have sufficiently considered the relevance of Geisshuesler and his work in context. This article absolutely meets minimum WP:GNG and WP:NBIO criteria and is clearly very useful for readers who are interested in the history and practices of this type of Tibetan Buddhism. This is definitely a researcher who has made an impact in the field of Tibetan Buddhism studies and will continue to do so. He is currently busy submitting articles, and there will more publications coming out.
In addition, WP:TOOSOON is faulty reasoning, because it is absolutely essential to balance out biographies of octogenerian professor emerita espousing outdated views and methodologies with biographies of the newer generation of highly relevant and skilled researchers. Deleting this now and then re-publishing it again is just folly. We're just going to end up deleting and re-deleting over and over again without any religious studies specialists actually weighing in about whether he is indeed relevant or notable enough to be on Wikipedia.
We might as well delete half of all other Buddhism scholars on Wikipedia if we decide to delete Geisshuesler, as many of them aren't even as notable or relevant as he is. None of the delete voters know anything about the academic researchers who are currently working on Bon, Vajrayana, or Nyingma Buddhism. It's more than obvious than anyone who works in these fields would immediately know that Geisshuesler should absolutely not be deleted.
Please don't do a disservice to readers studying Nyingma and Vajrayana Buddhism by rashly deciding to delete this highly relevant article. We would be left with nearly nothing about Dzogchen specialists and researchers if we were to purge this article from Wikipedia.
Thanks for taking the time go through my two cents on this. Equiyamnaya (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
It only applies for snow or speedy keep if there is unanimous keep votes, which it is definitely not the case. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Being a senior lecturer, does not meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm using strong keep now, which would be relevant here. I also don't understand the sudden decision to delete this article straight out of the blue, after it has been patrolled by other reviewers. I understand the need to trim stubs about non-notable athletes or indie musicians, but a published religious studies scholar should be considered much more seriously. Equiyamnaya (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notability and academic positions in Oceania. An Australian senior lecturer is the equivalent of a tenured associate professor at universities in the United States. His position is fully tenured. Please take a look at Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand). He clearly meets professor notability criteria. Equiyamnaya (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    Associate professors are not granted inherent notability. Also please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Arie Hershcovich

Arie Hershcovich (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 cannot find independent sources with significant coverage suitable to meet WP:NBASIC, and I cannot find evidence to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPROF. I have looked under both the article name and "Arie Hershkowitz", the name given on the CV in reference 1. Mgp28 (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Israel. Mgp28 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. His name is אריה הרשקוביץ. Most of his research is under Arie Herscovici, with other sources under Arie Hershcovich and Arie Hershkowitz. אריה has many spellings as well but hopefully that part is more consistent for this Arie. gidonb (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for this. Using "Arie Herscovici" I'm still not seeing enough independent coverage to make me think the article meets the appropriate notability criteria. An attempt at using his name in Hebrew with Google Translate seemed to bring up news stories about people with the same name who are not him, but I will be interested to know if there are sources in Hebrew that show notability. Mgp28 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Both names are fairly common. Hershkowitz is the status quo name in English, French, and German. Herșcovici is the Romanian spelling. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sheryene N. Tejeda

Sheryene N. Tejeda (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)

Insufficient reliable third-party sources for WP:BIO notability; nearly all of the references are either press releases or journal articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: The sources cited are reputable and relevant to the subject's contributions to the field. The Tejeda Equation, which Dr. Sheryene N. Tejeda developed, is referenced in multiple academic and medical publications. This equation is particularly significant in the study and treatment of Endometriosis, the area in which Dr. Tejeda is most renowned. I believe the article meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, especially in the context of Dr. Tejeda’s work in medical science. Given the importance and relevance of the subject, I recommend that the page should be retained. Laurynasee (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Laurynasee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
?? There aren't any so-called sources. There are no other-citations to the paper. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete. Her Google Scholar profile shows literally zero citations. Most of the article is unverifiable and I strongly suspect the medical claims in it do not pass WP:MEDRS. The article lists sources that have some superficial appearance of reliability and depth but they all read as churnalism reprints of press releases. For instance for the (un)reliability of the msn.com source see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 419#MSN news created by AI creating a mess of the news; they haven't been reliable since 2019 and this link is much more recent. Searching the web finds only material even more blatantly promotional than our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of the kind of impact we're looking for with NPROF, little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Noting that I removed five known blackhat SEO/PR blogs that were used abusively. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yehuda Tagar

Yehuda Tagar (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)

BLP without any demonstration of notability. It was tagged by Klbrain with a PROD in April 2024; the PROD was objected to with some discussion of improving it. Fast forward to August 2024 and nothing has changed. No proof of notability so nominated for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete; doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC and there seems to be no interest from editors in the alternative proposal on using the text as a core for an article on psychophonetics. Yehuda Tagar seems to be a practitioner who frames his practice as an institute, but doesn't seem to be recognized expert in the discipline. The references all support psychophonetics as a topic, but not Tagar. Google scholar shows about 3 publications from Tagar. The page seems promotional. Klbrain (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Psychology can be a very high-citation field but he has very low citation counts, so he does not pass WP:PROF#C1. And heading organizations might only be cause for notability if those organizations themselves are notable independently from the subject, for which we have no evidence. The claim to have founded psychophonetics is made implausible by Google Scholar searching which finds the term to be used for subjects related to psychoacoustics going back to the 19th century and Jan Baudouin de Courtenay. Perhaps Tagar uses it in a different sense but that other meaning seems to be the more common one. So I tend to agree with the comment mentioned by Klbrain that retargeting rather than deletion might be a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Dude who is shaking Tagar's hand is the president of Israel
  • Delete. Regular professional at work. Nothing wrong with that but it does not make one encyclopedic. I have give or take 3 scientific publications and am definitely not notable! The primary is needed for a notable Yehuda Tagar who was a Mossad agent. Just died at the ripe age 100.[5] gidonb (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Herman Njoroge Chege

Herman Njoroge Chege (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, nor other notability criteria. Filled with puffery, and a long history (back to 2013!) of editing by a single-purpose account, User:Njoroge Wa Chege. Rather cleverly, that user has set a redirect from their user page to Herman Njoroge Chege. A recent PROD was reversed, hence moving to AfD. Klbrain (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Kenya. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF or other notability apparent; WP:TNT is relevant anyway. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    TNT means delete and start over. Do you think someone should start over, i.e. recreate after it gets deleted? Geschichte (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    Right. I should've said "would be relevant" (if there were notability). My point is that there is little or nothing of encyclopedic value in the current article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google Scholar shows a single-digit number of publications only one of which has more than one citation. This is far from enough for WP:PROF#C1 in any field, let alone his where the citation counts tend to be very high. The article does not suggest any other potential direction for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Full of puffy words and fluff, this is PROMO. Source 2 is an unreliable source per Source Highlighter (in red), so there is nothing left beyond a publication from the museum; I don't see how an AI programmer making shopping bots getting published in a natural history museum's journal helps notability. Unless it helps the animal in their daily tasks, this seems like a stretch and a rather fanciful one at that... Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sherry Gong

Sherry Gong (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)

It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2018 PhD and assistant professor with a handful of citations. A prize for undergraduate work does not grant notability, nor does the CAREER grant. Performance on the IMO might tend to meet GNG, if it were widely covered by reliable independent sources, but about all I found was a passing mention in Wired. [6] Recently deleted by PROD and undeleted by request on WP:RFU. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence yet of significant achievement WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC).
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, Puerto Rico, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm very much in favor of showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, but the pedestal needs to be something they are already standing on, not something we place in front of them as an obstacle to trip over. She has not yet had the impact in post-student research needed for WP:PROF; although people at this point in their career can sometimes pass, doing so typically takes work with extraordinary impact and major prizes. Instead she is on a promising academic career track and if she keeps it up I would expect her to pass WP:PROF eventually, but eventually is not now. That leaves the IMO accomplishments and Schafer prize, which are separate enough to save the article from WP:BIO1E but would require in-depth coverage of her accomplishments in independent media for WP:GNG-based notability. I don't see that independent coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sadly, I agree with all of the above. Like virtually all assistant professors, this is WP:TOOSOON.Qflib (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete After an unsuccessful search for independent news coverage, I have to agree with the delete !votes. Spacepine (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Ramesh Chakrasali

Ramesh Chakrasali (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)

Ostensibly well sourced, the references all fail to show any notability. Two are 404 errors, several are what he said, in which we have no interest, a couple are press releases. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete references are either info pages from his Engineering College, links to publications, or passing references in news articles about competitions/info days he coordinated. A passing search found no further news articles to support GNG. Spacepine (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Nathaniel Jenkins

Nathaniel Jenkins (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)

Bio of an academic fails WP:GNG. I also cannot find any evidence it passes a criterion of WP:NACADEMIC; his h-index of 25 is on the low side for an associate professor in the life sciences. None of the awards constitute a pass under WP:ANYBIO. We don't have any third-party or non-primary sources in this article, either, and I couldn't find any in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iowa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just adequate citations in high cited field: WP:Too soon at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC).
  • Comment/question. The highly coauthored papers do not impress me so much, although the subject is first author (in a field where that matters) on a couple of them. Is Fellow of the American Heart Society [7] a pass of WP:NPROF C3? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Russ Woodroofe I don't think so. It does not appear to be a particularly rare honor with 120+ fellows selected that year. Compare that to the Royal Society, which elects no more than 52 members across 10 major academic disciplines. The Institute of Physics, another example given by the guideline, elected just 5 individuals to its honorary fellowship. Further, the FAHA credential appears to be more of a membership dues driver than a prestigious award. See the AHA website FAQs: "those applying to become a FAHA must be at a Premium Professional membership tier at the time their application is submitted. If elected FAHA, members must remain at a Premium Professional tier to retain their FAHA status.... If a FAHA’s membership tier drops below a Premium Professional tier or their membership expires, their FAHA status becomes inactive. Upon renewal or reinstatement at a Premium Professional membership tier their FAHA status will automatically be reinstated." If it were truly an NACADEMICS C3 fellowship, it would be strange to say, "Here's this lifetime achievement honor from our society, but we will revoke it if you go down to a lower membership tier." Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Rafika Ben Chaouacha-Chekir

Rafika Ben Chaouacha-Chekir (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)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NPERSON Polygnotus (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Masoud Salavati-Niasari

Masoud Salavati-Niasari (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)

Nominated per WP:NACADEMIC, some relevant information will follow in the comment below. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a scholar in the field of chemistry / chemical engineering with excessive publication output (1084 items per Dimensions.ai, link requires login).
There is a retraction for image concerns. 36 articles by Salavati-Niasari received comments on PubPeer, typically for image and content concerns. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course, none of these asserts notability. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:59, 26 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 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not going to support this BLP until an explanation is available for the unusual GS citation record and the retractions Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC).
    @Xxanthippe, I'd be curious what you make of what I found below in academic databases. This is definitely an odd situation outside the "norm" of already iffy measures of notability by citation metrics, but I just get more questions than answers as I dig. KoA (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to me that the subject has notability, albeit not verified by the references. If they have somehow falsified data (etc) and thus retracted papers, then that fact, if in sufficient volume, is likely to confer notability, also notoriety. This should be recorded in the very stubby article. Otherwise their papers appear at first sight to have sufficient citations themselves to qualify under WP:NACADEMIC. I note the comments in the link provided by the nom, and feel they may indicate 'lack of scientific rigour'. I leave this as a comment rather than a !vote because I do not feel able to reach a conclusion on this. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    I propose to proceed with deletion at this time. One retraction is quite weak to imply notability / notoriety of the subject, and references to their PubPeer record are contestable through WP:NOR.
    If any significant number of retractions arrives in the future, then we will have a firm reason to restore the page. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm seeing a red flag with the citation counts here too and tried to do some poking around on more reliable databases like Scopus or Web of Science. At their peak, they somehow put out over 100 papers in a single year. In Scopus you can remove self-citations by the author and their co-authors, and this often removes about 1000 citations per year. There still appears to be citations that fall outside this category, but it does play a part.
What's a bigger red flag for me is that they are last/corresponding author on 84% of papers, but first author only on 16% of papers checking Web of Science (apparently never a regular co-author/contributor). Maybe it's an irregular power structure thing at their university, but claiming corresponding editor on that many papers seems to suggest they are getting credit for work they didn't directly do beyond a typical corresponding author situation. At least in this case, I would say the citation metrics part of WP:NACADEMIC is not reliable standalone for notability, so I'd be inclined to say delete considering everything else I've seen here. KoA (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
In the last few years there has been a vast increase in citation gaming, see Research paper mill, which tends to bamboozle inexperienced editors. If in doubt Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC).

Sourav Mukherjee

Sourav Mukherjee (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)

No independent, reliable secondary sources found. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sources includes primary, blogs such as Medium and unreliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on the Wikipedia page submission. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and sourcing. However, the person is very popular in Indian animation studies scene, as you will see his books has been published by the Central Government of India, and he had also received several grants for research in this field. Further more independent and reliable secondary sources will be added to support the content and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards. Once again, your input is greatly appreciated, and I look forward to improving the page with more robust references.
Best regards. Kolkata.cult (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Kolkata.cult: Please share reliable independent sources here, as I am unable to find any, which is the reason behind the nomination. Books published by the Central Government do not inherently make a person notable, nor are these awards notable enough to make the subject notable. I also noticed that you removed the AfD template from the article, which was reverted. Please refrain from removing the template in the future. GrabUp - Talk 15:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I understand that books published by the Central Government may not inherently establish a person's notability. However, it's important to note that the book was inaugurated by M. Venkaiah Naidu, the former Vice President of India, which adds a layer of significance to the author's achievements. Additionally, several sources have been added to demonstrate the person's credibility as an educator and artist. If there are specific types of reliable, independent sources that you are looking for, please let me know, and I would be happy to assist in gathering them. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I apologize for the oversight regarding the AfD template. I will ensure it is not removed again. Regards. Kolkata.cult (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - aside from WP:COI or WP:UPE creation of the article, simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 09:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like cover letter and resume for a job. All the sources on the page are primary, unreliable and paid publicity. The subject has not made a significant impact and did not make any achievement worthy of notice nationally or internationally. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a full fledged article on himself. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Cal Horton

Cal Horton (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)

Research fellow at Oxford Brookes, not reaching WP:NACADEMIC; Scopus publication output is consistent with their career stage. Has appeared in the media (including podcasts) as an expert with others, but this dosn't seem sufficient for independent notability (notability isn't inherited). Klbrain (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - yes they do pass WP:NACADEMIC with many highly cited papers and advancing research in a dramatically under-researched field, which is why they also have been cited by several newspapers (actually just to double check, found another two now that I've added to the article, so this also strengthens the WP:GNG case), despite their age in the field. They especially got a lot of recent attention as a result of their critique paper on the Cass Review. They are an expert themself on transgender studies, which is why they have been invited to talk as an expert on various podcasts, and as the article said, including them solo in this deep-dive on Social Transition, Puberty Blockers and the Cass Review, so I don't know what the stab about inherited notability is there. Im trying not to get upset anymore, but the amount of time I've had to come and defend women and non-binary people at AfD is really apparent of how alive the gender bias on Wikipedia still is. Raladic (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    Addendum, should the consensus below end up with deletion, since the article was AfD'd as part of NPP of a new article, I request per WP:ATD-I, that the article be moved into draft space (main draft, or alternatively back to my user space where I drafted it) instead, since so far it seems from the 3 delete votes below that it may be more a case of WP:TOSOON with potential rather than outright non-notability. Raladic (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Raladic (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Raladic (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above - their many cited papers (that are cited by several newspapers and on Wikipedia itself) shows that they pass GNG and NACADEMIC. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this fresh PhD with a handful of citations in what I believe to be a mid to high citation field. GNG is plausible, but I didn't find substantial coverage of the subject in the news -- the ABC piece cited does not mention them, and publishing an opinion piece in SciAm does not contribute so much to notability. Will follow in case better evidence of notability arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Early-career researcher with a citation record to match their position; not enough citations for WP:PROF#C1 and no other claim to notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - agreed with the nominator. Scopus and Google scholar do not indicate high citations. Note I have removed the VIAF and LCCN ids from the wikidata record as these appear to be a different Calvin Horton who worked on pay plans in 1967/1972 [8]. ResonantDistortion 19:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. notability not yet attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC).

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 [9]; I don't think it's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete It's very rare that a full-professor at University of Wisconsin Madison will not pass WP:PROF (they're generally significantly above the average professor in terms of academic notability), but with all the research David E. has done (and trying and failing myself), I think that this is the case here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I thought I'd managed to find one more review, which still wouldn't quite get us to WP:NAUTHOR, but it turned out to be a metadata error. Nothing further to add. -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: In its current form, it does not meet WP:NPOL since failed candidates for political office rarely meet notability standards. I will defer to others on whether there is a path to notability with WP:NPROF. Bkissin (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this isn't showing any discernible evidence that he would pass WP:NPROF as an academic. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if somebody can find more convincing evidence of a PROF pass and can accordingly write an article that places the focus where it belongs, but nothing in this version of the article is "inherently" notable without much better sourcing than has been shown so far. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 29 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)
    I was referencing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover in my comment above. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep for similar reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover: Wikimedian of the Year is a significant award, even if not the most important award someone can win. Also, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. clearly is not true: their role in winning Wikimedian of the Year was quite substantial, being the winner of the award. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    An employee/volunteer recognition award by a non-profit with revenues of 180 million USD is certainly significant to those involved with the non-profit. However, it is hardly a well-known or significant award (what ANYBIO requires) given the lack of accompanying news stories about the award. As someone who is involved with that non-profit it's hardly surprising you consider it significant, but Wikipedia's standards are higher than this. So unless coverage can be found for this recipient there should be no article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete -- preamble though: I really disagree with the nominator's attempt to set the bar on major awards at Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor. The bar for award notability is far lower than that. That aside, I don't think that Wikimedian of the Year is at that level in itself (even the article on the award doesn't provide justification for considering it in a major award category). It is, though, the type of award that in many cases will be accompanied by coverage showing that the broader public has already recognized the efforts of the writer/editor/contributor and thus counts for something in my book, but not enough to rise above the notability bar. If Wikimedian of the Year wants to include a "Brief Biographies of Winners" section and include a little bit on each non-blue-linked winner, I'd have no objection. But there just aren't enough RSes here so far to indicate that the award was recognized as significant for this winner. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    He's covered significantly by four independent sources. I'm unsure of the reliability of the other three, but the Straits Times looks pretty solid to me as the "most-widely circulated newspaper in the country". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    Looking at the other three, Rise Malaysia! seems way too promotional to count for anything, the Rakyat Post looks like something that'd count towards GNG, and Malaysia Today looks like it could as well. I meant what I said above that he meets GNG, it's those other factors that make things more complicated. Anyways, I'll refrain from commenting further given my obvious COI here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect: per my comment on Clover's AfD; although Rosman has a greater claim to notability, this is still ultimately an ANYBIO fail and BLP1E. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the existing references, including the 3 added by মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন since the start of the AfD, were all occasioned by his becoming Wikimedian of the Year, and although one of those added, like the pre-existing Diff reference, is by Wikimedia itself (the Bangla reference), the others demonstrate extensive press coverage and together they give a fair amount of information about him, some of which we weren't including. I was able to expand the article into a decent bio, considering his age (his birth date is referenced, which I made clearer). Also, doing a bit of WP:BEFORE while trying to decide which way to !vote on this article, I found an extended news article that devotes a lot of its space to him while not being about the award at all, and a mention in a 2021 WHO news release. That tips me over the edge, I believe he's received enough coverage in reliable sources for his career as a Malaysian Wikimedian to merit a freestanding article. Especially so since the 2 sources I added use variants of his name, starting with Mohd, and since I am unable to search in Bahasa Malaysia let alone other Malaysian languages or Bangla. Those who can may well find more; and some of the coverage may not be online, or not be indexed where I can see it from the US. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for expanding the article. The name in searches thing doesn't surprise me because I learned a little about how Malaysian names work when talking to Taufik. Apparently his father's name is literally Rosman. Also, his award was so much of a bigger deal than mine. As far as Canada is concerned, I'm a nobody. But he had TV reporters take a bus ride from Malaysia to Singapore to cover this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was better coverage offline or in other languages. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fundamentally this is still a WP:BIO1E situation. Moreover, in my opinion we must apply more stringent notability standards, basically on IAR grounds, to biographies of individuals whose main claim to notability is for being Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia as a whole and all of us here have a degree of COI in relation to such biographies and there is an element of self promotion for the project when they are kept. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year: Let me say I greatly appreciate their contributions, but there is not inferred notability from winning the Wikimedian of the Year award. From my searches, I don't believe there's sustained coverage on the individual and all the coverage was related to that at the time award. As such, I believe it makes the most sense to redirect it to Wikimedian of the Year. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect WMotY is in no way "well-known" or "significant" outside of our own community. This does not pass ANYBIO, and the subject is not exempt from standard GNG sourcing. The sources are local news about the award alone each with largely the same content, not substantial coverage of his biography and I believe the WMotY page covers this content adequately. Reywas92Talk 19:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Yngvadottir's additional sources. The page meets GNG, the topic is notable, especially in his home nation, and editors are implying that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are less important than they actually are and then using that opinionated reasoning to lessen the accomplishments of the page subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect/weak delete. Congratulations on the award, but I think some other things are needed for an article. Good luck! Nadzik (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect as a BIO1E. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, no sustained coverage and the award is nowhere close to the threshold for ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 29 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)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Mexico, Ohio, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. His Google Scholar profile is no better. No pass of WP:PROF#C1 and (with such a junior position) no other WP:PROF criterion is evident or likely. There are no in-depth reliable independent sources so WP:GNG is also out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. He is an MD candidate with nothing notable, many years WP:TOOSOON since, as David says, he is far from any of the notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete No independent sources. Also, article was created by an SPA, which always strikes me as suspicious. Most of the sources are his own writings, and once you remove those there isn't much. And as per his writings, while the list seems impressive, the citation count on them is quite low. Lamona (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google Scholar indeed shows, as noted by Lamona, that despite a long list of his publications, there isn't much when it comes to cittion count. Other than his Google Scholar profile, there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources as proof of notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Was unable to find anything notable on Newspapers.com or with Google. I also reviewed his publications and there is nothing there that appears to be notable. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 30 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)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Architecture, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. He does not appear to be notable as an architect or through WP:PROF, but I found and added to the article seven reviews of four books. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the entry about him in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction goes some way towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per David Eppstein. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Meh I see very little impact - low sales (checking Amazon although that's not 100%), not carried by many libraries (checked books in WorldCat), reviews only in niche journals (with Counterpoise being the best known). I'll go with Weak delete but I think that's generous. Lamona (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, I guess. Like Lamona's !vote, just on the other side. I don't think David Eppstein's sources show a WP:NAUTHOR pass so much as a pass of the one book specifically (the others only have one review each). But we don't have an article on that book to redirect to, and I don't think it would be helpful to do that anyway. The SF encyclopedia entry helps, a bit. Meh is right. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep there is plenty of sources on Newspapers.com
    • Laffoon, Polk (1973-08-31). "Peter Seidel: one man against waste". The Cincinnati Post. p. 39. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
    • Wall, Tom (1973-12-12). "Using city land better: one man offers an idea". The Cincinnati Post. p. 11. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
    • Thomas, Jo (1970-07-08). "'Green belt' plan may help to slay the inner city dragon". The Cincinnati Post. p. 30. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
    • Sanger, Carol (1971-02-23). ""This city is livable; New York frightens me"". The Cincinnati Post. pp. 36–37. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
    • Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    Comment why did you delete the bibliography? -1ctinus📝🗨 18:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dr vulpes. C F A 💬 18:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Dr vulpes has removed from the article the material that my comment above uses as the basis for notability: his published books and their published reviews (which consistitute in-depth independent sourcing about his work). They can still be found in the article history at Special:Diff/1241527127. Dr vulpes: this behavior comes across as inconsiderate of other editors, disruptive, and prejudicial to the AfD, since additional AfD participants will no longer see these sources before formulating their opinions. Please revert yourself, for the books at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein sorry about that I've correct the issue. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Appears to be several sources even that are not in the article. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2024 (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.

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 [10] 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)
  • Keep I've added some sources and removed unsourced material. Their work is in a very very very niche area but they appear to be quite prolific and important. There was sustained media attention on her work in the 2010's. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    1. The key work undertaken is not prolific. It is a single Phd.
    2. That work gained some attention at the time but did not win any award.
    3. Referencing a regional Australian newspaper, the Newcastle Herald, is not proof of expertise. Anubus13 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dr vulpes has improved the article but I'm still not seeing a pass of WP:NPROF here. The sustained media attention on her work is work done by a group of collaborators, not her alone (and I'm not convinced it's enough even if it were her alone). Can anyone find her obituary? How do we know she's died? -- asilvering (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    She was listed in the Ryerson Index - ryersonindex.org Anubus13 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    Could you provide a link, please? -- asilvering (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    https://ryersonindex.org/search.php
    this is what appears for search terms Jana Jones and dates 2023 to 2023:
    Surname Given Names Notice Type Date Event Age Other Details Publication Published
    JONES Jana Marie Probate notice 28JUN2023 Death late of Elizabeth Bay NSW Probate Index 18SEP2023 Anubus13 (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, so not even an obituary. Well, that doesn't help us find any notability, then. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    I think for a recently deceased person this sort of record falls under the prohibition in WP:BLPPRIMARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I wasn't so much looking for a source for the info to cite as hoping that there was some coverage on her we hadn't found, that had silently been used as the source for the 2023 death date. But if it's just a probate record, no luck there. -- asilvering (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC).
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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 30 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 [11]. 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 [12] 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)
  • Keep per above, AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and SOFIXIT! gidonb (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2024 (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.

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 [13], [14], 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)
  • Merge to Global Consciousness Project. The NY Times, Vancouver Sun, and Guardian are good sources, however their articles are primarily about the project, not him. A few sentences (maybe a paragraph) introducing him using those sources found by Silver Seren would actually enhance that article. That would fill in his educational background (a short list of degrees) and perhaps something about his beliefs/goals. But for him I don't see SIGCOV for a separate article. Lamona (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Global Consciousness Project, in order for him to get coverage, we would need WP:DEPTH, which we don't have here.
Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silverseren’s sources. He seems to have received SIGCOV and sources that debunk his views. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

*Delete. Non-notable fringe. Change my mind. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC).

Proposed deletions

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