Jump to content

User:Ruud Koot/Feed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science

[edit]

Articles for deletion

  • 18 Nov 2024 – ArkTS (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Rainsday (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
  • 14 Nov 2024 – Portable object (computing) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Smallangryplanet (t · c); see discussion (4 participants; relisted)
  • 13 Nov 2024 – Patrick Juola (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Djibooty (t · c) was closed as keep by Liz (t · c) on 20 Nov 2024; see discussion (7 participants)

Proposed deletions

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(1 more...)

AA: Computing

[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(13 more...)

Proposed deletions

(20 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Requested moves

(1 more...)

Articles to be merged

(17 more...)

Articles to be split

(17 more...)

Articles for creation

(35 more...)

AfD: Computing

[edit]

Computing

[edit]

Stu Megan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Stu Megan (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:SIGCOV. Some passing mentions in the ext links but not sufficient for a WP:BLP. No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years. No updates. scope_creepTalk 08:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ark Engine

[edit]
Ark Engine (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: N. I completed a WP: BEFORE and couldn't find any sources that would establish notability. I'm also comfortable with redirecting to HarmonyOS as an WP: ATD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Advanced SCSI Programming Interface

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

Does not meet the bar for WP: N. I can't find any reliable source that isn't written by Brian Sawert. I found a student project by Johannes Lieder, some passing mentions, and a couple of sources whose reliability seems questionable at best, but without another source to establish notability, I believe this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Emote

[edit]
Emote (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 article as it currently stands is a pure WP:DICDEF. I was only able to find trivial mentions about emotes in sources, or sources over-specifically referring to a specific emote from a specific game (usually Fortnite). I feel this could become a disambiguation page pointing to acting and emoji among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the current state of the article isn't great, I think we have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. I found academic sources that discuss the use of emotes on Twitch[1][2] and there are other online sources that specifically discuss emotes (as distinct from emojis),[3][4] so I don't think redirecting would be appropriate. There appears to be enough sourcing to maintain a separate article, but I'm open to input from other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • On further consideration, there is some overlap between how emotes and emojis are used (one paper describes emotes as "platform-specific emojis"),[5] but I still think there is enough discussion of emotes as a distinct term to warrant a stand-alone article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    And can any of those be used to write a cohesive article on emotes in general, as opposed to an example farm?
    Even if expanded, I foresee it becoming like:
    "In one example, Twitch utilizes emotes. In another, Youtube uses emotes. In yet another, emotes are used in MMOs". And so on. Furthermore, in at least some of these cases, "emotes" is used in a sense that is synonymous with emoji rather than its own entity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    You're right that emotes and emojis are sometimes used synonymously, but in some contexts they are clearly distinct. Video game emotes (i.e., character animations that players can trigger) is a clearly distinct usage for instance. One source I found discusses a copyright lawsuit against Epic Games regarding the source of their emote animations;[6] another source discusses the differences in how players perceive emotes vs. actual facial expressions;[7] and there were more sources I saw on Google Scholar that I'm too lazy to cite at the moment. To your point, it will definitely be difficult to create a cohesive article because of these diverging uses of the term. However, I'm seeing quite a few academic sources that discuss the use of emotes in video games and live chats, so I'm still inclined to keep an article in some form. I'm open to discussion on what the scope of the article should be, how to structure it, etc. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    It's possible the article could be rewritten as Emote (video games). However, I don't think it would be the primary topic regardless, so I believe that my deletion proposal of this particular article in its current form still stands. In the current article there is nothing that merits keeping; it requires a full rewrite 100%. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    Just because it requires a rewrite doesn't mean it should be deleted. AfD is not cleanup. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment on the Twitch emotes; depending on the severity of the coverage, would Twitch emotes not be a separate topic from emotes? Sort of similar to how Emoji has various other notable topics, like Eggplant emoji and Face with Tears of Joy emoji. I'm not sure it'd provide notability to the parent if it is an inherently separate, albeit notable topic.
    I do second Zx in that emotes seem to be a very wide-reaching topic, and the sourcing for them as a whole doesn't seem to be there like what Emojis seem to have. There may be several notable subtopics, but attempting to cover all these subtopics as one topic would be messy and potentially problematic. I won't vote yet until more is discussed, but I felt it would be worthwhile to ask about the above and get some clarity on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, the issue seems to be that there are multiple topics this article could focus on. When it comes to emotes on livestreaming platforms, the sources seem to exclusively focus on Twitch emotes. I notice that Twitch emote already redirects to Twitch (service)#Emotes. Maybe it would make sense to rework this article to focus on emotes in video games and include a hatnote to Twitch (service)#Emotes where the platform-specific emotes are already covered? Like you, I'd like to get input from other editors on this, so I've struck my initial !vote pending further discussion. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    On second thought, it might make more sense to convert Emote to a disambiguation page. I'll need to dig into the sources a bit more before making a firm claim on what the primary topic is. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Lord Bolingbroke Good luck! Let me know how that goes. I'm partial to both of your responses, and I feel both could be feasible, but I'll need to see what sourcing is like before I make any significant judgement calls. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.
  2. ^ Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  3. ^ "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  4. ^ Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  5. ^ Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  6. ^ Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.
  7. ^ Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.

SCSI command

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
SCSI command (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: NOTDICT and WP: NOTTEXTBOOK. I also can't find any sources that would make the article read like an encyclopedia page, as opposed to technical documentation.

There was an AfD for this article in 2005, that ended with a result of No Consensus. Nearly every Keep vote in that AfD reads like an example from WP: ATA. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - it's an overview, no manual or textbook. Could be improved, of course. --Zac67 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you seriously telling me that a bloated 191-line entry table of codes is an "overview"? This is a glorified manual. I also don't understand your handwaving about how the article "could be improved", given that there is a dearth of sources about this subject that could be used to make this article encyclopedic. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Shirsendu

[edit]
Shirsendu (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)

Sources are SPONSORED, which don’t count towards notability. The other sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed your comment on the created article. I do have more sources but I didn't add them as it conflicts with the unambiguous advertising. But I do wanna show you:.
Google Knowledge Panel: https://g.co/kgs/C3mq8zy (It is generated by google only from trusted sources)
This person seems to an artist as well. I did happen to find his Spotify artist profile: https://open.spotify.com/artist/0OSjTTuzVglE32S8qUi0rw
This person also has an official artist channel on Youtube (Channel with music note) which is only possible if he is a genuine artist: https://www.youtube.com/@shirshaw64p
This person also has a verified facebook page back from 2021 when paid verification wasn't even an option. Link: https://www.facebook.com/Shirshaw64p
This things I haven't added as it would be promotional. But from what I listed, that is why I feel like this person is notable. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nathanbyrd25 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
@Nathanbyrd25: These things do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTABILITY, which requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 06:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some related conversation from when this was still a draft on my talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Hey! I also found his linkedin profile and found he is a Subject Matter Expert of HackTheBox, which is a reputed cybersecurity learning platform. Can that be added? Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: All links are PROMO. This is even a PR item [1] on a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    removed the PR item you pointed. Thank you for guiding me. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    I also happened to find apple music link, will it be a promo to add it? Thanks. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nomination. Article creator seems to be relentlessly persistent in suggesting sources that don't count toward notability for reasons I don't understand, even though they have been told nicely to read the relevant guidelines. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Portable object (computing)

[edit]
Portable object (computing) (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 really not sure about this one - it seems like it might be a dupe of Portable Distributed Objects, or could be merged into that article. It's also unclear if .po files are still used for this purpose. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, or merge. Looking on Google Scholar, this seems to be a different concept than Portable Distributed Objects. The article could use some clarification for its uses, particularly for translation, but I see enough notability for it to stay. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. This is notable. 1250metersdeep (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Portable Distributed Objects: This source on the Portable Distributed Objects article refers to CORBA as a usage of "distributed objects": "Creating distributed applications is generally considered difficult. While object-oriented programming promises to make the task more tractable, many programmers still shudder when subjects such as CORBA, OLE, SOM, and OpenDoc arise. However, programming with distributed objects does not have to be difficult, if you start with the right foundation." Additionally, the nominated article lists CORBA as a model that enables usage of "portable distributed objects". This indicates to me that "portable distributed objects" and "portable objects" are terms that can be used interchangeably or are so similar in meaning that separate articles are more likely to cause confusion for readers. The concept of portable (distributed) objects may or may not be notable, but that misses the point of this AfD, which is to discuss whether these two pages discuss the same concept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete this is a DICTDEF, and a excessively-specific (and obsolete) definition at that. The only source is a 2006 patent. gettext is the article about .po files, the .po redirect should be retargeted there. I don't think a DAB page for Remote direct memory access and a half-dozen similar terms is justified. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science

[edit]
Shortcuts


Science

[edit]

List of tornadoes causing 100 or more deaths

[edit]
List of tornadoes causing 100 or more deaths (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:NLIST, also fails WP:NOTDATABASE. EF5 14:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Tornado records and make into a category per above. Obviously notable and 100 is a healthy threshold for these tornadoes, having a way to access a list of these is well within the realm of Wikipedia, but as a list it isn't the greatest fit. To avoid needing to do a refund, the following tornadoes here do not have articles:
  • Manikganj, Singair and Nawabganj, Bangladesh (1973), 681 deaths
  • 1969 East Pakistan tornado, 660 deaths (this is one I'm most likely to create!)
  • Magura and Narail Districts, Bangladesh (1964), 500 deaths
  • Madaripur and Shibchar, Bangladesh (1977), 500 deaths
  • North of Cooch Behar and surrounding areas, India / Bangladesh (1963), 300 deaths
  • Bhakua and Haripur unions, Bangladesh (1972), 300 deaths
  • Comilla, Bangladesh (1969), 263 deaths
  • Border of Orissa and West Bengal, India (1998), 250 deaths
  • Calcutta, India (1838), 250 deaths
  • Faridpur and Dhaka Districts, Bangladesh (1961), 210 deaths
  • 14 miles southwest of Mymensingh, Bangladesh (1972), 200 deaths
  • Faridpur District, Bangladesh (1951), 200 deaths
  • Baliakandi, Bangladesh (1973), 200 deaths
  • Parshuram, Fulgazi, Somarpur, and Sonagazi, Bangladesh (1981), 200 deaths
  • Jaipur and Keonjhar Districts, India (1978), 173 deaths
  • Guntur and Chirala, India (1936), 162 deaths
  • Kandi, India (1993), 145 deaths
  • Naria, Zajira and Bhederganj, Bangladesh (1908), 141 deaths
  • Karimpur, India (1978), 128 deaths
  • Kapundi, Erandi, Dhanbeni and Rengalbeda, Bangladesh (1981), 120 deaths
  • Borni, Bangladesh (1986), 120 deaths
  • Dhaka, Bangladesh (1908), 118 deaths
  • Mokshedpur, Bhanga and Tungipara, Bangladesh (1977), 111 deaths
  • 11 miles West of Bogra, Bangladesh (1974), 100 deaths
Maybe these would go into a List of Bangladesh tornadoes / List of Indian tornadoes article. I'll get an HTML of this article today to save their sources from being lost to deleted-article space. Departure– (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

X-ray nanoprobe

[edit]
X-ray nanoprobe (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)

Unsourced, had a CSD for copyvio, rejected due to it being a govt. website. Entire article sounds promotional as well. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG easily in a WP:BEFORE. The text is a copy paste of a US Gov. document that is in the public domain, and the text is therefore allowed to be copy pasted and distributed on Wikipedia. Attribution would be a simple matter of adding the website as a source. More importantly X-ray nanoprobes are covered thoroughly in sources in google books and google scholar and in science journals accessible through the Wikipedia Library. I really can’t see the value of deleting this. Ideally a motivated editor will come along and rewrite it so it doesn’t mirror the US Gov document so closely and has more cited references. However the current article is better than no article. The issues in the article can be solved through normal editing.4meter4 (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • comment While legally one can copy the text into WP, the text is indeed promotional in tone and doesn't give a good justification for the thing's inclusion. It needs other citations, and it needs a rewrite, and all that's assuming it gets kept. At the minimum it needs a citation for its actual source. Mangoe (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment, totally agree with Mangoe. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a content mirror. That means summarising sources, plural (and pointing our readers at those sources) so that we add value. If all we're going to do is mirror without attribution, we're doing a worse job than a simple Google search, because at least Google doesn't obfuscate the source of what it's showing you. Elemimele (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Draft: Gscholar brings up many results, but you can't just dump the content of a US gov't paper here, with no sourcing, and create an article. This needs work. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

List of molecules by year of discovery

[edit]
List of molecules by year of discovery (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 article is highly inaccurate and misleading as of right now. It is also rather impossible to make a list of molecules by year of discovery, even if it were to be constrained to the 19th century. The contents of the theories of molecules, discovery of aromaticity, etc. is much better described elsewhere. Perhaps should at least be merged into History of molecular theory. Pygos (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete This is a very hard list to handle. The current list contains a very strange and random selection of molecules. Given the millions of known molecules (Chemspider contains 100,000,000+) our list needs to be selective. We could make it a navigational list of wiki-notable molecules, but we have a truly enormous number of articles on individual molecules, and most readers will be searching by criteria other than year-of-discovery, so it would be a pretty unhelpful list. We could more usefully make it a curated list of molecules whose discovery was a historical stepping-stone, such as benzene. But to do that, we need a proper discussion of the inclusion-criteria before we make the list. So for the moment, delete the list, but if anyone wants a list, start a discussion somewhere about how to do it. I would have no objection to converting my keep to a blank-and-discuss if such things exist. I don't think we're allowed to draftify as the current list is too old. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Is the creator of this list seriously suggesting that Umeclidinium bromide is the only significant molecule discovered in the 21s century? More generally "a very strange and random selection of molecules" sums it up. Athel cb (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete There were already users who agreed via prod, prod2, and the creator's redirection that that is an unworkable list. So it's rather absurd that an RFD with three delete votes resulted in this being restored instead just to waste time rediscussing the obvious. Reywas92Talk 16:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Almost infinitely expandable list, and anyway, important milestones in the history of chemistry can be better organized than just a database-dump of molecules ordered by year of discovery. That's just trivia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

George M. Murray (scientist)

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

Potentially notable academic. Currently fails WP:NPROF. Been on the cat:nn list since 2010. No indication of significance but could be. scope_creepTalk 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Science, Iowa, Maryland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF. Although the page does not directly say so, the subject is an adjunct research professor at a high-tech satellite campus of UT-Knoxville (https://www.utsi.edu/people/faculty/george-m-murray/, https://www.utsi.edu/about/). I don't see enough citations of their academic work to justify C1 of WP:NPROF and nothing else seems to apply either. This could be revisited in the future since the subject seems to be an active scholar and inventor, but not enough here to keep the page, I think. Qflib (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Somewhat agree. I see no major indications of peer recognition through awards, and he does not have that many publications. The reason I have a Weak is because his initials overlap with at least one other so I cannot properly check his citations. I am also uncertain about his patents. If there was an award or two I would definitely reverse my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    A major award would be enough to satisfy Wikipedia:NPROF, and if something like that were to crop up I would also swing. But the only award seen here is one given by his own university, and internal awards are not suitable for this purpose. Qflib (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. GS[2] shows top citations 392, 167, 114, 101 but then a big drop off. They all seem to be the same researcher, but with no profile there's no information on h-index. Fifty papers does not seem a lot for a modern chemist, I wonder if his work is mainly unpublished because it relates to patented inventions? Willing to be persuaded either way. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, I think fifty papers and a bunch of patents is a decent body of work, but if they aren't being widely recognized then they don't establish notability. Qflib (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Its not enough per the usual standard of notability. There is no patents on Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 20:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
There is plenty of coverage of patents on Wikipedia; see as one small example List of software patents. I don't think patents should count as contributing to WP:PROF#C1, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I've hadn't seen this. There are not used in biographies, blps to clarify. I've certainly not seen any. It needs a major update unfortunatly. scope_creepTalk 04:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: What is your view on this? scope_creepTalk 04:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Given that his top papers are on detecting nerve agents and purifying uranium, I suspect that the publication drop-off may have something to do with performing classified military work. Regardless, if it's not something we see it's not something we can credit for notability. I'm not very familiar with the citation patterns in analytic chemistry (if that is what this is) so not very confident in my opinion, but I don't want to base a keep only on what looks like a borderline citation record for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see anything else aside from that to provide notability. There are a couple of minor and local honors listed in [3] but not enough to count for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Working load limit

[edit]
Working load limit (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 guide and not a dictionary. While this term is clearly popular on Wikipedia evidenced by pageviews, I was unable to find two sources to establish WP:GNG.

Sources I could find:

Chin Gouk

[edit]
Chin Gouk (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)

Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Most of the sources are articles by her rather than third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Low citation count as well. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Americanoid

[edit]
Americanoid (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)

Delete or possibly merge with Okunev culture. The first paragraph is about a "discounted" theory which probably doesn't deserve its own article. The second also is not deserving of its own article and can be merged if it isn't already in the Okunev article (I only skimmed it). PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Archaeology. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on searches this was a theory regarding Siberian and other northern ancient peoples that was promulgated in the early 20th century, specifically by Russian anthropologists. As it is no longer an accepted designation, a few sentences in an article for the subsequent theory should suffice. I did find one article that criticized the term and attributed it specifically to Russian racism, but that perhaps could be a marker of scientific enmity and distrust of Russian science. Lamona (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep and reformat as a WP:Disambiguation page and merge appropriate content Vladimir Jochelson per WP:ATD. Given that there are two verifiable definitions being used, one linking to Vladimir Jochelson and the other Ancient North Eurasian/Okunev culture, this is a reasonable navigational page.4meter4 (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Okunev culture. There's no need for a merge as the subject is already covered sufficiently there. No need for a DAB page. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Kanawha people

[edit]
Kanawha people (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:TNT, this doesn't appear to be about a notable topic, and I can't find any scholarly literature discussing the subject. The idea that the Kanawha people are the ancestor's of Native Americans appears to be fictitious, or at least incredibly fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I'm not saying the current text is accurate, but I have a big problem with deleting an article on a Native American people group. That would be participating in erasure which is morally problematic in light of the history of Native American genocide in the United States. The answer is to trim out unsupported content and validate what we can with the sources we can locate. Stubifying it would be better than deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    When people are writing "Kanawha people" are they referring to a distinct ethnic group, or a general term for Native Americans inhabiting the Kanawha area? If the latter, I hardly see how this warrants a standalone article. The sources you mention are passing references that are completely inadequate to construct any kind of meaningful article about the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that sources better than this are needed. However, it is clearly a people group as they are being referenced as living in New England in one source, and Kentucky in another at various points in history. It's not attached just to the Kanawha Valley. I'll see if I can find anything in JSTOR or EBSCOE that gives a better defined definition.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The first four of those sources appear to be referring to white settlers in the Kanawha Valley. The only mention in the Cotterill source, in a passage about a surveying party in Kentucky, is in the sentence, So many of the Kanawha people had joined the expedition that there were now thirty-three men in the party, although four of the original members had returned home for fear of the Indians. The Stealy source is talking about the cost of hiring slaves in Kanawha County, and the only mention of Kanawha people is in the phrase, I discover that the people of this country don't like to hire to the Kanawha people, it is a long distance & near the state of Ohio. The Davisson source is about the Union army in Kentucky during the Civil War, long after Native Americans had been forced out of Kentucky, and the only mention of 'Kanawha people' is in the sentence, I propose ... to induce the Kanawha people to take a more decided course. The Engineering and Mining Journal source, from 1910, says, The New River and Kanawha people have been busy in New England territory this spring, offering coal at very low prices. I think it is quite clear that those sources are referring to white settlers/residents of the Kanawha Valley, and not to any group Native American people. Donald Albury 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
It could be, but the Scoggins source below clearly is referring to a Native people group that the Kanawha Valley is named after (not the other way around). That people group lived in several places according to that source. That source is enough to establish that deletion is not the answer here and WP:ATD at the very least is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
And it would be a sub-stub, unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. Better to be a redirect to an article that can provide context. I understand that you are concerned with Native American history being covered in Wikipedia. I am too. But, if there is next to nothing reliably sourced to say about a group, it is better to put what little can be sourced as a section or sub-section in a larger article, or even as an entry in a Boldlist. Donald Albury 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is referring to St. Albans Site. Haven't looked through all the "Kanawha people" links above but the appear to have been misread. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    This old article on the history of Kanawha County from West Virginia University political science department says that the Kanawha were a people who lived in the area during the early British colonial Period, but this honestly this isn't a great source and I haven't been able to find anything better, so maybe a redirect to Kanawha_River#History would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    I think the existing article there wood be Adena culture. oops colonial period, will look for more. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

    This tribe, a branch of the Algonquin family, was closely related to the Nanticokes and Delawares who resided in what are now the states of Delaware and Maryland. During the seventeenth century, the name of this tribe was variously recorded by early English settlers as “Conoys,” “Conoise,” “Canawese,” “Cohnawas,” “Canaways,” and ultimately, “Kanawhas.”

    — KANAWHA Michael C. Scoggins
    Conoys redirects to Piscataway people
    looks like a museum bulletin but by a published author. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, that's definitely an improvement. Looking at other sources, they seem to agree on the synonymy between Conoys and Piscataway, so I would support redirecting to that article (though I am unclear if as to whether the term "Kanawha" has been applied to multiple distinct Native American groups). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how much forward we are here. Scoggins looks to be from Hale, John P. (1891). History of the great Kanawha Valley. p. 63. That's this John P. Hale. I'd like to find something more recent and more affirmative than the author's "probably derived by evolution from..." fiveby(zero) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [15]
    The fourth member of the Wapanachki was that nation variously called in the old records Conoys, Ganawese or Canaways, the proper form of which Mr. Heckewelder states to be Canai. Considerable obscurity has rested on the early location and affiliation of this people. Mr. Heckewelder vaguely places them "at a distance on the Potomac," and supposes them to have been the Kanawhas of West Virginia. This is a loose guess. They were, in fact, none other than the Piscataways of Southern Maryland, who occupied the area between Chesapeake Bay and the lower Potomac, about St. Mary's, and along the Piscataway creek and Patuxent river.
    The Indian wars of Pennsylvania (1929) p. 53 states [16]: The Conoy, also called the Ganawese and the Piscataway, inhabited parts of Pennsylvania during the historic period. They were an Algonquin tribe, closely related to the Delawares, whom they called "grandfathers," and from whose ancestral stem they no doubt sprang. Heckewelder, an authority on the history of the Delawares and kindred tribes, believed them to be identical with the Kanawha, for whom the chief river of West Virginia is named ; and it seems that the names, Conoy and Ganawese, are simply different forms of the name Kanawha, though it is difficult to explain the application of the same name to the Piscataway tribe of Maryland, except on the theory that this tribe once lived on the Kanawha.
    The 2022 book chapter "Tribal Collaborations and Indigenous Representation in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes, and Suggestions for Attaining the SDGs" states: The Piscataway Rico Newman, Piscataway elder and MIHEA participant, relays some history of the Piscataway people: The Piscataway-Kanawha (Piscataway) are the “People Who Live Where Waters Blend Below Rapids.” Prior to colonization, the Piscataway developed well-orchestrated lifeways that sustained them for centuries.
    Reading the literature. "Kanawha" also appears to be used for a stone projectile point type produced in the early Holocene, long before the colonial period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Based on Scoggins, it seems like it would be possible to keep the article if it were substantially rewritten. However, it would be equally plausible to incorporate that content into the Piscataway people article and redirect it to that page. Either would be fine, but I do think closing this AFD is going to require someone to step in do the work of either recrafting the current page, or writing a bit in the Piscataway people article so that a redirect is appropriate. That article currently doesn't even mention the Kanawha people.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think there is really anything to say in any article yet. Appreciate your view on erasure but in my opinion worse would be getting this wrong and creating some fiction about a people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I think there is enough evidence between the journal article presented by the nominator above (who is advocating for a redirect) and the Scoggins source to put something into the Piscataway people article at the very least. Scoggins is after all a published historian. At some point, we just have to trust subject matter experts and their judgement. Worse in my view would be to ignore these sources as a form of WP:Systemic bias; something wikipedia struggles with when it comes to marginalized people groups (which has been researched).4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The confusing name has led us down the path of looking at the colonial era Conoy tribe and whether or not Kanawha is a synonym. There was some dispute about the name in sources since John Heckewelder's suggestion that Kanawha was from Conoy but i think in our recent sources that has been accepted and not really questioned. Redirects from Kanawha to Piscataway are appropriate but then we have some additional confusion to work out. That is the difference between a 'tribe' and a 'people'. I think there is widespread confusion as to peoples and subdivision such as 'tribe' or 'band' and how they are recorded and named throughout history and how they might be organized or recognized today. There were both a Conoy tribe (the Conoy proper or Piscataway) and it seems a Conoy people.pp 125-6 I think this is represented on WP as Piscataway people (Conoy people) and Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland (Conoy tribe)?
I don't really have a whole lot of confidence for much of this, so i think input from some more knowledgeable editors is necessary. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
That is much better content, and now i see you suggested that as a target above and i missed it distracted by the Conoy. My confusion is probably more due to distaste as to how WP titles and scopes people and tribe articles in general. The closer might have a tough time with all the confusion and redirects involved but i think you have the best plan here so Note to closer: consider my vote what Hemiauchenia says. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Piscataway people: per the reasoning given by Hemiauchenia. TarnishedPathtalk 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Piscataway people per Hemiauchenia.Bcbc24 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Convert to disambiguation page, because no single redirect target is satisfactory. Most of the article as written (really more of a school essay than anything) covers the whole experience of the colonization of the Americas by settlers from Asia thousands of years ago. But the object, and the last couple of sections, seems to have been to describe the native people who lived in the Kanawha Valley before it was settled by Europeans. Those were decidedly not Piscataway, even though the word "Kanawha" may have been used at one point synonymously with "Piscataway" and perhaps derived from "Conoy". Our article about the Piscataway seems to exclude any possibility that they ever lived in the Kanawha Valley, and that alone would confuse readers who come across this title.
At the same time, I cannot determine whether there is any other article on a group of American Indians who would be described this way, and be the definitive redirect target: the last major groups who might have inhabited the Kanawha Valley would be the Fort Ancient culture and the Shawnee, who may or may not have been identical (evidently that has not yet been determined). But the degree to which the Kanawha Valley was inhabited, rather than merely transited during this period is also unclear; most archaeological sites are older and probably date to the time of the Mound Builders, a vague term which in this case really refers to the Adena and Hopewell cultures. All of these would correctly be described as "Kanawha people", and it is not unlikely that some readers would also expect this title to describe the later, European settlers of the valley, including but not limited to modern-day Kanawha County, another possible redirect target.
Since all of these are plausible targets, and the article contains almost nothing that is not already in one or more of them, the best way to resolve the issue is to convert this into a disambiguation page—either one that strictly follows the normal disambiguation page criteria, or perhaps a more narrative one that explains how the phrase might apply to different but related groups—including the Piscataway, of course, but certainly not redirecting to them, since that would likely astonish most readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I have no disagreement with this proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a closer might redirect this article to Piscataway people because of the bolded statements, it's not clear to me that this is the consensus or would be appropriate. First, there are doubts where this "people" is a Native American tribe or just referring to "people who live in Kanawha". Secondly, there is no mention of Kanawha people at this suggested target article. Finally, there are alternative suggestions including Keep, Delete or redirection to a different target article based on the location of Kanawha, West Virginia. So, since I don't see a firm consensus and lots of different arguments floating around here as recently as yesterday, I'm going to relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment the arguments that "Kanawha" is an alternate spelling of "Conoy" have some merit. But (largely for the reasons expressed by Liz) I can't endorse the redirect to Piscataway people. Perhaps a DAB page would be an option. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the assertion that there is no "Kanawha people" is fundamentally not true as Scoggins was absolutely clear that the "Kanawha Valley" was named after the "Kanawha people" who lived elsewhere prior to being the first people to settle in the Kanawha Valley. The valley was named after the people group, not the other way around. The sources are also pretty clear that Kanawha were/are a branch of the Piscataway people (ie. Conoy). The best solution here is to add a sentence to the Piscataway people article and then redirect to that page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • A viable second option would be to turn this into a dab bage with a reference to the Conoy/Piscataway people. And a possible second meaning of people living or from the "Kanawha Valley". That might be the best so we cover all bases.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    Why would that be better than a redirect? Any group known to have lived in the valley should be mentioned in the history section of the Kanawha County article. I see that the Kanawha River article does list various cultures and peoples that have occupied the valley, although nothing is sourced. But I don't think people will be looking for "Kanawha people" when they are interested in the Adena or Fort Ancient cultures. And if they are interested in earlier occupants of the valley, how would they look for "Kanawha people" rather "History of Kanawha County" or "History of the Kanawha River"? Donald Albury 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to any solution which doesn't include either a redirect or a navigational link at a DAB page to Piscataway people per the journal article cited towards the top and the Scoggins source. Not doing that erases that this is indeed a real Native American people group and not just natives who happened to live in the Kanawha Valley. Scoggins is clear the Kanawha were the Kanawha before they ever arrived in the Kanawha Valley, and the valley was named for them.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
And a redirect is my preference. I don't think there is any case for calling any other group that has lived in the valley "Kanawha people" in an encyclopedic sense. Donald Albury 02:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
There are some people commenting who oppose redirecting to Piscataway people arguing that the term "Kanawha people" has been applied more generically to people living the "Kanawha Valley" in some cases. (This is true according to Scoggins who points out the term has been used inconsistently) A dab page would allow us to articulate the discrepancy by saying "Kanawha people" could refer to 1: an alternative spelling of the Conoy people which is a subset of the Piscataway people or 2. people who reside or originated from the Kanawha Valley. This would allow for the various uses of the term as described by Scoggins. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado

[edit]
2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado (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 article was first brought up on a project-space talk page by someone, although I can't remember exactly where. Seems to fail WP:NWEATHER from a cursory glance, no significant, lasting impacts, wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak (which I know isn't a valid deletion reason), and over half of the references are to the NWS. EF5 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Opposed Deletion Only 13/30 resources are from NWS, which makes up 43%, so you saying over half are from NWS is hyperbolic. This caused a lasting impact in the city of Wynne and the tornado is talked about through articles to this day. Just because it wasn't the deadliest doesn't mean it doesn't deserve and article, using that logic, the Greenfield Tornado shouldn't get an article because it wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak sequence, so yeah, how l the amount of death the tornado caused is not a valid reason to delete the article. Hoguert (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
To be fair with the Greenfield tornado rationale, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. EF5 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay comparing articles is not really a good argument on my part but I still stand by everything else I've said Hoguert (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit early to gauge a "lasting" impact, only one year after the event? Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Usually (at least with tornadoes), discussion of a tornado six months-or-so after the event shows the tornado’s lasting impacts, which I don’t see here. EF5 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep or Draftify – For stand-alone articles on individual tornadoes, I look for a couple of things. (1) Is there lasting impacts and lasting coverage, (2) if out of draftspace, does the article have the potential to pass GAN (since to me, that helps establish if it deserves to be split from the outbreak article), and (3) size of article vs outbreak section.
  1. Based on a quick Google search, I see lasting coverage, with several articles published related to the tornado and/or damage caused over a year later (examples: [17][18][19][20]) Two of those articles are related to the High School, so I see lasting impacts as well just based on those articles. In fact, searching "2023 Wynne tornado" and setting the news articles to start at the most recent shows an article within the last week related to the tornado/damage. So lasting coverage (WP:LASTING part of WP:Notability) is a checkmark.
  2. Does it have enough to pass GAN? In my opinion, yes. It 100% needs some work done, which is why I also mentioned possible draftification. However, as a writer of several stand-alone GA tornado articles, roughly 20k bytes is the minimum for GAN potential. I know size itself is not factored into GAN, but 20k bytes or more in size most likely will give enough detail-based length for a successful GAN. This article has over 25k bytes, so a checkmark there.
  3. Size comparison between 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado & the parent section Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Wynne–Parkin–Turrell, Arkansas/Drummonds–Burlison, Tennessee. The section in the outbreak article, which is specifically for the damage path, is 11.5k bytes. The stand-alone section for the track is 13.4k bytes. An aftermath section specific to the tornado adds 2.4k bytes. The meteorological synopsis section is not unique, so that size does not count and neither does the introduction. So in all, the stand-alone article has roughly only 4,300 bytes (aka characters) worth of additional unique-to-the-tornado content. The outbreak section cites 3 sources for the tornado track, while the article cites about 23 sources for the track + aftermath sections. To me, the additional byte length is probably the sources. Therefore, there is not much unique-to-the-tornado content in the article. For me, this is the main reason I would say draftify rather than delete. To me, this point is an X.
More unique info over the outbreak section would for sure make it notable for an article. I am ok with it remaining an article itself under the ideology of WP:FIXIT occurring. I do not believe this should be deleted, but at the present moment, I am leaning against it remaining in mainspace without additional information being added to the article/aftermath section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
That is an excellent analysis, I should probably use the “would it be a GA” test more often. I would also support draftification, as it’s clear a lot of work (kudos to Hoguert) was put into this article. EF5 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - plenty of sources to verify notability. There's still news coming out this year to back up the claims for lasting coverage. Also, I believe it was ChessEric who stated this shouldn't have an article - it was under the discussion for retiring WP:TOOSOON deletions when sources unambiguously do exist, and it was in the context of the Little Rock tornado. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep or draftify per The Weather Event Writer.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion

[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion

[edit]
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

[edit]

AfD: Academics

[edit]

Academics and educators

[edit]

Wu Sing-yung

[edit]
Wu Sing-yung (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)

Seemingly written by someone close to the subject, fails WP:PROF. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Vincent Czyz

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

I am nominating this article for deletion under wikipedia's notability guidelines.

This article appears to be a PR piece commissioned by the author themselves, or their literary agency. Just a few hours after the first edit, the author made an edit, followed by a long series of edits by the single originating account. The article included some awards which the author paid in order to receive. Anapophenic (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Was a WP:BEFORE done? Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. Chapter 23 of Shorter Views: Queer Thoughts & the Politics of the Paraliterary by Samuel R. Delany (2011, Wesleyan University Press) is devoted to a lengthy analysis/discussion of Cyzc's Adrifit in A Vanishing City. Book reviews in independent secondary WP:RS: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30]. Other WP:RS: [31], [32] Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

George M. Murray (scientist)

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

Potentially notable academic. Currently fails WP:NPROF. Been on the cat:nn list since 2010. No indication of significance but could be. scope_creepTalk 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Science, Iowa, Maryland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF. Although the page does not directly say so, the subject is an adjunct research professor at a high-tech satellite campus of UT-Knoxville (https://www.utsi.edu/people/faculty/george-m-murray/, https://www.utsi.edu/about/). I don't see enough citations of their academic work to justify C1 of WP:NPROF and nothing else seems to apply either. This could be revisited in the future since the subject seems to be an active scholar and inventor, but not enough here to keep the page, I think. Qflib (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Somewhat agree. I see no major indications of peer recognition through awards, and he does not have that many publications. The reason I have a Weak is because his initials overlap with at least one other so I cannot properly check his citations. I am also uncertain about his patents. If there was an award or two I would definitely reverse my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    A major award would be enough to satisfy Wikipedia:NPROF, and if something like that were to crop up I would also swing. But the only award seen here is one given by his own university, and internal awards are not suitable for this purpose. Qflib (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. GS[33] shows top citations 392, 167, 114, 101 but then a big drop off. They all seem to be the same researcher, but with no profile there's no information on h-index. Fifty papers does not seem a lot for a modern chemist, I wonder if his work is mainly unpublished because it relates to patented inventions? Willing to be persuaded either way. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, I think fifty papers and a bunch of patents is a decent body of work, but if they aren't being widely recognized then they don't establish notability. Qflib (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Its not enough per the usual standard of notability. There is no patents on Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 20:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
There is plenty of coverage of patents on Wikipedia; see as one small example List of software patents. I don't think patents should count as contributing to WP:PROF#C1, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I've hadn't seen this. There are not used in biographies, blps to clarify. I've certainly not seen any. It needs a major update unfortunatly. scope_creepTalk 04:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: What is your view on this? scope_creepTalk 04:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Given that his top papers are on detecting nerve agents and purifying uranium, I suspect that the publication drop-off may have something to do with performing classified military work. Regardless, if it's not something we see it's not something we can credit for notability. I'm not very familiar with the citation patterns in analytic chemistry (if that is what this is) so not very confident in my opinion, but I don't want to base a keep only on what looks like a borderline citation record for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see anything else aside from that to provide notability. There are a couple of minor and local honors listed in [34] but not enough to count for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Fausta Shakiwa Mosha

[edit]
Fausta Shakiwa Mosha (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 both WP:GNG and WP:PROF. As far as I can tell, this person is a reasonably accomplished academic with some publications under her belt, and has held some medium-high level positions at the WHO, but that's it. She does not have any of the achievements laid out in the academic notability guideline and is the subject of almost no independent, significant coverage. Based on the article's promotional tone and the fact that the creator has made no edits to Wikipedia other than the creation of this article, I believe it was made by someone with a COI. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and Tanzania. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. This appears a case of a meritorious but not out-of-the-ordinary career that does not yet reach encyclopedic notability. Not seeing anything that would meet WP:PROF at this time. Some of the promotional wording appears to have been added recently by an IP, the original version isn't so bad. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Ah, my mistake on the timeline of the addition of the promotional language. But yes, I agree on the overall assessment. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Hello everyone,
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. I want to address the concerns regarding notability and the perceived promotional tone of the article.
1. Notability and Independent Coverage: Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha, while indeed an academic and professional within the public health sector, has contributions that extend significantly beyond ordinary academic achievements. Her role as a Senior Laboratory Advisor at WHO, along with her previous positions at WHO AFRO and WHO EMRO, position her as a key player in international public health. Her work has directly impacted policies and practices in over a dozen countries across Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East.
a. Sources and Coverage: Dr. Mosha has been instrumental in significant projects such as the East Africa Public Health Laboratory Networking Project funded by the World Bank and has played a pivotal role in the implementation of cooperative agreements with the US CDC, which have had substantial public health implications globally. I will add citations from these projects and her 49 scholarly articles and a book chapter that contribute to her standing in the field.
2. Academic and Professional Achievements: Regarding WP, Dr. Mosha's career includes high-level advisory roles and directorial positions that have shaped laboratory practices and epidemiology training programs across continents. This involvement goes beyond medium-level academic positions and includes leadership that has effected measurable change in international public health strategies.
3. Promotional Tone: I acknowledge the concerns about the promotional tone. Changes have been made to ensure the language is neutral and factual, focusing on her contributions and roles without subjective embellishments. I urge the community to review the revised content, which adheres more closely to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality.
In conclusion, Dr. Mosha's contributions are not only notable but have a lasting impact on global public health infrastructures, making her a subject of encyclopedic interest and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Her extensive body of work and leadership roles provide significant independent coverage and recognition within her field, fulfilling the notability criteria.
Thank you for considering this response, and I look forward to further constructive discussion. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input. Would you mind clarifying if you have any off-Wiki relationship to the subject of the article? --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your follow-up question. I would like to clarify that I do not have any personal, professional, or financial relationship with Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha. My interest in contributing to this article is purely based on my recognition of her significant contributions to public health, particularly within the realms of global health security and epidemiology, which I believe warrant an encyclopedic entry due to their impact and scope.
    I am committed to ensuring that the content on Wikipedia is accurate, neutral, and verifiable and have endeavored to present Dr. Mosha's career and achievements based on reliable sources and factual information. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there were a case for notability, it would be great to keep this article about a woman scientist. But the referencing in both the version at the time this AfD discussion was started and the current version is poor. The article doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I've searched and cannot find references to add. Tacyarg (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth Jeglic

[edit]
Elizabeth Jeglic (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)

Reviewed for NPP. Entirely cited to passing mentions and things written by the topic of the article. She is the co-author of two books which may or may not be notable, but I don't think that's a large enough body of work to pass WP:NAUTHOR. NACADEMIC is hard for me to understand all the subtleties of, as I don't know what a good or bad h-index is in psychology, so she might pass there but I am not sure. If she does pass NACADEMIC it needs to be far less promotional. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep, not my area. Her GS profile is [35]. This states an h-index of 52 which is, I believe, considered good in most fields. There is a healthy citation profile with three papers with >200 citations, and a further fifteen with >100 citations, none of which appear heavily co-authored. She's top of the GS topic "Sexual Violence Prevention", for whatever that's worth (it doesn't seem a commonly used tag.) The co-edited books with Springer tend to support that she is considered an expert in those areas. Agree the article needs considerable work cutting out promotion. For what it's worth the creator is enrolled in an educational programme, so it appears to be a good-faith first attempt from someone unconnected with the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Espresso Addict How many authors count as "heavily co-authored"? All of the papers she has written appear to be coauthored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    It's usually used to talk about massively co-authored papers eg in physics where everyone who ever touched the apparatus is listed (hundreds, sometimes thousands). Most modern research papers across many subjects have in the region of 5–8 authors, but this is highly subject dependent. ETA The last time I recall it being used outside the physics field was in reference to [36] which has 33 authors; in such cases it would generally only be counted if the subject were one of the first few authors, or the final one, or was indicated as the corresponding author. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    Ah. Well I wish what is a sign of a pass for NACADEMIC was clearer to people who aren’t in that field, then PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Espresso Addict. The GS citation is enough to meet WP:PROF#4.Shoerack (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Terence O'Reilly

[edit]
Terence O'Reilly (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 article does not demonstrate a notable character. And the editor User:LINCOLN2024 who moved it to the main space has been blocked for WP:SOCK, where he has a string of articles moved to the main space without being checked. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Draftify. Personally recommend restoring to draft - reverting the unilateral action of the socking editor. And that the draft be progressed through WP:AFC before any decision is made on moving it back to the main/article namespace. I recommend this as, after a quick WP:BEFORE, there appears to be some coverage of the subject as a topic in his own right (Granted mostly obituary-style journal articles and the type of coverage we typically see for academics, but someone with more familiar with WP:NACADEMIC would ideally take a look.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Membership of the Irish Academy would tend to pass WP:NPROF C3, and having an obituary written in an academic journal [37] tends to suggest NPROF C1. OTOH, before the work of Guliolopez, this would have been a speedy G4. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    ... and the article is now a pretty clear Keep, per WP:HEY. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Due to the existence and content of the obits in Bulletin of Spanish Studies and Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review indicating notability: (Msrasnw (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC))
  • Keep. Along with the pass of WP:PROF#C3 through the Royal Irish Academy, and the now three published academic obituaries/remembrances used as references, we have enough reviews of his books for a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Royal Irish Academy membership meeting WP:PROF, book reviews of multiple books meeting WP:AUTHOR, and multiple obituaries meeting GNG. Article appears to have been cleaned up and, as it was not created by the blocked user, would not fall under G5. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:ACADEMIC#3 and WP:AUTHOR are clearly met here. Shoerack (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the rest. Well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Chin Gouk

[edit]
Chin Gouk (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)

Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Most of the sources are articles by her rather than third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Low citation count as well. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim Abdurrahman Farajajé

[edit]
Ibrahim Abdurrahman Farajajé (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 source that appears at all credible is the article "Whatever Way Love's Camel Takes: Remembering Baba Ibrahim Farajajé," which reads as more of a posthumous tribute than anything establishing notability, almost like an obituary (granted it was published a few years after his death, but the sentiment seems similar). All the other sources are either closely affiliated with the subject or do not appear to be generally reputable. An online search seems to return mostly the same things already being used as sources here, with an additional article on Google scholar that again appears to be a simple tribute. This individual certainly led an interesting life, but I see no evidence that they managed to attain notability. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep anyone who gets a festschrift devoted to them (from non-fringe publications) is notable. Wow this article needs to be rewritten though, lot of NPOV issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Rachael Meager

[edit]
Rachael Meager (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 could not find indepth coverage in google news or books to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF, not a full professor and citations count is relatively low. Also an orphan article, which is unusual for an acadenic. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:TOOSOON, not notable (at least yet), no visible impact of their contributions yet, no major achievement, and lack significant coverage. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - they lack significant coverage and it’s too soon in their career. Bearian (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim Fayad

[edit]
Ibrahim Fayad (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)

From what I can tell this individual does not meet WP:NBIO. The article had two sources, but one was completely unrelated to this man at all and was instead about The Crown (TV series). The only remaining source is simply a link to his ResearchGate account. I'm not getting much of note on a BEFORE search, although it does seem to be a fairly common name, so someone else might have more success. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, and Egypt. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not found for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC).
  • Comment. If he actually founded all the things the article states he did, then I think he'd be notable, but I agree sourcing is a problem. He seems to have published as "Ibrahim M. Fayad" or "I. M. Fayad", and there are publications that match his areas of expertise on GS. ETA: It seems to have received a variety of edits from new editors over the past few years (tagged Newcomer edits), which have been of variable quality; I think that's where the spurious The Crown reference originates. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to have been a notable physician in Egypt. He has an entry in this Arabic-language encyclopedia: [39]. Generally we include anyone with an entry in a published encyclopedia under WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    That's a user-generated source, ostensibly "verified" by "specialists", but anyone can submit articles. It's not RS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - insufficient coverage for a good doctor. It’s literally his c.v. written four ways. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Akshata Krishnamurthy

[edit]
Akshata Krishnamurthy (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)

Page does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC, reads more like a self-promotional page, and focuses more on what the subject's projects have achieved rather than the subject themselves. Tammy0507 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: And the article was created by a new editor as well. Your point being...? Tammy0507 (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
It's rare for new editors to find the deletion processes early in their career here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Maybe some of us are looking for a WP:CLEANSTART :) Tammy0507 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - four of the sources are actually from one issue of Forbes India. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2024 (UTCIpigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sufficient coverage to meet general notability. Probably much more in the Indian press.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. We don't usually put so much weight on the kind of listicle coverage as in Forbes. Apart from that, I see only press releases, the subject's own articles, and early career awards. Looks WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - might be worth noting coverage, mostly in Indian press - [40], [41],[42], [43], [44], [45], [46].. --Shiv989 (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Apart from the Economic Times article (which is, if you read it, admits to being basically a reproduction of the subject's Instagram page), and to a certain extent the News18 report, I would cast serious doubts on whether the cited sources are actually reliable sources. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
In addition, I would like to remind editors what constitutes a reliable source and refer to WP:Reliable sources/News Organizations:

Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news)

I do not see any source in this article and discussion that does not qualify as Human interest reporting. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?

The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Other academic profiles for precedence: Anita Sengupta, Mark Adler, Farah Alibay, Bibhusita Das, Katherine Aaslestad --Shiv989 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Fortune's listing is enough for me, and there's a lot more than just that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, more on the basis of WP:GNG than WP:PROF. That sort of notability is not about whether she has the accomplishments to deserve the coverage she has been given; it is merely about what coverage there is and on how reliable and independent we take it to be. I place more credence in SSPI and in the Luigi G. Napolitano Award as being closer to the profession than, say, Fortune India, but regardless, I think there is enough coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nileena Abraham

[edit]
Nileena Abraham (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)

Despite winning an award - which many translators appear to win and that does not inherently make them eligible for a Wikipedia article – I am concerned that this subject does not meet WP:GNG. The citations are all primary or unreliable and I can't find any other reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant way.

Please assume good faith in this nomination. It's nothing personal! Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Would having been the Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji Professor of Bengali at the International School of Dravidian Linguistics, Thiruvananthapuram count as a named chair for the purposes of meeting WP:PROF? Also is the Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M considered completely unreliable? (Although the Google Books link given is incorrect, the subject does appear on pp. 7–8.[47]) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I would find it very odd for someone with only Master's degrees to hold a C5-qualifying named chair. And the school isn't even notable itself! JoelleJay (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    JoelleJay I think it's easy to become very US/UK centric with these named chairs.
    On the question of GNG, I found a substantial material on Abraham in JSTOR .5325/complitstudies.53.2.0359, which has substantive (~3pp) coverage of her work translating Arogyaniketan by Tarashankar Bandyopadhyay, with some bio material. Considered together with the award, and Who's Who entry, and given that the above source is talking about work in 1961 and not in English, I feel that further expert research offline by someone who speaks the relevant languages is likely to uncover more material, so I'm going with keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Espresso Addict who has has convinced me that this person meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hewa S. Khalid

[edit]
Hewa S. Khalid (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 far as I can see, there isn't a single secondary reliable source independent from the subject to count towards the subject's wikinotability (actually, most if not all of the sources were created by the subject). Can't find a passing criteria from WP:NACADEMIC nor any significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neither his Google Scholar profile linked above nor his employer academic profile [49] give me any reason to believe he passes WP:PROF, and as a recent PhD (2019) this is in any case unlikely. It's not a subject I have much familiarity with so I could easily have missed something, but we can't keep an article based on nothing but speculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Kieran McNulty

[edit]
Kieran McNulty (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)

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[50] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [51][52]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN
Withdrawing as the book demonstrates significant coverage. Thank you to the editor that found it. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 06:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elio García-Austt

[edit]
Elio García-Austt (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:BIO - no independent, reliable source I could find in my WP:BEFORE talks about him in detail. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are plenty of independent reliable sources in GS, but I doubt of there are enough of them. Is GNG or POLITICIAN passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
    He's a scientist/doctor, so I'm not sure what you are asking about WP:POLITICIAN, did you comment on the wrong AfD by mistake? In case you didn't, what do mean by "GS" - the only things that come up on Google are his own papers, not other people talking about him which is required per WP:BIO (and a lack of the special circumstances outlined at WP:ACADEMIC)? Thank you! MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, I just saw that it's mentioned in the (entirely unsourced) article that he was a member of the Parliament of Uruguay - but I can't find any RS to back this up so I don't think WP:POLITICIAN is met, unless someone else can find an RS to back this (which would meet WP:POLITICIAN. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The entire page in wiki is based on this - https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Elio_Garc%C3%ADa-Austt.html Mike, the regular nose job (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey Mike! The bottom of that page says "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Elio_García-Austt". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia.", so actually that page is just a mirror site for the (completed unsourced) Wikipedia article. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Try looking at GS where you will find a little. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. There are maybe 8 lines about him in "Past, present, and future of sleep medicine research in Latin America" [53], an entire book about him in "Elio García-Austt Negri (1919-2005) El uruguayo que fundó la Sociedad Española de Neurociencia" [54], and what looks like a cv (dated 1999) from the Premios Morosoli [es] [55] I'd be happier with more sources but I think those are independent and reliable enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. An entire book on him is sufficient for me to feel that other non-English coverage is likely to exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Robert Watson

[edit]
Michael Robert Watson (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)

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
    Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
    (I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
    Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[56]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Kanja Odland

[edit]
Kanja Odland (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)

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:
- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).
- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Allllllice is a major contributor to the article.
  • The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

- The first Dagens Nyheter article "Separation är världens sjuka" is a personal interview with the subject including direct questions such as "How did you become attracted to Buddhism?" so it is significant coverage rather than name-dropping.
- The second Dagens Nyheter ”Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist:” is an interview with the subject's co-teacher Sante Poromaa which includes relevant coverage of the subject. For example (translated):This means that he (along with his wife [Kanja Odland Roshi]) is now the highest ranking Zen Buddhist teacher in Sweden.
- The Sveriges Radio interview does not stand alone as evidence of notability but should be considered alongside the other sources.
- The book 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening is a collection of essays on the history of buddhism published by the Sri Lankan government which addresses the subject in the section on Buddhism in Scandinavia.
It's true that some of the other sources you have listed are self-made or websites of related zen centers but, as I understand it, primary sources can be appropriate for non-controversial facts in an article about a person. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully Allllllice (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Nothing in your contribution above, Allllllice, produces some kind of clear evidence of notability. I mean, I concur with your assessment of the "sources" more than I disagree! Yes, "self-made", "related zen centers [announcements]", "primary sources" only supporting existence (I do not disagree she has existed!), one "interview [which] does not stand alone as evidence of notability", and so forth. I submit I cannot, much as I try, fathom the persistence of support here. A zen teacher among hundreds of thousands, yes. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help if I clarify that, since Zen buddhism is a lineage-based tradition based on dharma transmission, to be a "teacher" has a specific meaning. The number of sanctioned teachers is limited (many orders of magnitude less than hundreds of thousands) and even more so for those with the title Roshi. I realise that this isn't evidence for notability in itself, but I hope it is useful as context. Allllllice (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Non-independent sources can be used as references with some caveats, but they do not count towards notability. None of the sources except "Separation är världens sjuka" are both independent and in-depth. "Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" and " 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening" are independent, but the first one offers no in-depth info on Odland and the second seems to suffer from the same problem (google-books won't let me see everything). We can't seem to get to three sources that satisfy the SIRS criteria. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Three best sources is helpful advice for those looking to demonstrate notability but it isn't a requirement. The criteria at WP:SIGCOV state that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." We have multiple independent sources here and agree that at least one of them is in-depth. Allllllice (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. The subject appears to be recognized in international publications as an important Buddhist teacher in Scandanavia. I'm not seeing a particularly convincing source analysis as to why the sources in question don't meet out criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep I've now added an additional source: Larsson, L. Vägledare i svensk zenbuddhism. Buddhism-nu. 1/08. Temporarily uploaded here.
This is an interview with Kanja Odland from 2008 published in the Swedish buddhism magazine Buddhism-nu that ticks the boxes of significant coverage, reliable & independent. The article itself explains her notability (my translation):
[...] summer 2006 [...] Kanja received "Inka" (Dharma transmission) which is the final confirmation that Kanja is an independent sensei – teacher – with the right to freely teach and appoint her own successors. Which in itself is a unique event in the development of Buddhism in Sweden – that we now have a Swedish, female Zen teacher as a guide and role model.
We now have this together with the Dagens Nyheter interview, which we agreed is independent and in-depth, plus the other sources ("Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" from Dagens Nyheter , "2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening", Sveriges Radio interview) which we agreed were independent. Allllllice (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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