Jump to content

User:Ruud Koot/Feed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science

[edit]

Articles for deletion

  • 09 Oct 2024 – Jason Parker (security researcher) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Brandon (t · c); see discussion (5 participants; relisted)

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(8 more...)

AA: Computing

[edit]
Shortcut

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(19 more...)

Proposed deletions

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(14 more...)

Articles to be split

(17 more...)

Articles for creation

(26 more...)

AfD: Computing

[edit]

Computing

[edit]

Energy-assisted magnetic recording

[edit]
Energy-assisted magnetic recording (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)

Novice user created this page which is an extended WP:DICTIONARY definition. There already exists a page on Heat assisted magnetic recording, and Microwave assisted magnetic recording is mentioned in quite a few existing pages. I added a PROD, but novice editor objected (on Talk page) so I am coverting it to an AfD. A decent article on Microwave assisted magnetic recording is a something that might be done, but this page is just an WP:DICTIONARY stub that combines heat and microwave without providing useful encyclopedic information. TNT as this is not a good starting point. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Please do not make inappropriate statements such as "Ldm1954 wants to delete my contributions". As part of WP:NPP I and others review new pages and check if they are appropriate. This one, as well as a couple of other stubs you have created fail standard review criteria. Please be more careful, and look at what is in other articles, read up on the notability guide in WP:Notability and also look at details such as the style guide WP:MOS and what Wikipedia is not WP:!. I think you have rushed in a bit, which is why you got blocked in July and have also had several articles removed or moved to draft space as well as edits reverted since July 2024. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment EAMR and Energy-assisted magnetic recording both seem like plausible search terms and so do Microwave assisted magnetic recording and MAMR. Ideally each of those would be a redirect, disambiguation, or other article. I have no opinion on whether WP:TNT applies, but if it does, redirecting somewhere to an appropriate section of HAMR seems like the thing to do in the mean time. McYeee (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Workspace as a Service

[edit]
Workspace as a Service (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)

Extended dictionary definition created directly to main by a novice editor. The topic is already included in As a service, so there is no rationale for a new stub. Original editor objected to a PROD (with some non-WP comments) on the talk page, so I am converting it to an AfD. Delete unless someone turns this into a real encyclopedic article, which I am dubious about. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - As noted, nothing more than a glorified dictionary definition at the moment and I fail to see a significant amount of unique content that could go there at the moment. If this becomes an actually significant concept that demands its own artilce in the future, we can build an article then. No use keeping a stub as a WP:CRYSTALBALL. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954 proposed this article to be deleted and said "There is already an entry in As a service. At most this should be replaced by a redirect and the sources added to that page". But according to that line of thinking, the article Windows 11 should also not exist because there is an entry about it at Microsoft Windows. Same for iPhone 8, Samsung Galaxy S8 and many others. Workspace as a Service looks too me like a stub that has the potential to be developed in the future as more companies are starting to provide such a service - just like the other stubs mentioned in the as a service article, like for example Blockchain as a service, Content as a service or Logging as a service. Arwenz (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The problem is that unlike Windows 11, this article does not have sufficient media coverage or exploration. If it becomes more explored in the future, then we can resurrect the article when that happens. However, as it stands, we simply don't see anything worth more than just looking at the title at the moment. Delete per above. (And per WP:OtherStuffExists, the last three articles you linked have very valid arguments for deletion as well.) Aaron Liu (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect - I've read all the references and still don't understand how WaaS is not just a minor variation of desktop virtualization. Brandon (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

SenzMate

[edit]
SenzMate (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)

At the moment, it seems like it may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this company. The only other coverage I found was this interview I found in Lanka Business Online, which is an interview with little to no independent or secondary content. The Daily FT articles read like press releases, so I am inclined to exclude them based on the precautionary principle expressed in WP:ORGIND. May be a few more years before the requisite coverage exists for us to be able to write a proper article on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

CitizenLab

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Has been marked as problematic since 2020. Just summarizes the routine business activities of the company and its main offering. The awards do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves. I can't find sources with significant coverage of this company, like its particular influence on citizen engagement. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What I suggest you look into and are most welcome to integrate in the page:
The first two sources are primary sources- users of your company's offering. The third seems to be a directory listing with a description. The people powered Chile story might be okay, but that's only one. The rating is not as it's not significant coverage. The company's own reports are primary sources as well. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@331dot IRCAI = International Research Centre on Artificial Intelligence (IRCAI) under the auspices of UNESCO, not just some directory listing website :) Sören3300 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but it's still not significant coverage that contributes to notability. Personally I never heard of IRCAI(not that's it's required I have heard of it) 331dot (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- one of the leading platforms in the space: https://democracy-technologies.org/participation/citizen-lab-platform/ Sören3300 (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
The World Summit Awards have an article, so that works towards contributing towards notability(but the other awards listed should just be removed as they don't have articles). The award the founder received is for the founder, not the company itself. That's still two- we usually look for three with in-depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
And I didn't examine if they were press-release type articles. They seem to be interviews. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NORG. Little in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. C F A 💬 14:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Very PROMO. The awards are non-notable, The sources given in the comment above are either primary, mentions only or PR items. I've tried .be websites, still only getting PR and their own web sites. Non-notable entity. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note, the company rep seems to have elected to vanish rather than engage with us. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    It wasn't helpful when they keep posting PR links. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    For interest's sake, the article was created by a different (and undisclosed) paid rep. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - yet another advertisement for a SaaS-based startup. The sources (at least, the ones I can actually get to load or past the paywall) do not indicate this passes WP:GNG. ASUKITE 18:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Cos (X + Z) 18:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

History of Mozilla Thunderbird

[edit]
History of Mozilla Thunderbird (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)

Significant violations of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and I have reason to believe it also violates WP:UNDUE due to the article's documenting of all versions of Thunderbird, including every single beta version. Without the table, there is not enough content to justify the article's existence, at least currently. It also has longstanding issues, including a lack of reliable, high-quality, secondary sources as almost every single source is just a link to Mozilla's own release notes, which is in incredibly heavy primary source territory. I feel like so much focus has been put on filling out the table that it has been to the detriment of the article as a whole. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 07:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Microsoft. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Microsoft Egypt

[edit]
Microsoft Egypt (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)

One of many, many country specific subsidiaries of Microsoft that does not seem to be independently notable under WP:NCORP. Brandon (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I fully support redirecting to Microsoft. Brandon (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the support, Brandon! Going forward, could you please include such ATDs in the intro? gidonb (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Real-time Cmix

[edit]
Real-time Cmix (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 couldn't find good enough sources to add to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Corvigo

[edit]
Corvigo (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)

There doesn't seem to be much coverage of this company outside of trade journals. The NYT article mentions the company a few times but does not address it directly in much if any detail. CNN is one single namedrop. I can't see any way of meeting all four criteria of WP:ORGCRIT with multiple sources, unfortunately. Previously deleted by PROD in 2006. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Just for the record, I am not opposed to redirection as an ATD (and would have WP:BLARed had there not been a previous PROD) but I don't believe there is anything that is appropriate to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Jason Parker (security researcher)

[edit]
Jason Parker (security researcher) (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)

Autobiographical article, content is not substantiated by the sources and it does not seem possible to write more than a stub about the subject. The sources almost entirely briefly mention the subject in connection with a security vulnerability, some include short quotes from the subject, none seem to provide details on the subject themselves. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you please provide more details about what isn't substantiated by the sources? The small handful of paragraphs without citations have information that's given in articles cited elsewhere. If you could point to any specifics, I would be happy to either show which article(s) it comes from, or if one of the more recent citations that discuss it have been missed, add them.
In a lot of cases, the notability of a subject comes from their work, so I'm a bit confused how this would be different from many other articles on Wikipedia. Is this simply a categorization problem? In the public sector circles where this information travels, the name and works are quite well known; the number of high quality sources would also suggest this.
As for your comment about it not being possible to write more than a stub, I have to disagree. There is a lot more detail about the works and their specific effects that could be added, but I didn't find it prudent for myself to add that. Additionally, WP:Stub suggests that some editors and the bot would find that 250, 300, or 500 words (this one is 650 as of this note) is an appropriate length to not be considered a stub.
Having said all of that, I note your status on Wikipedia, and understand that there is little likelihood of this article staying. NorthAntara (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else.
Being the primary author of an article about yourself is not recommended. You were extremely transparent, which is appreciated, it is just very challenging to write a neutral article based entirely on verifiable sources as the subject of the article yourself. With that said, here are some article about security researchers that have a tone and structure I'd suggest emulating: Tavis Ormandy, Eva Galperin, and Charlie Miller. Cutting inferences such as "leading to increased awareness and remediation of these issues" and the entire impact section would be the first edits I personally would make. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
If I were the type to make bets on AfD results, I'd say this'd most likely close as no consensus like the Ian Coldwater AfD. Not sure if I'll dig in to see if I can find more sources for this one. We don't really do field specific versions of BIO for "coverage is pretty rare for this field" (except for academia) but on a quick review I'd say it's borderline for BASIC, not an outright fail. Not (yet) going to make it a !vote though, even if should it be possible or make sense to enter one for no consensus (wouldn't make much of a difference anyway since it's not a vote). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - Leaving aside the autobiographically-ness of the article, I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage (imo).Sohom (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed all of the unsourced information and analysis, stubifying the page. I think this is closer to WP:BARE than before. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science

[edit]
Shortcuts


Science

[edit]

Professor Dave Explains

[edit]
Professor Dave Explains (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)

Poorly sourced article that was moved from draftspace into mainspace. A before search returns mostly sources from one site (evolution news). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Nirmalya Ghosh

[edit]
Nirmalya Ghosh (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:BLP, identified as possible WP:UPE, about a scientist not clearly shown as passing inclusion criteria. This was started in the creator's personal sandbox, going through two rounds of needing to have categories removed from it on WP:USERNOCAT grounds, before the creator (a WP:SPA with no prior edit history apart from this article) tried to move it to a "user" profile, following which it was moved to draftspace by an established editor on the grounds that no user account existed under the username Nirmalya Ghosh -- but then the creator moved it directly to mainspace themselves, following which there's been a full edit war over redraftifying and remainspacing it.
Paid editors, however, are required to use the WP:AFC process so that their articles can be reviewed for compliance with Wikipedia's content rules -- but given the fact that there's already been an edit war over what namespace it was located in, I don't see the point in just moving it back to draftspace again without discussion. Obviously if consensus does land on moving it back to draftspace, it should be move-protected to prevent further edit-warring, but obviously consensus may also just lean toward straight deletion. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean

[edit]
History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. Seems to be promoting a scholarly database and no independent sources turned up by a before search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Latin America, and Caribbean. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    This is part of a class assignment. It is still in progress, so please don't delete. JuliaerodriguezUNH (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    First, tell your professor that your grade should not depend upon whether or not you successfully write a Wikipedia article that avoids deletion, because that is out of your control. Second, anything moved out of draft space into the realm of articles is fair game for a deletion debate. Third, if no reliable sources talk about this database, then we can't have an article about it here. Fourth, you've basically copied the original website. For example, it says a virtual archive of over 200 primary sources along with introductions based on the latest scholarly findings, while you wrote a virtual archive containing over 200 primary documents, each accompanied by introductions informed by the latest scholarly research. It says, We hope the database will be useful for teaching, research, or general interest purposes for viewers curious about the history of science. You wrote, This resource is designed to support teaching, research, and general interest, catering to those eager to explore the region's scientific history. It says, For centuries, novelists, politicians, investors, and tourists have looked at Latin America and the Caribbean as an extraordinary place of natural wealth and diverse human populations. You wrote, For centuries, Latin America and the Caribbean have been viewed as regions of natural wealth and diverse populations, attracting explorers and scientists. To be blunt, this is plagiarism by close copying. That's bad. Very bad. XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    As you may have guessed, this is my first time doing Wiki anything. My intent was to make the article accessible for my classmates to edit - I did not realize that it went public into a space outside of our class group for the public to view. As such, I have deleted all text..
    Obviously that is on me, chalk this up to a learning experience.
    I requested to move it back to the draft space and I was not allowed to. Is that, is that because it is pending deletion or user error on my part? I just want to know whether to make edits to this draft or begin a new page.
    Thanks for the criticism/help. Traviscnason (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    Moving an article while a deletion discussion is open is generally frowned upon, just because it confuses the situation. If you want to make further edits, you can do those on the article where it is now. I advise two things: start by listing the references that aren't the database itself, and put more work into writing in your own words. The first is necessary because we need references like that to show that the topic merits an article, and the second is necessary to avoid copyright problems. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Energy-assisted magnetic recording

[edit]
Energy-assisted magnetic recording (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)

Novice user created this page which is an extended WP:DICTIONARY definition. There already exists a page on Heat assisted magnetic recording, and Microwave assisted magnetic recording is mentioned in quite a few existing pages. I added a PROD, but novice editor objected (on Talk page) so I am coverting it to an AfD. A decent article on Microwave assisted magnetic recording is a something that might be done, but this page is just an WP:DICTIONARY stub that combines heat and microwave without providing useful encyclopedic information. TNT as this is not a good starting point. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Please do not make inappropriate statements such as "Ldm1954 wants to delete my contributions". As part of WP:NPP I and others review new pages and check if they are appropriate. This one, as well as a couple of other stubs you have created fail standard review criteria. Please be more careful, and look at what is in other articles, read up on the notability guide in WP:Notability and also look at details such as the style guide WP:MOS and what Wikipedia is not WP:!. I think you have rushed in a bit, which is why you got blocked in July and have also had several articles removed or moved to draft space as well as edits reverted since July 2024. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment EAMR and Energy-assisted magnetic recording both seem like plausible search terms and so do Microwave assisted magnetic recording and MAMR. Ideally each of those would be a redirect, disambiguation, or other article. I have no opinion on whether WP:TNT applies, but if it does, redirecting somewhere to an appropriate section of HAMR seems like the thing to do in the mean time. McYeee (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Holographic direct sound printing

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

Article based upon a 1 month old paper. While it has minor attention in pop science press, its Altmetric of 76 is not particularly high (it would need 200-300). Page is almost completely promo of research from a single group at Concardia University. Considering how active additive manufacturing currently is, much much more is required. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your science. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not my science. I found about this method of 3D printing in the newspapers and I thought it probably deserves to be mentioned at Wikipedia. Arwenz (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Parameter (physics)

[edit]
Parameter (physics) (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 which is an extended dictionary definition. The only source is a GitHub site of the page creator which I don't think qualifies as an RS. In any case WP:NOTADICTIONARY applies. The page was draftified on Oct 12 by BoyTheKingCanDance then moved almost immediately by the original editor MKovachev to main with this single source added. I was tempted to PROD, but am just doing an AfD which I think is more appropriate for a novice editor who is learning the ropes.. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that there was no adequate page about the topic before, I argue that this one should remain. Yes, it is a self-citation because otherwise the page gets flagged as having no sources. I doubt you need a research paper about what a physical parameter is in order to cite something. MKovachev (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't have to be a research paper, but you do need something, and a GitHub page is not going to be good enough. XOR'easter (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete because as it stands, the article doesn't go beyond a dictionary definition and refers to no useful sources. It's conceivable that an article could maybe be written about the assignment of parameters to a physical system, but I fear the current article doesn't contain any material likely to be of use to a future editor, and isn't a starting-point for that hypothetical article; it'd be better to start over. Elemimele (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as argued above. This is a dictionary definition that doesn't provide anything resembling a good beginning for an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree that this is a dictionary definition, but this is also original research, because it implies that a parameter is entirely subjective. That might be true - I don’t know - but we have never published original research. Arguing that something has never had a page on Wikipedia, and then posting your own single source, is original research. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Cladoselachida

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

This is a lesser used synonym of Cladoselachidae (see [1] [2]) and most recent studies prefer the family name (e.g [3]). The mindat ref (which is a mirror of the Paleobiology Database) is unreliable (it doesn't even contain Cladoselache the defining genus of the Cladoselachida(e) ) as it cannot accomodate conflicting taxonomic schemes and often contains outdated information. I tried to WP:BLAR it but was reverted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per nomination. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz Neeley

[edit]
Liz Neeley (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)

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [4][5]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is this the same person: [6]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [7], [8], [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    1. "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave". NPR.org. January 14, 2020.
    2. Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.
    3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
    4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
  • Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 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]

Professor Dave Explains

[edit]
Professor Dave Explains (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)

Poorly sourced article that was moved from draftspace into mainspace. A before search returns mostly sources from one site (evolution news). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hester Kaplan

[edit]
Hester Kaplan (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)

Most of the sources are to faculty pages and other profiles. The source from The New York Times is a wedding announcement and the bulk of the text of the article is about her parents and grandparents. A Google search for material about her turned up little to support a claim of notability, other than items like this one that are not the in-depth coverage required to meet the standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Michael Stein

[edit]
Michael Stein (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)

He is a professor not a dean or vice chancellor at any University or hasn’t received any national or international prestigious award. fails,WP:NPROF. Mainly reference used are of university self or publication sites, lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. Michael Stein is incoming Dean of the Boston University School of Public Health (https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2024/michael-stein-appointed-interim-dean-of-school-of-public-health/)
Regarding notability: he has appeared on Peabody award-winning radio (https://freshairarchive.org/guests/michael-stein), has had his books reviewed in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/books/09masl.html), and is a prolific researcher with >450 peer-reviewed publications. He is also the author of 14 books, which constitutes a "well-known [...] collective body of work [that] have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". [[10]] Deciderization (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
In case of becoming an interim dean i think that it doesn’t give directly notability because it will be only a temporary post for short period of time till the election of new permanent dean. Secondly interviews as generally considered non reliable because everything the interviewee says is primary and non independent per, wikipedia:Interviews #Notability . But yes he has some books which are reviewed by Some Independent and Reliable Sites i.e, NYC, Washington dc. Which is a good measure for his notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nirmalya Ghosh

[edit]
Nirmalya Ghosh (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:BLP, identified as possible WP:UPE, about a scientist not clearly shown as passing inclusion criteria. This was started in the creator's personal sandbox, going through two rounds of needing to have categories removed from it on WP:USERNOCAT grounds, before the creator (a WP:SPA with no prior edit history apart from this article) tried to move it to a "user" profile, following which it was moved to draftspace by an established editor on the grounds that no user account existed under the username Nirmalya Ghosh -- but then the creator moved it directly to mainspace themselves, following which there's been a full edit war over redraftifying and remainspacing it.
Paid editors, however, are required to use the WP:AFC process so that their articles can be reviewed for compliance with Wikipedia's content rules -- but given the fact that there's already been an edit war over what namespace it was located in, I don't see the point in just moving it back to draftspace again without discussion. Obviously if consensus does land on moving it back to draftspace, it should be move-protected to prevent further edit-warring, but obviously consensus may also just lean toward straight deletion. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

David S. Feldman

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

No independent source which discuss in depth about subject, fails WP:GNG, doesn’t received any prestigious award. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Antik Mahmud

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

No evidence or claim of notability. None of the sources provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter Henderson (surgeon)

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

No notable sources. Editor has an obvious COI. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yoginder Sikand

[edit]
Yoginder Sikand (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:GNG, Several articles authored by the subject are frequently cited as references; however, they have yet to receive significant mainstream media coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Xuemin Lin

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

As the subject of this page, I respectfully request its removal. Given that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit content without my approval, I have concerns about potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Therefore, I prefer that my personal information not be displayed or managed in this way, and I hope this request can be granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aumuja (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: The Academia Europea implies notability. The Gscholar profile for this individual shows over 24,000 citations, which I think is also notable. Easy pass at PROF or academic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Assuming per WP:AGF that this is a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, that is only valid for a borderline case. This is not a borderline case. This stub consists of only four claims, none of which is personal information and all of which are easily verified, all four of which would individually be enough for notability: named or distinguished professorships at two different major universities, and fellow of two major academic societies for which this level of membership is a significant honor. Double pass of WP:PROF #C3 and #C5, as well as the pass of #C1 suggested by his Google Scholar profile. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1: I concur with David Eppstein. The premise of WP:BIODELETE requires a lack of consensus to keep the article, meaning it must fail notability guidelines before deletion is considered. This nomination statement did not address how that would be the case at all, while the comments from Oaktree b and David Eppstein have already demonstrated otherwise. It is even more puzzling that the teaching positions, memberships, and research progress are all publicly accessible, regardless of whether this Wikipedia article exists, these details would still be available online. I do not think this is a reasonable deletion request. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe the "concerns about potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations" stem from a sentence that used to be in the article, but was removed. Geschichte (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Good point. Out of an abundance of caution I have suppressed the revisions containing that sentence, which consisted of generic fear-mongering about Chinese scholars in Australia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I do not have the user rights to view the content of the deleted version. Based on David's summary, it seems to be related to defamation of the subject rather than the disclosure of their public personal details. (Correct me if I misunderstood.) In this case, the subject should file their case at WP:RFO to request the suppression of the defamation claims, rather than having the entire article deleted. (and since David has already taken this step, perhaps we can consider the nominator's concerns alleviated and the deletion rationale resolved.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Agree with above points: if notability is somewhat marginal, then we should honor the wishes of the subject, but I don't see anything marginal here. Being Fellow of the IEEE is particularly a bright line pass of NPROF. "Weak" only because I do give some weight to the wishes of the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Edward Katongole-Mbidde

[edit]
Edward Katongole-Mbidde (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. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is primary. Could not find significant coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Michael Crooke

[edit]
Michael Crooke (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)

Almost every source is PR. Many of them are interviews with the subject for promotional purposes. I'm not finding any in-depth, reliable, independent, coverage elsewhere, either, only a few passing mentions. Also does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC (assuming Avamere is not major). —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Y. Ravindranath Rao

[edit]
Y. Ravindranath Rao (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:GNG, there are no sources which discuss about the subject in depth. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz Neeley

[edit]
Liz Neeley (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)

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [16][17]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is this the same person: [18]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [19], [20], [21]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    1. "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave". NPR.org. January 14, 2020.
    2. Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.
    3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
    4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
  • Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Naoto Ueno

[edit]
Naoto Ueno (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 seem to meet WP:N WP:NBIO. No third-party sources indicating notability. Also severe WP:COI editing, including some that is clearly by the subject of the article. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Obvious WP:COI issues, an argument could possibly be made for WP:NACADEMIC. There are a handful of in depth interviews in academic journals, director of the UH Cancer Center, and while the highest cited papers on Google Scholar are with many authors with the subject in the middle, there are quite a few papers for which he is the lead/corresponding author that are relatively highly cited for the age of the paper. I'm not convinced of the magnitude of impact of the scholarly work and independence/possible journalistic COI of interview coverage is not clear.
Cyanochic (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep, tentatively. He has 30,000 citations and an h-index of 84, but in a very high-citation field. However even ignoring the highly-cited consortia papers, he still has several impactful research articles as the last/corresponding author (top cites: 576, 342, 231) and as first author (223), not to mention a lot of reviews in those authorship positions (554, 538, 237, 208; 235), though I don't give these as much weight. I've collected some of the more in-depth secondary analyses of work attributed to him as first/senior author below, which might help demonstrate a stronger case for C1. These could also be used to make his research section more NPOV.
Secondary/independent analysis
  • ~60 words

    Clinical evidence of graft-versus-BC effect has been reported in a limited number of patients (2/10) by Ueno et al,2 and in one anecdotal case by Eibl et al.1 However, the study by Ueno et al was different from ours in that it included patients without progressive disease, adopted a myeloablative conditioning regimen with demonstrated antitumor activity, and performed DLI in only one case without response.

  • ~120 words

    Meanwhile, other researchers think that looking at the top of a signaling pathway doesn't make sense when what really counts is whether the cell is proliferating or not. For that reason, Naoto T. Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., [...] has looked at the activity of a key cell cycle regulator, CDK2, in sensitive and resistant tumor cell lines. They found a correlation between increasing resistance and increasing CDK2 kinase activity, which promotes cell cycling. The amount of protein or activity of proteins in the pathway steps between EGFR and CDK2 do not seem to be related to erlotinib sensitivity, according to Ueno's data. [quote]

  • ~160 words

    An update of experience at the MD Anderson Cancer Center with inflammatory breast cancer over the past 20 years was published by Ueno and colleagues [4]. [...] ... Ueno and colleagues found that 71% of all patients had a response to anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy, with 12% of patients achieving a complete response [4]. In addition, [...] (truncated to avoid CV)

  • ~120 words

    Experience at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center over the past 20 years was reported by Ueno et al. [87]. One hundred seventy patients [...]. ... The study by Ueno et al. also showed the importance of response to induction chemotherapy. [...]

  • ~50 words

    Ueno and colleagues reported that 74% of patients with IBC experienced a response from an anthracycline-based regimen, and 12% had a complete response. ... Many of the women in the review by Ueno and colleagues initially presented with inoperable disease. After induction chemotherapy, 95% of these patients were able to have surgery.

  • ~20 words

    Current treatment recommendations for IBC are multimodal with combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by mastectomy and then concluding with chemotherapy and radiation. This regimen is reported by Ueno et al. 10to show a [quote]

  • ~160 words

    In 2008 Ueno and colleagues published a retrospective analysis of 66 metastatic breast cancer patients, 39 of whom had undergone myeloablative HCT/AT between 1992 and 2000. Data were [...]. These initial experiences showed that an allotransplant-based approach could result in long-term disease control in metastatic breast cancer, but the rate of TRM was a serious drawback. ... In the already mentioned retrospective analysis conducted by Ueno and colleagues [42], 27 of the 66 patients [...]

  • ~120 words, but by a former coauthor

    The first series of patients was reported by Ueno et al [6] from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Ten patients [...] ... The largest unpublished series was presented by Ueno and Niederwieser on behalf of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) [...]

  • ~45 words

    Erlotinib inhibits triple negative breast cancer as shown by Ueno and Zhang[30] when they generated a SUM149 xenograft model by implanting luciferase expressing SUM149 cells into mammary pads of athymic nude mice. The results indicated significant inhibition of tumour growth at doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Clear Keep -- As @JoelleJay has noted, the nominator's notability guidelines omit the most relevant, WP:PROF (a notability criteria that predates and is independent of WP:N) where it is clear that Ueno is clearly more accomplished and notable than the average professor. Full-professor, head of a major NIH research program, at an R1 University, with significant third-party coverage of the appointment: ASCO-Post is the publication of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, so their coverage is very relevant. As far as the actual citation numbers, these vary from field to field hugely, but I can't remember a researcher in any field with an h-index of 84 or above ever being deleted -- medicine is a high pub. + high citation field, so the numbers need to be much higher than say Estonian studies, but my experience is that borderline is usually 30-50 in that field.
The article was probably created too early: the notability tags from 2011 were probably correct and I would have likely been on the delete side then, but much has changed since then and regardless of past COI or other mistakes, now the subject of the article is notable; thus keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google scholar has him with an h-factor of 105. He is still active, I counted 39 publications in 2024. While this may be a high citation field, and many of these papers have multiple authors, I feel he passes #C1 of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I am in the middle of Keep and Draft. In the current state it should be drafted because the sources are not the best and it is written in a biased way. The current sources are not the best, and should probably be removed (the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center source is 404 error), and without them the page doesn't have anything, which is why I'm leaning draft/delete.
But I agree with the Keep people that the academic articles that he has written show notability. The problem is that the current page doesn't really reflect the research he does, or sources any of it.
Overall, the page needs an over hall.
- Bpuddin (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP DCsansei (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Javier Díaz Noci

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep . I see enough citations of this subject's work to think he meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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