Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science Information

Articles for deletion

  • 18 Jul 2024 – Genie (programming language) ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by IntGrah ( t ·  c); see discussion (1 participant)
  • 18 Jul 2024 – Pure (programming language) ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated ( t ·  c); see discussion (3 participants)
  • 18 Jul 2024 – Join Java ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated ( t ·  c); see discussion (2 participants)
  • 16 Jul 2024 – Strong monad ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by Beefyt ( t ·  c); see discussion (11 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

( 2 more...)

Good article nominees

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

( 25 more...)

AA: Computing Information

Shortcut

Did you know

Articles for deletion

( 17 more...)

Proposed deletions

( 3 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

( 2 more...)

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

( 32 more...)

Articles to be split

( 17 more...)

Articles for creation

( 50 more...)

AfD: Computing Information

Computing

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:
Athanasios Tsakalidis (  | 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 reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Bootloop

Bootloop (  | 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 is no substance to the article. In its current state, it's little more than a dictionary entry, to which I feel the need to remind that we are not a dictionary. TrueCRaysball 💬| ✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TrueCRaysball 💬| ✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Booting#Bootloop, unlikely to escape being a DICTDEF, no need to delete when it's missing at the target. Widefox; talk 09:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep while I do agree this is likely a WP:PERMASTUB, I do not think it is a dictionary definition. Merging it with booting makes it far harder to find. I think this is a common tech problem that deserves its own article, and it meets the WP:GNG. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 09:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • The redirect would be left behind for ease. Isn't that a WP:USEFUL argument (one not to use in a deletion discussion)? Widefox; talk 14:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Booting#Bootliip per Widefox's rationale, unless the article is expanded to contain more than a dictionary definition and (for some reason) a list of operating systems. Milkk7 ( talk) 12:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep I updated the article with a $24 billion example failure. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I copyedited to be in line with the article / WP:RECENTISM. It is still a stub plus a list of examples. Conceptually, it is a failure subtopic of booting, and there's no need to split that based on size. Widefox; talk 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Booting. While an encyclopedic article about bootloops could conceivable be created, I don't think it ever will. If that happens it will be worth splitting it from Booting. Otherwise there's no point. Tercer ( talk) 14:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Genie (programming language)

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

Article was deleted via AfD in 2009 but then recreated. Survived an AfD in 2019 which was quickly closed as a revenge nomination, without discussion. Sources do not provide sufficient coverage and/or are not reliable. Just another non-notable programming language (dialect). IntGrah ( talk) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I found some sources that describe unrelated programming projects/proposals that contain the word "Genie", but nothing beyond that. This subject is not notable. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 20:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Pure (programming language)

AfDs for this article:
Pure (programming language) (  | 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. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan". IntGrah ( talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well, one of the previous AfD arguments mentioned a refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings, this ACM paper, and Michael Riepe. Rein ins Vergnügen : Pure – eine einfache funktionale Sprache. iX 12/2009, p. 147. ( http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html ). This seems like three decent sources to me. No? jp× g 🗯️ 12:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Join Java

AfDs for this article:
Join Java (  | 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 can't find any additional sources that would establish notability (i.e. that aren't written by the designer of the programming language). HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete The sources given in the previous AfD do not provide substantial coverage. IntGrah ( talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong monad

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

Article is >90% mathematical notation and diagrams, and minimal general-interest content. Looks like an excerpt from a research paper. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. If content is useful for encyclopedia, it might be summarized and moved to Monad (category theory). beefyt ( talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Dratify' - trusting User:Red-tailed hawk that it may be salvageable. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Likely too technical for a general wiki, and to be honest, I don't know what a monad is after reading the article. It's sourced, but this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    • to be honest, I don't know what a monad is after reading- <chuckle-chuckle>, I can say the same about half of articles in philosophy (and probably math; didnt try:-) - Altenmann >talk 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    We do not delete articles merely because the sources are hard to understand for someone who lacks prerequisite mathematical knowledge. We would not delete Repatriation tax avoidance merely because a group of editors does not understand the concept of a repatriation taxes, nor Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (the standard foundation of modern math) merely because a group does not understand set theory. If the sources are there, even if the subject might be hard for the average joe to wrap their head around, we don't purge the article merely because we ourselves don't understand the technical sources. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 13:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Correct. We delete based on notability; which is questioned here. But I did agree with your POV, hence my suggestion to draftify the article until someone makes from it somethin acceptable. Are you ready to do this? - Altenmann >talk 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is a "general wiki" in the sense that it covers all topics for which we can find sources, not in the sense that every article has to be completely comprehensible to every random drive-by reader. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Straw man argument. In AfD we discuss notability according to our criteria. Readability is not an issue. Let me give you a non-"rocket science" example. There are plenty of drummers which had gigs with numerous bands , but they still do not satisfy WP:NMUSIC despite the fact they can be found in numerous sources.- Altenmann >talk 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. As much as I dislike the text, the WP:GNG is clearly fulfilled: article after article filled with formulas and peer-reviewed. A heady mix of functional programming and quantum computing cannot be expected to be easy to understand (and, for avoidance of doubt, IMHO impossible to actually implement, but I will be happy to be proven wrong on the latter). -- Викидим ( talk) 18:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Retracting. This text appears to be purely category theory-related. Still notable IMHO, but can be explained with proper links and background articles. Draftify. -- Викидим ( talk) 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    I do not understand the rationale for draftifying instead of just keeping. Why is a topic being "purely category theory-related" a problem? If the topic is notable, why can't the improvement work happen in article space? XOR'easter ( talk) 19:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Please see Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY. why can't the improvement work happen in article space? - you tell me. Why nobody cared since 2006? My guess: @dgaf. Recently some admins took a serious issue with poor articles and draftified quite a few of them in my watchlist without bothering with AfD, and guess what? in 50% of cases nobody cared. - Altenmann >talk 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Purely category-theory related is not an issue with the subject. Category theory is actually a very basic and therefore relatively easy to explain area of mathematics. Unless quantum computing is involved (and it can be! and I wrongfully thought it is, thus my original remark that things are quite complicated), there is little excuse not to explain things properly here (that is at the level, where a high school student with ability to read diagrams and patience to read the leads of a few adjacent articles, would be able to at least grasp an idea of what a strong monad is). The current article already does link to Monad (category theory), but the latter lacks any plain-language examples, instead deferring to endofunctor that in turn totally lacks any explanation - yet refers to polynomial functor - that in turn completes the tail-loop of links by referring back to endofunctor. It does not have to be like this, some of examples of categories in the Category theory are quite comprehensible, so can be examples of monads (and endofunctors). Викидим ( talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    This is not a good candidate for draftication. For an article that has gone so long without attention, draftification is just a stealth method of slow deletion: wait six months for no more improvement and then delete it as a stale draft. Have the courage of your convictions. If you think it should be deleted, the time is now, not six months from now. If you think it should be cleaned up and kept, then !vote keep so that it can be cleaned up without a looming deadline. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    I have actually started changing the articles in the series to be more readable by the uninitiated. The first one is Category theory itself, where I am slowly adding easy-to-understand examples to the lead. This is a significant piece of work if WP:OR is to be avoided. That said, you have a point (and even if article is changed, there is an enormous backlog for the articles that are not easy to proofread), although it appears to me that the people who can understand the article now do not need read our text, as they must already know the details well. Anyhow, you have convinced me, I am reverting my vote back to Keep. God willing, I will get to this article within few months. Викидим ( talk) 08:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
— David Eppstein ( talk) 07:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Kindergarden (demoparty)

Kindergarden (demoparty) (  | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Digi.no article, but it consists of telling what one of the organizers said. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions and short descriptions, such as "The two pure demo parties in Norway are Solskogen, which is organised in July every year, and Kindergarden, which is held in November. Kindergarden can boast that it is the world's oldest demo party that is still organised."

A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli ( talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect: All the sources are self-published or that Digi.no article which is pretty much just an event announcement. Could not find anything on google for it either. Probably sufficient to put "Amiga-focused demoparty which began in a kindergarden in YEAR and ended in YEAR, reaching 200 attendees in YEAR". Mrfoogles ( talk) 15:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
i.e. just write what is possible based off those sources and maybe their website Mrfoogles ( talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 04:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Heid

Alexander Heid (  | 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)

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

  • Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
  • Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
  • Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon ( talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon ( talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [1] [2] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze ( talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1] [2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.
Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.
The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki ( talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona ( talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki ( talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Vote to Keep: The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.
    The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki ( talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki ( talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki ( talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    In regards to above, i vote for Keep Infosecwiki ( talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Infosecwiki, you can only "vote" once so I struck your duplicate votes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 ( talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki ( talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that editors can only cast one bolded vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete The only substantial source is the Florida University piece. Everything else is name checks or brief mentions. It doesn't surprise me that a security expert keeps a low profile. But there isn't enough here for a WP article. Lamona ( talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science Information

Shortcuts


Science

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:
Athanasios Tsakalidis (  | 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 reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Biosynthesis of a Biotin Compound Containing ⁷⁵Se

Biosynthesis of a Biotin Compound Containing ⁷⁵Se (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dissertation; there is nothing independent, like a review, that mentions it anywhere. I suppose the closest notability guideline is WP:NBOOK or WP:TEXTBOOKS, and it doesn't pass either. Has previously been de-PRODed by article creator. Sgubaldo ( talk) 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it's another dissertation by the same author, created by the same user, that's just as non-notable:

Structural Studies of the Enzyme D-Alanyl-D-Alanine Carboxypeptidase from Bacillus stearothermophilus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete both Of all the things that would have to happen before we can entertain a separate article on a single publication, demonstrated enormous public recognition would be the first. These ain't no annus mirabilis papers. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of secondary coverage by RS, and Wikipedia isn't a place to post summaries of decades-old dissertations. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 13:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Both don't even attempt to demonstrate notability. Note that the user has been blocked before for insisting on creating pages about non-notable people. Tercer ( talk) 14:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    The user has also created several articles on the books (whose notability I also question) written by James A. Frost, the father of the person who wrote this dissertation. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I PRODed this when it was first created, but didn't want to fight it when the creator de-PRODed it. Reasoning above matches mine.— Moriwen ( talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete both. We have no evidence of WP:NBOOK notability such as would be provided by multiple independent in-depth published reviews of these works. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete both. It is exceedingly rare for theses to be notable as publications in their own right. Occasionally, they can be cited in an article about the topic that they address; if the author is notable, then mentioning their thesis is a standard part of a biography. But a PhD thesis is not going to be an article-worthy book in itself, outside of exceptional circumstances that do not apply here, and this holds even more strongly for master's theses. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. The fact that these articles do not meet the present notability guidelines of the English Wikipedia, of course, precludes them from existing here -- but it's really hard to morally justify feeding things into the shredder that clearly took as much time and effort (and produced an outcome so well-written and succinct) as these did. jp× g 🗯️ 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see much evidence of effort having gone into these pages at all. One of them is three lists of bullet points, including uninformative glurge like "The study provided valuable insights" and vague speculation about how these "research insights" could somehow help develop new medicines. The other is more of the same ("several practical applications across diverse fields", "seamlessly integrate into academic courses and training programs"). Honestly, I wonder if these pages came straight out of an "AI". XOR'easter ( talk) 18:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, let me take a look at the actual dissertation PDF then. jp× g 🗯️ 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a hoax ( WP:G3).
The introduction section of the PDF says explicitly that the thesis being tested was to attempt to replace sulfur with selenium in biotin in order to better understand the extent to which selenium could substitute for sulfur in metabolic pathways. This is mentioned nowhere in the article, which only talks about analyzing biotin itself.
Most concerning are the methods of the dissertation as described in the article. It mentions using chromatography and mass spectrometry, which I feel like at least implies GC-MS, but certainly and necessarily entails MS. Well, the dissertation has paper chromatography and no mass spectrometry at all. The only analytical instruments mentioned whatsoever in the dissertation are a gamma scintillation spectrometer, a radiochromatogram scammer, ion exchange columns for paper chromatography, bioautograms, and weighing equipment (not specified).
Based on the outright fabrication of major details of the dissertation, the vapidity of the conclusions drawn therefrom, and the rather recognizable bullet-point format of GPT output, this article is a straightforward WP:G3 speedy-deletable hoax. Perhaps an even more pernicious thing, hitherto undifferentiated by the speedy deletion criteria, but I will nonetheless do so myself: a "slophoax". jp× g 🗯️ 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
For the record I will note here that mass spectrometry is an extremely expensive and high-precision analytical technique -- it is absolutely inconceivable that it could be carried out in the course of some research and then not commented on once in a paper published from that research. The only remotely plausible explanation, when combined with the slop formatting and the other questionable claims made in the article, is that it was falsified. jp× g 🗯️ 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the other article, allegedly based on this:
  • The enzyme was expressed in Escherichia coli, purified using affinity chromatography, and crystallized for structural analysis.
No it wasn't: all of the Cpase was obtained from a gene in B. stearothermophilus inserted into (and expressed by) P. pastoris. There's no way you could confuse this with E. coli. The paper does not mention E. coli. The only way you could possibly write this sentence is if you were making stuff up and hadn't read the paper.
The part about affinity chromatography is also false, per p33 of the paper: "Thus affinity chromatography did not appear to hold much promise".
  • The entire "applications" section is nonsense: "Structural Analysis Techniques: The methodologies utilized in the dissertation, such as X-ray crystallography and molecular modeling, serve as essential points of reference for researchers engaged in similar structural investigations of other proteins and enzymes." None of this means anything. "The methodologies utilized" here refer to -- I mean, computers were utilized in the dissertation too, that doesn't mean Wikipedia is an "application" of it. The methodologies and discoveries outlined in Frost's dissertation can seamlessly integrate into academic courses and training programs within biochemistry, microbiology, and structural biology -- what???
This article, too, is a slophoax, and needs to be speedily deleted as such. jp× g 🗯️ 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete On multiple grounds. And take action against any editor deliberately putting in hoax material. North8000 ( talk) 20:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete on grounds of "the author didn't even read the first page of the dissertation to begin with, and made up stuff". Still baffled that it is mentioned nowhere that selenium-75 is supposed to replace sulfur in biotin, even though that's, like, the whole point of the thing. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Quoting page 1 of the introduction: This thesis was undertaken in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the penetration of the sulfur metabolic pathways by selenium. Specifically, an attempt was made to determine if selenium could replace sulfur in biotin synthesized by Phycomyces blakesleeanus. (emphasis mine)
    Nowhere is "sulfur" mentioned in the body of the article. The author clearly didn't read the paper and made up the whole summary (most likely with ChatGPT). Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete both, for the reasons given above. In addition, as a biochemist and enzymologist myself, I'm far from convinced that Janet Frost herself is notable enough for an article. Her name isn't rare enough to make it easy to search for her on Google Scholar, but I haven't found anything to indicate notability. Athel cb ( talk) 13:40, 24 July 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 delete‎. Elli ( talk | contribs) 06:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

David Evans (mathematician and engineer)

David Evans (mathematician and engineer) (  | 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. Difficult to search for such a common name but could find no reliable sourcing of this individual. LibStar ( talk) 04:07, 18 July 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.

Society of Physicists of Macedonia

Society of Physicists of Macedonia (  | 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 found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 ( talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 ( talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that there is automatically no reason to delete because sources might exist. On top of that, the year of establishment is currently unverified which is a core Wikipedia policy. SL93 ( talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
N.B., I did find sources, it was not "might". Ldm1954 ( talk) 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Means the same thing to me as you haven't shared them. I see this being a keep so I guess it doesn't matter.. SL93 ( talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the coverage provided to this organization by known existing sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment, as more discussion was requested. Being specific here (Google search on the cyrillic) turns up a decent number of hits. However, I cannot trust the Google translate enough. What we need is someone who does, for instance (doing a ping) EdwardKaravakis who may know others. I am posting to a Macedonian project noticeboard as well. Ldm1954 ( talk) 02:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
hm I do not know Cyrillic, never heard of this society before and I am pretty sure that this should be of Northern Macedonia instead.. EdwardKaravakis ( talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thelma Rodgers

Thelma Rodgers (  | 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. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles ( talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles ( talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. Pam D 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them ( Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 ( talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar ( talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 ( talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar ( talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 ( talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 ( talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 ( talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92 Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. Pam D 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA ( talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA ( talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

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


Deletion Review

AfD: Academics Information

Academics and educators

Ronald S. Mangum

Ronald S. Mangum (  | 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 main notability claim here that I see is signing the open letter about Biden's health but his role isn't that large in that event WP:ONEEVENT

Everything else is fairly run-of-the-mill

Then of course there is the admitted CoI editing and page creation. D1551D3N7 ( talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Elsie M. Frost

Elsie M. Frost (  | 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 to pass the general notability guidelines. Zero coverage online beyond a couple of related obituaries. Article is mostly cited to her husband's book. Sgubaldo ( talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Sgubaldo ( talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Zero evidence of notability. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Note that in such cases you can make a WP:BUNDLE nomination. Tercer ( talk) 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Athel cb ( talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be the standard story of that time of a woman who became a schoolteacher, got married, and then vanished from the public record. I can't read the supposedly archived newspaper.com links, but [1] and [9] appear to be about her husband, [2] is a paid family death notice, [3-8] are neither independent nor reliably published, and [10] appears to be a brief marriage announcement. That is far from enough for GNG, the only relevant notability guideline. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Khaldoun H. Shami

Khaldoun H. Shami (  | 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)

Is this person notable? Google News yields no hits, and a lot of the references here are completely inappropriate, e.g. his employer's own website, LinkedIn profile, and Google Scholar profile. Uhooep ( talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Janet Frost

Janet Frost (  | 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 to pass the notability guidelines for academics. While the article says that she was a 'Distinguished Professor', none of the sources nor the Capital Community College website match that. Sgubaldo ( talk) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: All sources are either published by the subject or close relatives. A cursory google search did not turn up more either. JackTheSecond ( talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. A few minutes ago I indicated in the discussion of two dissertations why I didn't think she was notable enough for an article. Athel cb ( talk) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think distinguished professor at a community college should count for WP:PROF#C5 and we have no documentation of that title, nor evidence of any other form of notability. Searching Google Scholar for her publications found nothing of note, instead mostly finding publications by some five other people named Janet Frost (themselves not cited heavily enough for WP:PROF). — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Connecticut, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Frank A. Barnhart

Frank A. Barnhart (  | 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 any other sources besides the self-published theatre link. Does not meet notability criteria. Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 21:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Agreed, it's not clear (from the article) that the subject is notable according to WP:CREATIVE. If he is, then work needs doing to the article to demonstrate that notability. (Given the article has been tagged with Template:Notability and Template:BLP sources for over 10 years and has not really been edited since then, it feels unlikely that work will be done.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Douglas Jones (physician)

Douglas Jones (physician) (  | 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)

Creator blocked for UPE. No coverage of the subject easily found and cited sources don't seem to say anything about the subject but I'm out of my depth assessing notability in this field but none of the clams in the article seem extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom, Qflib. Further, in a search via Newsbank (wider and deeper than Google) I did find some 20 articles in the Ogden, Utah, regional paper The Standard-Examiner that reference and/or quote Jones' opinion in relation to allergies, but to me they seem very much ROTM for a community doctor. Nothing to meet WP:PROF. I neither could find any book reviews that would meet WP:AUTHOR. That the page creator has been blocked for UPE leaves an unpleasant taste too. Cabrils ( talk) 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava (  | 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 the person passes WP:NPROF as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 08:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete- No third party news organisation has reported specifically on him. Changeworld1984 ( talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very obvious case. While he has made a good start to his career, it is rare for associate Profs to meet WP:NPROF. Adequate but not notable publication record, no major awards, no major converage. Ldm1954 ( talk) 13:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Searching for author AK-Srivastava and keyword corona finds citations that look headed to a successful academic career but are not at the level required for WP:PROF#C1 yet. No other notability criterion is evident. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails notability. 3 sources on the page that are poor and primary. Source 1 is the subject's own homepage. Source 2 has a comment made by the subject himself and Source 3 is a link to a research/book written by subject himself. I cannot find subject's work that has made a significant impact and achievement in their scholarly discipline (nationally or internationally) and demonstrated by independent reliable sources. RangersRus ( talk) 17:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

S. Brent Morris

S. Brent Morris (  | 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:NAUTHOR. No clear notability. Longhornsg ( talk) 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Bent Flyvbjerg

Bent Flyvbjerg (  | 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)

GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu ( talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to Delete The article should not be removed as the citations are available. Wikicontriiiiibute ( talk) 11:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) — Wikicontriiiiibute ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Speedy keep WP:SK3 totally faulty nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG. Massive citation counts give him an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and named professorships at two universities pass #C5. He also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm proposing a WP:TNT in that case then. I missed PROF, and thank you for pointing it out - but given the sockpuppet's intense involvement in the article's current state, the extreme citespam, promotional tone, and general poor quality of the article, the article needs nuking from orbit and rebuilding by a SME. Couruu ( talk) 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    WP:DINC. TNT is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable, far from the case here. The detailed descriptions of what his work is about lack independent sources and should be properly sourced or trimmed but otherwise the article looks factual and uncontroversial to me. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see how he's notable under WP:GNG, nor do I believe there should be an exception for academics. It's also promotional - it's not really an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T· C 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Because the article is horribly promotional and I agree with the citespam comment. He probably does pass WP:NAUTHOR on a second look, but WP:TNT should apply. SportingFlyer T· C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Also, being able to have articles on cricketers who appeared in any first class match were once Wikipedia's established guidelines and consensus. Consensus can change. SportingFlyer T· C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: In addition to the clear WP:NPROF pass through both citations ( 80,000 citations, including twelve over 1,000 and one over 20,000) and holding a named chair, there is also a good argument for an WP:NAUTHOR pass as a brief spot-check returned a number of reviews for his books. Academics generally do not receive coverage in the same way as celebrities and politicians, but (especially for those like this, who are at the absolute top of their field) are mission critical for us to cover. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:PROF as argued above, and with three books (one co-authored) that are each widely reviewed enough to meet WP:NBOOK individually, WP:AUTHOR is satisfied as well. One tap of the delete key removed the promotionalism, so WP:TNT is no longer a concern. I did some trimming on the articles about the books as well. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Nice edits, I followed up with a few tweaks as well. Qflib ( talk) 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments of David Eppstein and XOR'easter, who has done an excellent rough cut on the worst of the cruft. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #5 at least twice over. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Ruud_Koot/Feed&oldid=807663388"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science Information

Articles for deletion

  • 18 Jul 2024 – Genie (programming language) ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by IntGrah ( t ·  c); see discussion (1 participant)
  • 18 Jul 2024 – Pure (programming language) ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated ( t ·  c); see discussion (3 participants)
  • 18 Jul 2024 – Join Java ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated ( t ·  c); see discussion (2 participants)
  • 16 Jul 2024 – Strong monad ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by Beefyt ( t ·  c); see discussion (11 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

( 2 more...)

Good article nominees

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

( 25 more...)

AA: Computing Information

Shortcut

Did you know

Articles for deletion

( 17 more...)

Proposed deletions

( 3 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

( 2 more...)

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

( 32 more...)

Articles to be split

( 17 more...)

Articles for creation

( 50 more...)

AfD: Computing Information

Computing

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:
Athanasios Tsakalidis (  | 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 reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Bootloop

Bootloop (  | 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 is no substance to the article. In its current state, it's little more than a dictionary entry, to which I feel the need to remind that we are not a dictionary. TrueCRaysball 💬| ✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TrueCRaysball 💬| ✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Booting#Bootloop, unlikely to escape being a DICTDEF, no need to delete when it's missing at the target. Widefox; talk 09:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep while I do agree this is likely a WP:PERMASTUB, I do not think it is a dictionary definition. Merging it with booting makes it far harder to find. I think this is a common tech problem that deserves its own article, and it meets the WP:GNG. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 09:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • The redirect would be left behind for ease. Isn't that a WP:USEFUL argument (one not to use in a deletion discussion)? Widefox; talk 14:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Booting#Bootliip per Widefox's rationale, unless the article is expanded to contain more than a dictionary definition and (for some reason) a list of operating systems. Milkk7 ( talk) 12:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep I updated the article with a $24 billion example failure. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I copyedited to be in line with the article / WP:RECENTISM. It is still a stub plus a list of examples. Conceptually, it is a failure subtopic of booting, and there's no need to split that based on size. Widefox; talk 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Booting. While an encyclopedic article about bootloops could conceivable be created, I don't think it ever will. If that happens it will be worth splitting it from Booting. Otherwise there's no point. Tercer ( talk) 14:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Genie (programming language)

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

Article was deleted via AfD in 2009 but then recreated. Survived an AfD in 2019 which was quickly closed as a revenge nomination, without discussion. Sources do not provide sufficient coverage and/or are not reliable. Just another non-notable programming language (dialect). IntGrah ( talk) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I found some sources that describe unrelated programming projects/proposals that contain the word "Genie", but nothing beyond that. This subject is not notable. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 20:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Pure (programming language)

AfDs for this article:
Pure (programming language) (  | 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. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan". IntGrah ( talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well, one of the previous AfD arguments mentioned a refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings, this ACM paper, and Michael Riepe. Rein ins Vergnügen : Pure – eine einfache funktionale Sprache. iX 12/2009, p. 147. ( http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html ). This seems like three decent sources to me. No? jp× g 🗯️ 12:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Join Java

AfDs for this article:
Join Java (  | 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 can't find any additional sources that would establish notability (i.e. that aren't written by the designer of the programming language). HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete The sources given in the previous AfD do not provide substantial coverage. IntGrah ( talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong monad

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

Article is >90% mathematical notation and diagrams, and minimal general-interest content. Looks like an excerpt from a research paper. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. If content is useful for encyclopedia, it might be summarized and moved to Monad (category theory). beefyt ( talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Dratify' - trusting User:Red-tailed hawk that it may be salvageable. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Likely too technical for a general wiki, and to be honest, I don't know what a monad is after reading the article. It's sourced, but this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    • to be honest, I don't know what a monad is after reading- <chuckle-chuckle>, I can say the same about half of articles in philosophy (and probably math; didnt try:-) - Altenmann >talk 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    We do not delete articles merely because the sources are hard to understand for someone who lacks prerequisite mathematical knowledge. We would not delete Repatriation tax avoidance merely because a group of editors does not understand the concept of a repatriation taxes, nor Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (the standard foundation of modern math) merely because a group does not understand set theory. If the sources are there, even if the subject might be hard for the average joe to wrap their head around, we don't purge the article merely because we ourselves don't understand the technical sources. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 13:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Correct. We delete based on notability; which is questioned here. But I did agree with your POV, hence my suggestion to draftify the article until someone makes from it somethin acceptable. Are you ready to do this? - Altenmann >talk 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is a "general wiki" in the sense that it covers all topics for which we can find sources, not in the sense that every article has to be completely comprehensible to every random drive-by reader. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Straw man argument. In AfD we discuss notability according to our criteria. Readability is not an issue. Let me give you a non-"rocket science" example. There are plenty of drummers which had gigs with numerous bands , but they still do not satisfy WP:NMUSIC despite the fact they can be found in numerous sources.- Altenmann >talk 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. As much as I dislike the text, the WP:GNG is clearly fulfilled: article after article filled with formulas and peer-reviewed. A heady mix of functional programming and quantum computing cannot be expected to be easy to understand (and, for avoidance of doubt, IMHO impossible to actually implement, but I will be happy to be proven wrong on the latter). -- Викидим ( talk) 18:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Retracting. This text appears to be purely category theory-related. Still notable IMHO, but can be explained with proper links and background articles. Draftify. -- Викидим ( talk) 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    I do not understand the rationale for draftifying instead of just keeping. Why is a topic being "purely category theory-related" a problem? If the topic is notable, why can't the improvement work happen in article space? XOR'easter ( talk) 19:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Please see Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY. why can't the improvement work happen in article space? - you tell me. Why nobody cared since 2006? My guess: @dgaf. Recently some admins took a serious issue with poor articles and draftified quite a few of them in my watchlist without bothering with AfD, and guess what? in 50% of cases nobody cared. - Altenmann >talk 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Purely category-theory related is not an issue with the subject. Category theory is actually a very basic and therefore relatively easy to explain area of mathematics. Unless quantum computing is involved (and it can be! and I wrongfully thought it is, thus my original remark that things are quite complicated), there is little excuse not to explain things properly here (that is at the level, where a high school student with ability to read diagrams and patience to read the leads of a few adjacent articles, would be able to at least grasp an idea of what a strong monad is). The current article already does link to Monad (category theory), but the latter lacks any plain-language examples, instead deferring to endofunctor that in turn totally lacks any explanation - yet refers to polynomial functor - that in turn completes the tail-loop of links by referring back to endofunctor. It does not have to be like this, some of examples of categories in the Category theory are quite comprehensible, so can be examples of monads (and endofunctors). Викидим ( talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    This is not a good candidate for draftication. For an article that has gone so long without attention, draftification is just a stealth method of slow deletion: wait six months for no more improvement and then delete it as a stale draft. Have the courage of your convictions. If you think it should be deleted, the time is now, not six months from now. If you think it should be cleaned up and kept, then !vote keep so that it can be cleaned up without a looming deadline. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    I have actually started changing the articles in the series to be more readable by the uninitiated. The first one is Category theory itself, where I am slowly adding easy-to-understand examples to the lead. This is a significant piece of work if WP:OR is to be avoided. That said, you have a point (and even if article is changed, there is an enormous backlog for the articles that are not easy to proofread), although it appears to me that the people who can understand the article now do not need read our text, as they must already know the details well. Anyhow, you have convinced me, I am reverting my vote back to Keep. God willing, I will get to this article within few months. Викидим ( talk) 08:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
— David Eppstein ( talk) 07:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Kindergarden (demoparty)

Kindergarden (demoparty) (  | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Digi.no article, but it consists of telling what one of the organizers said. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions and short descriptions, such as "The two pure demo parties in Norway are Solskogen, which is organised in July every year, and Kindergarden, which is held in November. Kindergarden can boast that it is the world's oldest demo party that is still organised."

A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli ( talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect: All the sources are self-published or that Digi.no article which is pretty much just an event announcement. Could not find anything on google for it either. Probably sufficient to put "Amiga-focused demoparty which began in a kindergarden in YEAR and ended in YEAR, reaching 200 attendees in YEAR". Mrfoogles ( talk) 15:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
i.e. just write what is possible based off those sources and maybe their website Mrfoogles ( talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 04:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Heid

Alexander Heid (  | 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)

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

  • Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
  • Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
  • Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon ( talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon ( talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [1] [2] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze ( talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1] [2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.
Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.
The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki ( talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona ( talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki ( talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Vote to Keep: The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.
    The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki ( talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki ( talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki ( talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    In regards to above, i vote for Keep Infosecwiki ( talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Infosecwiki, you can only "vote" once so I struck your duplicate votes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 ( talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki ( talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that editors can only cast one bolded vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete The only substantial source is the Florida University piece. Everything else is name checks or brief mentions. It doesn't surprise me that a security expert keeps a low profile. But there isn't enough here for a WP article. Lamona ( talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science Information

Shortcuts


Science

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:
Athanasios Tsakalidis (  | 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 reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Biosynthesis of a Biotin Compound Containing ⁷⁵Se

Biosynthesis of a Biotin Compound Containing ⁷⁵Se (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dissertation; there is nothing independent, like a review, that mentions it anywhere. I suppose the closest notability guideline is WP:NBOOK or WP:TEXTBOOKS, and it doesn't pass either. Has previously been de-PRODed by article creator. Sgubaldo ( talk) 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it's another dissertation by the same author, created by the same user, that's just as non-notable:

Structural Studies of the Enzyme D-Alanyl-D-Alanine Carboxypeptidase from Bacillus stearothermophilus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete both Of all the things that would have to happen before we can entertain a separate article on a single publication, demonstrated enormous public recognition would be the first. These ain't no annus mirabilis papers. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of secondary coverage by RS, and Wikipedia isn't a place to post summaries of decades-old dissertations. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 13:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Both don't even attempt to demonstrate notability. Note that the user has been blocked before for insisting on creating pages about non-notable people. Tercer ( talk) 14:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    The user has also created several articles on the books (whose notability I also question) written by James A. Frost, the father of the person who wrote this dissertation. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I PRODed this when it was first created, but didn't want to fight it when the creator de-PRODed it. Reasoning above matches mine.— Moriwen ( talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete both. We have no evidence of WP:NBOOK notability such as would be provided by multiple independent in-depth published reviews of these works. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete both. It is exceedingly rare for theses to be notable as publications in their own right. Occasionally, they can be cited in an article about the topic that they address; if the author is notable, then mentioning their thesis is a standard part of a biography. But a PhD thesis is not going to be an article-worthy book in itself, outside of exceptional circumstances that do not apply here, and this holds even more strongly for master's theses. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. The fact that these articles do not meet the present notability guidelines of the English Wikipedia, of course, precludes them from existing here -- but it's really hard to morally justify feeding things into the shredder that clearly took as much time and effort (and produced an outcome so well-written and succinct) as these did. jp× g 🗯️ 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see much evidence of effort having gone into these pages at all. One of them is three lists of bullet points, including uninformative glurge like "The study provided valuable insights" and vague speculation about how these "research insights" could somehow help develop new medicines. The other is more of the same ("several practical applications across diverse fields", "seamlessly integrate into academic courses and training programs"). Honestly, I wonder if these pages came straight out of an "AI". XOR'easter ( talk) 18:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, let me take a look at the actual dissertation PDF then. jp× g 🗯️ 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a hoax ( WP:G3).
The introduction section of the PDF says explicitly that the thesis being tested was to attempt to replace sulfur with selenium in biotin in order to better understand the extent to which selenium could substitute for sulfur in metabolic pathways. This is mentioned nowhere in the article, which only talks about analyzing biotin itself.
Most concerning are the methods of the dissertation as described in the article. It mentions using chromatography and mass spectrometry, which I feel like at least implies GC-MS, but certainly and necessarily entails MS. Well, the dissertation has paper chromatography and no mass spectrometry at all. The only analytical instruments mentioned whatsoever in the dissertation are a gamma scintillation spectrometer, a radiochromatogram scammer, ion exchange columns for paper chromatography, bioautograms, and weighing equipment (not specified).
Based on the outright fabrication of major details of the dissertation, the vapidity of the conclusions drawn therefrom, and the rather recognizable bullet-point format of GPT output, this article is a straightforward WP:G3 speedy-deletable hoax. Perhaps an even more pernicious thing, hitherto undifferentiated by the speedy deletion criteria, but I will nonetheless do so myself: a "slophoax". jp× g 🗯️ 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
For the record I will note here that mass spectrometry is an extremely expensive and high-precision analytical technique -- it is absolutely inconceivable that it could be carried out in the course of some research and then not commented on once in a paper published from that research. The only remotely plausible explanation, when combined with the slop formatting and the other questionable claims made in the article, is that it was falsified. jp× g 🗯️ 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the other article, allegedly based on this:
  • The enzyme was expressed in Escherichia coli, purified using affinity chromatography, and crystallized for structural analysis.
No it wasn't: all of the Cpase was obtained from a gene in B. stearothermophilus inserted into (and expressed by) P. pastoris. There's no way you could confuse this with E. coli. The paper does not mention E. coli. The only way you could possibly write this sentence is if you were making stuff up and hadn't read the paper.
The part about affinity chromatography is also false, per p33 of the paper: "Thus affinity chromatography did not appear to hold much promise".
  • The entire "applications" section is nonsense: "Structural Analysis Techniques: The methodologies utilized in the dissertation, such as X-ray crystallography and molecular modeling, serve as essential points of reference for researchers engaged in similar structural investigations of other proteins and enzymes." None of this means anything. "The methodologies utilized" here refer to -- I mean, computers were utilized in the dissertation too, that doesn't mean Wikipedia is an "application" of it. The methodologies and discoveries outlined in Frost's dissertation can seamlessly integrate into academic courses and training programs within biochemistry, microbiology, and structural biology -- what???
This article, too, is a slophoax, and needs to be speedily deleted as such. jp× g 🗯️ 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete On multiple grounds. And take action against any editor deliberately putting in hoax material. North8000 ( talk) 20:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete on grounds of "the author didn't even read the first page of the dissertation to begin with, and made up stuff". Still baffled that it is mentioned nowhere that selenium-75 is supposed to replace sulfur in biotin, even though that's, like, the whole point of the thing. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Quoting page 1 of the introduction: This thesis was undertaken in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the penetration of the sulfur metabolic pathways by selenium. Specifically, an attempt was made to determine if selenium could replace sulfur in biotin synthesized by Phycomyces blakesleeanus. (emphasis mine)
    Nowhere is "sulfur" mentioned in the body of the article. The author clearly didn't read the paper and made up the whole summary (most likely with ChatGPT). Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete both, for the reasons given above. In addition, as a biochemist and enzymologist myself, I'm far from convinced that Janet Frost herself is notable enough for an article. Her name isn't rare enough to make it easy to search for her on Google Scholar, but I haven't found anything to indicate notability. Athel cb ( talk) 13:40, 24 July 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 delete‎. Elli ( talk | contribs) 06:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

David Evans (mathematician and engineer)

David Evans (mathematician and engineer) (  | 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. Difficult to search for such a common name but could find no reliable sourcing of this individual. LibStar ( talk) 04:07, 18 July 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.

Society of Physicists of Macedonia

Society of Physicists of Macedonia (  | 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 found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 ( talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 ( talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that there is automatically no reason to delete because sources might exist. On top of that, the year of establishment is currently unverified which is a core Wikipedia policy. SL93 ( talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
N.B., I did find sources, it was not "might". Ldm1954 ( talk) 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Means the same thing to me as you haven't shared them. I see this being a keep so I guess it doesn't matter.. SL93 ( talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the coverage provided to this organization by known existing sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment, as more discussion was requested. Being specific here (Google search on the cyrillic) turns up a decent number of hits. However, I cannot trust the Google translate enough. What we need is someone who does, for instance (doing a ping) EdwardKaravakis who may know others. I am posting to a Macedonian project noticeboard as well. Ldm1954 ( talk) 02:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
hm I do not know Cyrillic, never heard of this society before and I am pretty sure that this should be of Northern Macedonia instead.. EdwardKaravakis ( talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thelma Rodgers

Thelma Rodgers (  | 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. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles ( talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles ( talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. Pam D 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them ( Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 ( talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar ( talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 ( talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar ( talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 ( talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 ( talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 ( talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92 Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. Pam D 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA ( talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA ( talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

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


Deletion Review

AfD: Academics Information

Academics and educators

Ronald S. Mangum

Ronald S. Mangum (  | 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 main notability claim here that I see is signing the open letter about Biden's health but his role isn't that large in that event WP:ONEEVENT

Everything else is fairly run-of-the-mill

Then of course there is the admitted CoI editing and page creation. D1551D3N7 ( talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Elsie M. Frost

Elsie M. Frost (  | 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 to pass the general notability guidelines. Zero coverage online beyond a couple of related obituaries. Article is mostly cited to her husband's book. Sgubaldo ( talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Sgubaldo ( talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Zero evidence of notability. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Note that in such cases you can make a WP:BUNDLE nomination. Tercer ( talk) 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Athel cb ( talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be the standard story of that time of a woman who became a schoolteacher, got married, and then vanished from the public record. I can't read the supposedly archived newspaper.com links, but [1] and [9] appear to be about her husband, [2] is a paid family death notice, [3-8] are neither independent nor reliably published, and [10] appears to be a brief marriage announcement. That is far from enough for GNG, the only relevant notability guideline. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Khaldoun H. Shami

Khaldoun H. Shami (  | 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)

Is this person notable? Google News yields no hits, and a lot of the references here are completely inappropriate, e.g. his employer's own website, LinkedIn profile, and Google Scholar profile. Uhooep ( talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Janet Frost

Janet Frost (  | 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 to pass the notability guidelines for academics. While the article says that she was a 'Distinguished Professor', none of the sources nor the Capital Community College website match that. Sgubaldo ( talk) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: All sources are either published by the subject or close relatives. A cursory google search did not turn up more either. JackTheSecond ( talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. A few minutes ago I indicated in the discussion of two dissertations why I didn't think she was notable enough for an article. Athel cb ( talk) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think distinguished professor at a community college should count for WP:PROF#C5 and we have no documentation of that title, nor evidence of any other form of notability. Searching Google Scholar for her publications found nothing of note, instead mostly finding publications by some five other people named Janet Frost (themselves not cited heavily enough for WP:PROF). — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Connecticut, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Frank A. Barnhart

Frank A. Barnhart (  | 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 any other sources besides the self-published theatre link. Does not meet notability criteria. Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 21:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Agreed, it's not clear (from the article) that the subject is notable according to WP:CREATIVE. If he is, then work needs doing to the article to demonstrate that notability. (Given the article has been tagged with Template:Notability and Template:BLP sources for over 10 years and has not really been edited since then, it feels unlikely that work will be done.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Douglas Jones (physician)

Douglas Jones (physician) (  | 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)

Creator blocked for UPE. No coverage of the subject easily found and cited sources don't seem to say anything about the subject but I'm out of my depth assessing notability in this field but none of the clams in the article seem extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom, Qflib. Further, in a search via Newsbank (wider and deeper than Google) I did find some 20 articles in the Ogden, Utah, regional paper The Standard-Examiner that reference and/or quote Jones' opinion in relation to allergies, but to me they seem very much ROTM for a community doctor. Nothing to meet WP:PROF. I neither could find any book reviews that would meet WP:AUTHOR. That the page creator has been blocked for UPE leaves an unpleasant taste too. Cabrils ( talk) 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava (  | 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 the person passes WP:NPROF as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 08:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete- No third party news organisation has reported specifically on him. Changeworld1984 ( talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very obvious case. While he has made a good start to his career, it is rare for associate Profs to meet WP:NPROF. Adequate but not notable publication record, no major awards, no major converage. Ldm1954 ( talk) 13:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Searching for author AK-Srivastava and keyword corona finds citations that look headed to a successful academic career but are not at the level required for WP:PROF#C1 yet. No other notability criterion is evident. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails notability. 3 sources on the page that are poor and primary. Source 1 is the subject's own homepage. Source 2 has a comment made by the subject himself and Source 3 is a link to a research/book written by subject himself. I cannot find subject's work that has made a significant impact and achievement in their scholarly discipline (nationally or internationally) and demonstrated by independent reliable sources. RangersRus ( talk) 17:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

S. Brent Morris

S. Brent Morris (  | 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:NAUTHOR. No clear notability. Longhornsg ( talk) 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Bent Flyvbjerg

Bent Flyvbjerg (  | 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)

GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu ( talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to Delete The article should not be removed as the citations are available. Wikicontriiiiibute ( talk) 11:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) — Wikicontriiiiibute ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Speedy keep WP:SK3 totally faulty nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG. Massive citation counts give him an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and named professorships at two universities pass #C5. He also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm proposing a WP:TNT in that case then. I missed PROF, and thank you for pointing it out - but given the sockpuppet's intense involvement in the article's current state, the extreme citespam, promotional tone, and general poor quality of the article, the article needs nuking from orbit and rebuilding by a SME. Couruu ( talk) 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    WP:DINC. TNT is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable, far from the case here. The detailed descriptions of what his work is about lack independent sources and should be properly sourced or trimmed but otherwise the article looks factual and uncontroversial to me. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see how he's notable under WP:GNG, nor do I believe there should be an exception for academics. It's also promotional - it's not really an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T· C 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Because the article is horribly promotional and I agree with the citespam comment. He probably does pass WP:NAUTHOR on a second look, but WP:TNT should apply. SportingFlyer T· C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Also, being able to have articles on cricketers who appeared in any first class match were once Wikipedia's established guidelines and consensus. Consensus can change. SportingFlyer T· C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: In addition to the clear WP:NPROF pass through both citations ( 80,000 citations, including twelve over 1,000 and one over 20,000) and holding a named chair, there is also a good argument for an WP:NAUTHOR pass as a brief spot-check returned a number of reviews for his books. Academics generally do not receive coverage in the same way as celebrities and politicians, but (especially for those like this, who are at the absolute top of their field) are mission critical for us to cover. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:PROF as argued above, and with three books (one co-authored) that are each widely reviewed enough to meet WP:NBOOK individually, WP:AUTHOR is satisfied as well. One tap of the delete key removed the promotionalism, so WP:TNT is no longer a concern. I did some trimming on the articles about the books as well. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Nice edits, I followed up with a few tweaks as well. Qflib ( talk) 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments of David Eppstein and XOR'easter, who has done an excellent rough cut on the worst of the cruft. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #5 at least twice over. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE