![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NBASIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NACTOR, and WP:ANYBIO. There's also an apparent COI in the creation of the page; the photograph provided of the individual on the page is a high-resolution shirtless photograph (which appears to be a self-portrait) that is marked as the page creator's "own work". Furthermore, this page has been previously deleted and subsequently recreated by the same editor who created the initial version. Beyond a delete, I'd recommend that the page be salted so as to prevent future re-creation. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable session musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO on all counts, and WP:COMPOSER. The best references towards WP:GNG are the two on Stuff.co.NZ though both heavily quote him and have little or any WP:SECONDARY coverage so I would say fail GNG too.The author is an WP:SPA, having only made formatting and grammar changes to other articles. They moved the draft to mainspace themselves bypassing AfC, and removed my PROD. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 16:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail to have significant coverage required for WP:NCORP. I've searched up the charter airline on google news and have been unable to find non-churn significant coverage, though I have found a good bit of coverage relating to a U.S.-based design firm with the same name. The article itself has no references and contains a single external link to the company's website. Given this, I believe that the 5-plane Austrian airliner is unlikely to be notable. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete unable to find any significant coverage. This is my opinion. Thanks. Billyatthewheels ( talk) 19:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, in line with WP:NFO#1? I'm also not sure that the CineMagazine review is
full-length—it's three paragraphs and under 375 words—nor that Bart Rietvink is a nationally known critic. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
full-length, nor that their authors are
nationally known critics, which is important here. And, as shown in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hideout_in_the_Sun, Rotten Tomatoes occasionally aggregates reviews for the wrong movie. Sources are required to be WP:PUBLISHED, and
an archived copy of the media must existfor media to be considered to be published. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
[i]f a specific review is considered for inclusion, always ensure that it is a reliable source.And, I don't think Ode+Joy was saying that only Oscar-level materials are worthy of Wikipedia, hence Ode+Joy's writing
or. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This list article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of popes. All relevant age information is already given on the List of Popes page so it seems unnecessary to have a separate article for this. As it stands, the list is barely sourced and full of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA lists and does not even contain a full list of Popes and their age. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 22:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
A spot apparently in a larger locale with two campgrounds of the same name nearby (one forest service, the other private) and a mine, which may or may not be associated with our subject. All of this tends to clog searching. I did find one passing reference to it as a settlement but nothing of any substance, so I'm going to say it fails WP:GNG. Mangoe ( talk) 21:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The article is almost entirely sourced to primary sources, either the subject himself, or institutions that he works for or with. There are almost no independent secondary sources tht discuss the subject. The WP:GNG is not met, nor is WP:NACADEMIC; there is no indication that the subject's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Vexations ( talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Subject doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL as hasn't played or managed in a senior international match or a match between two teams from fully professional leagues. As for WP:GNG, there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources, per a quick search. Mattythewhite ( talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 17:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
This author does not appear to meet notability requirements for an author. Authors must show significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. This author did publish a book, but the sources are mostly her own website and Kirkus reviews, the latter of which are a baseline industry standard and do not reflect significant coverage. Interviews listed in the references cannot be accessed when I clicked, and the only major review I could find online appears to be a user-submitted review, here. In my view, the article itself does not appear to follow MOS guidelines and is promotional and unencyclopedic in style, which could be fixed, but that would require reliable, independent sources, which are hard to come by. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 20:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. New information has been brought to this, and some editors have made strong points. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 22:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete ( WP:SNOW). Geschichte ( talk) 07:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Bringing this to AfD after discussion at WP:COIN. Badly PoV article, written by CoI/PAID editors and cited (albeit with no footnotes) to sources published by the organisation which it promotes. The subject appears to be a neologism, promoted by the founder of that organisation; the organisation is a publisher which appears on the updated Beall's list (of "predatory open-access publishers"; see [6]).
If we need an article on this subject; this is not it, and WP:TNT should apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to divorce its notability from the primary inclusion criteria for films. As always, we do not necessarily want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every future film that enters the production pipeline -- with rare exceptions for films that garner a lot of coverage during the production process (e.g. Star Wars or Marvel films), we're normally only interested in films that have actually been released, and can show notability factors like having been reviewed by professional film critics and/or winning or being nominated for major film awards. But the release date here is still TBA, and the sourcing consists of two unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all and two very short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to deem this as having already cleared the bar. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film has been released and clears the notability bar accordingly, but nothing here is enough to deem this film already notable today. Bearcat ( talk) 19:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production."Platonk ( talk) 07:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep – there's consensus that the sources on he-wiki are sufficient to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable person. No SIGCOV besides the notice of her appointment and press announcements about a prison outbreak. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Seems like an UPE. Ramaswar (discuss) 16:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not an UPE and I ( Ricecakes55) am not connected to this company is any way. I do agree that additional information would help this article. 10:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricecakes55 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Princess of Ara 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. After two relists and no indication of further sourcing, I think there is a reasonable consensus to delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe the topic of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Standard Google searches didn't show any non-trivial or independent news coverage. The only nominally substantial coverage was in allinlondon.co.uk (doesn't seem like a reliable source) but that article is promotional and was duplicated on the company's LinkedIn page. The only other significant news mention I saw was a single paragraph on this Insider list. Zetana ( talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The sources (I've removed them all) were either not WP:RS or made no mention of a Chanda dynasty. Nothing shows up on Google either. (Note that there is a "Chandra dynasty" in a different region of India.) RegentsPark ( comment) 14:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kevin Pollak#Podcasting. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. Cannot find any reliable, non-promotional and non-self generated sources on this podcast. Kevin Pollak is notable, but the notability is not inherited by the podcast. None of the claims of notability in this article can be verified. If anyone can find reliable sources, I would be happy to see them. Rogermx ( talk) 02:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hamate bone. I'll add the hatnote as requested. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 14:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
There was WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) (2020) that the vast majority of specific epithets do not belong on DAB pages. This page consists of two such and one valid entry. Redirect to Hamate bone as {{ R from alternative name}}. Narky Blert ( talk) 14:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
If it is a synonym, on its own, please will someone add it to the article with a WP:RS.It is, and I have. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
{{redirect|Hamatum|its use in taxonomy|List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names#H{{!}}List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names}}
ie The result was delete. The redirect Draft:Achilleas Salamouras is also deleted as dependent on a deleted page, if more sources become available then anyone who wants a copy of the article to be restored to draft space can ask at WP:REFUND or on my usertalk. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Contested draftify. Draft:Achilleas Salamouras should be kept regardless of whether this one is deleted or not. Salamouras hasn't made his debut in a WP:FPL yet so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The creator has added some new sources but none of them are detailed enough; one is a profile page from PAOK's website, one is just a picture and the final one is just a sentence about him. A Greek language search comes up with multiple squad lists for PAOK B, some of which contain a sentence or two about him and briefly mention the loan moves to Volos and Niki Volos and the fact that he is a student, none of which meets WP:GNG in my view. Aside from that, I found one small transfer announcement.
We do sometimes keep articles on youth footballers that haven't made their debut in exceptional circumstances where the coverage is extremely strong and from multiple WP:RS websites. I'm not convinced that this is one of those extremely rare cases. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Interlude (1957 film). Eddie891 Talk Work 12:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The B-side of a single which charted at Billboard #73 ("Around the World In 80 Days"; we have no article; see The McGuire Sisters), sourced only to IMDb (non- WP:RS). Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Retarget to Interlude (1957 film), the film in whose soundtrack it first appeared. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Technically would qualify for a speedy keep under WP:SK#1 per the nom's subsequent comment supporting keeping the article but it's been 14 days anyways. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The single cited source contains no significant coverage of the subject, nor can I find any online. The article itself doesn't seem to contain any credible claims of notability. Lennart97 ( talk) 10:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. By a headcount, the outcome would be keep or no consensus, but we don't go by headcounts at AfD. We weigh arguments in the light of applicable policies or guidelines.
If, as here, deletion is requested because an article is alleged to fail the core policy WP:NOR, and prima facie valid arguments are made to that effect, then "keep" arguments must directly address and attempt to refute these arguments for deletion in order to be given weight in the closure. But in this AfD, very few "keep" arguments did so. Most defended the article on grounds of notability, but because non-notability is not the reason for which deletion is requested, these arguments are beside the point and are not given weight here. We don't keep original research even if it is original research about a notable topic. For the same reasons, the other "keep" opinions that do not address the WP:NOR problem must also be discounted.
For the most part, only two people attempted to refute the NOR arguments - Minimumbias and Ber31. Because reasonable people can disagree on WP:SYNTH questions, it is not for me to say whose arguments are stronger in this regard (even if I wanted to, I couldn't reliably do so because of the walls of text). But what I can say is that among the editors who addressed the reason for deletion, those supporting "keep" are greatly in the minority.
Accordingly, policy-based rough consensus is to delete the articles in their current state. They can be recreated if this can be done in a non-OR manner. Sandstein 21:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Textbook example of a trivial cross-categorisation of two entirely unrelated characteristics (which university one went/worked/... at vs. won Nobel prize). Also, and I must give credit to
OCNative on this one, This page begins with a list of tables with no refs. Then it goes into a whole bunch of subsections about the universities and then almost every university listed there's a note that the university's official count is lower than the article's count. Each university's table has a notes section where there is an explanation of why a particular university's affiliate is excluded from the list. This list seems to be heavy on WP:SYNTH if not outright Wikipedia:No original research. Strangely, the article also links Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
So fails both
WP:NOT and
WP:OR...
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
own value[s], motivation and understanding. Pages that have existed for a long time do get nominated for deletion upon occasion; the encyclopedia is a big place, and things can happen in corners of it without getting noticed by a wider circle of editors. There's no malice involved, just different perspectives. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Further explanationsis a collection of arbitrary choices. (Plenty of research happens over the summer, not least because the undergraduates are out of the way.) Taking the standards that Cambridge uses to make themselves look good and applying them to other institutions is synthesis. Strangely, the text itself makes reference to
Wikipedia policies on no original research and objectivity/neutrality, but without understanding what those policies mean. It's just as much OR to say that one type of position counts as much as another as it is to say they count differently. The entire page is an attempt to use MediaWiki for something the software was not designed to do — this calls out for a database if anything ever did. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Auditing students and exchange students are not included for similar reason. They are not officially enrolled. This is fact, not made up by us.Even accepting that fact as established, the list is still making a decision on top of it. Why draw the dividing line at "officially enrolled"? Why does getting a publication out of a summer project override the lack of official enrollment? None of that is Wikipedia's judgment call to make. The underlying facts aren't in dispute; using them to arrive at a decision is. Prior discussions at the Talk page don't override that basic concern. It's like arguing about whether the Saturday morning Star Trek cartoon is canon: you can put as much energy as you want into whether the line should be drawn here or there, but Wikipedia isn't the place to be drawing the line at all. XOR'easter ( talk) 08:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The page List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation doesn't claim that a CV is a reliable source.Yes, it does; the WP:LEAD says
reliable sources such as their curriculum vitae. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
the universities, research institutions or companies Nobel Prize laureates were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement. That way, the figure for Caltech would for instance be 20 laureates rather than 78, and Einstein would not be among them.I don't know that this is salvageable, frankly. It's plain to see that a lot of effort went into constructing this list, but it doesn't seem to be compliant with our WP:Core content policies and it's not self-evident to me that it can be made compliant with them. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, of course, but I'm leaning heavily towards this needing to be deleted. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
We are only stating facts., and Minimumbias said something similar previously, but you don't seem to appreciate what I was trying to get at in my second paragraph above: there is an active choice going into deciding which facts to present and how (which is a point XOR'easter has also made previously in the discussion). That's not only stating facts.I'll demonstrate with an example: If I were to say "I joined Wikipedia before you and Minimumbias and have made more edits than the two of you combined", I'm sure you would agree that while that would be stating facts, it wouldn't be only stating facts. The selection of facts we choose to present reflects a belief that those are the relevant facts (and for the record, tenure on Wikipedia and number of edits are not relevant here).I know that the list the official Nobel Prize website has is very different from this one, but that's actually my point: they have chosen to maintain and present a list like that, not a list like this. The differences you note reflect their assessment that (1) university affiliation is not relevant for the Literature and Peace Prizes and (2) only the affiliation at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement is relevant, not affiliations earlier or later in the laureate's career.Now I want to be clear: The problem is not that there has been an active choice – that's unavoidable. The problem is that we are not supposed to be the ones making that active choice, WP:Reliable sources are. We are supposed to follow the sources, and that means using their criteria, not ours. Of course, that assumes that there actually are some generally-accepted criteria we can use. TompaDompa ( talk) 09:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Different universities adopt different criteria—from generous to conservative—for claiming Nobel affiliates(to quote the WP:LEAD of the article directly).
This list looks at the intersection [...]to
[...] criteria decided upon by Wikipedia editors through discussion on the talk page., or do you think I got it wrong somehow?You are correct in assuming that I want to contribute meaningfully with regards to this list, but that doesn't necessarily mean adding to it. If I understand our respective positions correctly, you see the way the criteria were chosen through discussion and compromises as a good thing, reflecting thorough consensus-building. I, on the other hand, see it as compounding WP:Original research. Whether the criteria are robust is beside the point. Whether we think the criteria make sense is beside the point. What matters is what criteria WP:Reliable sources use. WP:No original research does not only apply to the application of the criteria, but also to the selection of the criteria. If there is a set of criteria that is generally used by WP:Reliable sources, that's the set of criteria we should use whether we agree that it's the best one or not. If there is no such set of criteria, we mustn't make one up for ourselves. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliations"in this context. That's the problem. We're taking a different approach. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Do the criteria used on this article reflect the consensus among WP:Reliable sources about which set of criteria to use?is no. Listing Nobel laureates by academic affiliation is actively choosing a set of criteria to use. We could, for instance, have only included alumni and called the list " List of Nobel laureates by alma mater" instead. That would also have been actively choosing a set of criteria. It would have been a different set of criteria, but it would have been neither more nor less "neutral" or "subjective". So the question is: Is there a consensus among WP:Reliable sources to list Nobel laureates by university affiliation defined this particular way, as opposed to listing them by a modification of this definition of "university affiliation" or by some other parameter such as alma mater? And from what you're telling me, the answer is no – there is not a consensus among WP:Reliable sources that this is how to list Nobel laureates. You're applying the concept of "university affiliation" (defined this particular way) in a context where reliable sources apparently do not. That's the problem. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
plainly stating the academic affiliations of the Nobel laureatesis listing a (well-defined) set of individuals by a parameter you have chosen (university affiliation). And here's the thing: if nobody else has done that before (because they have used some slight variation of the parameter you're using, in this case), you're producing novel content. It would be the same thing if you were listing them by handedness or which day of the week they were born ( List of Nobel laureates born on a Wednesday and so on). Do WP:Reliable sources list Nobel laureates by university affiliation (defined this particular way)? For the examples of lists by parameters you gave, the corresponding question (i.e. "Do WP:Reliable sources list 100-meter dashes by shortest time?") can be answered in the affirmative. Do you see the difference? Don't get hung up on subjectivity or the lack thereof—focus on novelty.Now let's take the criteria perspective. Assuming for the sake of argument that these are indeed the correct set of criteria for defining university affiliation, you're extrapolating from this being the appropriate set of criteria to use in one context (university affiliation) to it also being the appropriate set of criteria to use in another context (assigning Nobel laureates to universities or vice versa, however you want to look at it). That extrapolation is done in spite of WP:Reliable sources not using this set of criteria in the latter context, as you yourself have noted.
Finding a consensus in sources to count Nobel laureates in a particular way (with some agreed selected criteria) is not reality, at least for now, because different universities may do it differently.That's precisely my point. There is no consensus among WP:Reliable sources about how to list Nobel laureates by university. The very scope of this list lacks consensus external to Wikipedia that it is in fact a meaningful scope. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The bottom line is, you have to prove that we actually selected certain "criteria" by simply stating "academic affiliations", which I have repeatedly said to contain no criteria, but universally defined concepts."University affiliation", for the purposes of this list, is defined as belonging to one of three categories: alumni (graduates and attendees), long-term staff, or short-term staff. Those are the criteria for counting as having an academic affiliation to the university. The criteria for belonging to each of those categories are further outlined in the WP:LEAD:
Graduates are defined as those who hold Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorate or equivalent degrees from a university, while attendees are those who formally enrolled in degree programs at a university but did not complete the programs; thus, honorary degrees, posthumous degrees, summer attendees, exchange students and auditing students are excluded. The category of "Long-term academic staff" consists of tenure or tenure-track and equivalent academic positions, while that of "Short-term academic staff" consists of lecturers (without tenure), postdoctoral researchers, visiting professors or scholars (visitors), and equivalent academic positions.This is a set of criteria. That you refer to them with a collective term—university/academic affiliation—does not change that. Whether they are universally accepted as the criteria to use for defining that collective term also doesn't really matter—they are still a set of criteria. And the thing is, they are evidently not universally accepted as such, by your own admission:
However, cutting off certain affiliations, assigning different weights to different academic affiliations, or any other types of subjective criteria, is a practice of counting adopted by certain universities themselves, not us. In a word, if there are 5 people affiliated, what we are doing is saying there are 5 people affiliated, but some universities would say there only 4, 3, 2, 1.What you're saying is, essentially, that they're doing it wrong while we're doing it right. That's your assessment. But we don't go by your assessment of how it should be done, or by mine, or by any other editor's – we go by how WP:Reliable sources do it.At the end of the day, the problem is that this is novel content. You keep saying that we're just stating facts, but if no WP:Reliable sources have stated the facts in this way, you're still producing novel content. Wikipedia is not supposed to create novel content.
We are not counting Nobel laureates.That's flat-out wrong, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The universities are listed by number of affiliated Nobel laureates. This is, really, more of a list of universities by affiliated Nobel laureates. How on Earth is that not counting? TompaDompa ( talk) 12:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
"In a word, if there are 5 people affiliated, what we are doing is saying there are 5 people affiliated, but some universities would say there only 4, 3, 2, 1." That is because different universities have a different ways of counting Nobel laureates.Yes, that's the problem. Why are we not using their methods? Why are we using a different method that is not used by the sources?
there is no room for subjective criteriaas if the choice of criteria is not itself subjective. What makes including alumni, as we do, any less subjective than only including long-term staff, as Harvard does? The answer is of course that it's not—neither option is any more or less subjective than the other. The problem is that we're using a method that is at odds with the methods used by the sources.
On List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, reliable sources are counting Nobel laureates!If reliable sources are counting the laureates, why do our counts differ from those sources'? Because what's actually happening is that editors are using the sources to determine whether laureates should count according to the method used by this list (which is different from the methods used by the sources) and then tallying them to arrive at the number of laureates for each university. That's WP:Original research.I'll quote PresN from their closing comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania/archive1 (which was just delisted):
the entire subject is questionable. "Associated with" is suspect, as UPenn had nothing to do with the prize itself, and in most cases nothing to do with the research beyond being somewhere that the researcher once went to school. It's an arbitrary slicing of the data to give unearned prestige to a school.Those concerns apply equally well here. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
In our list, we are simply explaining the "academic affiliations", the common sense of academia, to the public in an unbiased way. But you misunderstood it as some criteria invented by us.It doesn't matter if it was invented by you or not, what matters is that you're applying it in a new context where it has not been applied by reliable sources, thus producing novel content. The problem is that the content is novel. The reason the content is novel is that you're doing something the sources don't: you're listing Nobel laureates in a way that the sources aren't. You're presupposing that a list like this—which looks at Nobel laureates and their university affiliation by this exact definition—should exist. Where is the evidence that this list should exist? In other words, where are the sources that keep lists like this (not similar to this, like this)? XOR'easter got it precisely right when they said
Taking a definition used for one purpose and deciding that it's the right definition to use for another is WP:SYNTH.For that matter, you say that this is
the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliations"and
common sense of academia, but where are the sources supporting this? I put it to you that this assertion is false, that these are in fact not universally accepted definitions. I'll demonstrate this by way of example: Johns Hopkins claims
29 Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkinswhereas we list 39, and Cornell claims 50
Nobel Laureates Affiliated with Cornell Universitywhereas we list 61. If it were truly universally accepted, those figures would be exact matches.@ Ber31:
you are arguing as if the official Nobel count of Harvard is the only reliable source that can be used on Wikipedia to count the Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard. No, actually. We could also use, say, the official Nobel Prize website's list. That would also give us a completely different figure than we have now, in fact an even lower figure than Harvard's own list gives. But we have to actually use a source, we can't just make it up ourselves.
Wikipedia:No original research is used to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.Correct, but incomplete. It also refers to material which can be derived from combinations of sources where that derivation has not been done by any sources. See WP:SYNTH, which says
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.. For instance: combining one source which defines "university affiliation" (though I'll note that such a source does not seem to currently be cited on the list), another source that says person X is a Nobel laureate, and a third source such as person X's curriculum vitae which mentions university Y (in some specified capacity) to reach the conclusion "person X is a Nobel laureate affiliated with university Y" which is not stated by any of the sources. If you had instead cited a "list of Nobel laureates affiliated with university Y" that includes person X, it would not have been a problem. Nor would it have been a problem if you had cited a "list of universities that Nobel laureate X is affiliated with" that includes university Y. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
this already refutes your own claim that by choosing a specific topic, one has to define a specific set of criteria, because we can have 100 different criteria under this same topicWhat are you talking about? If we write an article on the topic of "how universities do in actual fact claim Nobel laureates", the fact that they do it differently from each other is part of that topic. If the topic is "number of Nobel laureates per university by counting method X", then changing the criteria from counting method X to counting method Y is writing about a different albeit similar topic.
We do not claim laureates for the universities, ok?So you say, but that's untrue. We very explicitly do. We rank them by the number of laureates, for crying out loud! Who are you trying to kid?
This is like the birthplaces data of Nobel laureates, or age data of Nobel laureates.Even if that were true, you would have to demonstrate that this is something that WP:Reliable sources actually do, that we're not writing about some novel topic. The sources you link to don't actually support this topic. this one writes about how many Nobel laureates "were educated and received their highest academic degrees" at each university and later, about "the universities credited with Nobel Prizes". This one doesn't write about which universities the Nobel laureates are affiliated with at all, though it does discuss some biographical details. This one, after briefly discussing this very Wikipedia list, counts "both the current affiliations and the universities from which recipients received their advanced degrees". And this one writes about Nobel laureates publication records and says about affiliation that
“Affiliation” refers to the Nobel laureate’s affiliation while publishing the paper(which is, you know, a different topic than all their affiliations ever). You are blatantly misrepresenting what the topics of these sources actually is.
academic affiliations are universally definedSo you keep saying, but you don't back it up with sources. The definition for "academic affiliation" is entirely unsourced on the article. I'm saying that if it were true that academic affiliation is universally defined with certain critera, lists that say "these are the Nobel laureates affiliated with university X" would also use the same criteria as this list, but they don't (as evidenced by the fact that they come up with different figures).
You keep saying that we are writing for the former topic of how universities claim Nobel laureatesNo, I'm saying that we're writing about our own, novel way to do it. Which we are. TompaDompa ( talk) 07:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I've pointed out that a list of things by category is not listing these things one by one followed by a category name, but listing categories one by one followed by the things contained in each of these categories. You keep saying that we need to have an entry for Marie Curie or someone in this list.That's not actually what I said, and I don't know where you got that from. What I said was that if the purpose of the list had been to provide information about the laureates, the entries would have been laureates. And conversely, if the purpose of the list is to provide information about the universities, the entries would be universities (which they are). In other words: if you want to provide information about a laureate, you keep all the information about that laureate in one place (whereas the information about each university gets spread out across multiple laureates), but if you want to provide information about a university, you keep all the information about that university in one place (whereas the information about each laureate gets spread out across multiple universities). See what I mean?You're missing my point about e.g. Johns Hopkins and Cornell coming up with different figures than we do. The point is not that their figures are different per se. The point is that they explicitly say that these are people affiliated with them, but somehow their list of who is affiliated with them is different from ours. The sources are not using affiliation to mean the exact same thing we are. If their interpretation of affiliation were the same as ours, their lists would match ours. They interpret affiliation slightly differently. They use a different definition of affiliation. That wouldn't be possible if, as you claim, affiliation were universally defined exactly the way you define it.
I've repeatedly said our list represents universal facts and common senseWhich is to say that you've asserted it without any evidence. And I'm dismissing it for (A) lack of evidence and (B) evidence to the contrary.
You seem to live in a world that when you see 5 people, you don't want to say it unless an external source tells you it's 5 people.I don't know where you got that idea. If you have a list with 5 entries, you can say that it has 5 entries.
A set of criteria is defined for a particular purpose. [...]I honestly can't tell what point you're trying to make here. "Academic affiliation" is not a fundamental property of the universe. It's a human construct. It's defined by humans. The definition sets out criteria. Those criteria constitute the definition. The definition in the WP:LEAD is more than a paragraph long and it's full of criteria. What counts as an academic affiliation and what does not is a set of criteria—
all employment-based visiting positions, which carry teaching or research duties, are included as affiliations in the listis an inclusion criterion for the list, for instance. You say that we're "simply explaining" the concept of academic affiliations as if it were some fundamental property of the universe, but again, it's not. It's a human construct that exists as a collective term for a group of other human constructs.
I gave you examples to show you that the academic biographical data are of great value and interest, and I did not say the sources I gave you are exactly the same as our list. They are dozens of other sources such as [...] that share our purpose.Now you're just equivocating—"Those things are academic biographical data, and these things are academic biographical data, so if those things are of great value and interest, then these things are of great value and interest." It doesn't work like that, and you know it. You wouldn't accept an equivalent argument about something different.I want you to understand that I'm not saying that this article has to be deleted, necessarily. It's actually possible to construct a valid list with this title: a list of Nobel laureates by their university affiliation at the time they received the Nobel Prize. That list would not be novel, because sources do actually list Nobel laureates that particular way. But it would not be a different version of this list, it would be a fundamentally different list altogether. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
we are using universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation", instead of Cambridge's definition? You can't have it both ways; that's not what "universal" means. The Cambridge list is nice inasmuch as it clearly outlines their criteria:
Our list includes: alumni; academics who carried out research at the University in postdoctoral or faculty positions; and official appointments (visiting fellowships, lectureships, etc). We have not included informal positions, non-academic positions and honorary positions. We have omitted several Laureates where there is insufficient information available to confirm their connection with the University. That's not the same thing as we're saying (for one thing, our division into three categories—alumni, long-term staff, and short-term staff—is not used by them). Also, Cambridge explicitly says "Affiliates of University of Cambridge have received more Nobel Prizes than those of any other institution" whereas we list Harvard as having a significantly higher number, so clearly something is amiss here.You say that
The official counts of Cornell, Harvard and Johns Hopkins are different from List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation because they use subjective criteria for counting their Nobel affiliates. They use the same definition of academic affiliation as we do, but they use different criteria while counting Nobel affiliates in their official lists., but where are you getting that from? You're certainly not getting it from the sources. Johns Hopkins and Cornell don't say that they're using some subjective criteria, they say that they're listing
Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkinsand
Nobel Laureates Affiliated with Cornell University, respectively. They say that they're listing the ones that are affiliated with them, and you're basically accusing them of lying.
This list is the best that editors can create and maintain on Wikipedia.Maybe, but if that means we aren't following the sources, then we shouldn't have it. TompaDompa ( talk) 06:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
29 Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins). They don't say (for instance) "29 Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins, not counting short-term staff". Cornell likewise claims 50 Nobel laureates affiliated with them (
Nobel Laureates Affiliated with Cornell University) and they explicitly define this:
Fifty Nobel Prize winners have been affiliated with Cornell University as alumni or faculty members. Cambridge claims that
Affiliates of University of Cambridge have received more Nobel Prizes than those of any other institution.By our definition that's not true—Harvard would be number one—so that means that Cambridge is either wrong, lying, or using a different definition of affiliation. This is not consistent with a universal definition of affiliation being applied.Those links you provided as evidence ( [63], [64], and [65]) say nothing about affiliation or affiliates—the category is called "people". The first one even includes
Admin/Tech Staffamong the
People, whereas we explicitly exclude administrative staff. TompaDompa ( talk) 10:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Played 5 minutes of a game of professional football about 4.5 years ago, which is only a very weak presumption of passing WP:GNG, especially considering that the game itself was an inconsequential end-of-season fixture, where clubs often throw on kids as if it's a friendly match. A search of Greek sources only comes up with weak coverage like a video of a goal scored in a friendly match and a routine announcement of serving a suspension for accumulating too many yellow cards in the Cypriot Third Division. As with Agapios Agapiou et al, this type of coverage is often considered insufficient.
That being said, I appreciate the article creator's efforts to improve coverage of footballers from countries where there are a lack of articles, just, in my view, this footballer doesn't seem to pass GNG currently. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a similar case to Jodie Bain, Ebony Weidenbach and perhaps most of all Deanna Niceski (due to the only coverage basically being about her career outside football).
I can't find any clear evidence of a WP:GNG pass for Groenewald, unfortunately. An Australian source search yielded only very brief mentions in match reports, stats databases and pages about her subsequent career as a pilates teacher. The pilates coverage is written by her or by organisations connected with her so do not count as independent coverage and therefore doesn't confer any notability. ProQuest has nothing of note and Google News has nothing at all. Out of the two sources currently cited, the Canberra Times one seems to be permanently dead, however, the title indicates that it's a match report while the FourFourTwo source is clearly only a trivial mention.
It's quite clear that this is a WP:BLP of someone who isn't in the public eye. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was moved to Draft-space under Draft:Super League XXVII Regular Season Table. ( non-admin closure) -- MuZemike 11:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet with WP:GNG guideline. || Orbit Wharf 💬 09:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to J.P. Morgan in the United Kingdom#Retail banking. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable. Doesn't meet with WP:COM and WP:GNG guideline. || Orbit Wharf 💬 09:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I can't find any clear evidence that this meets WP:NWEB. The group definitely exists but the only evidence of existence is its own pages on Wiki and Fandom sites. It doesn't appear that any independent WP:RS have taken notice yet so at best this looks to be WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY (single appearance in a non-fully professional league) and WP:BASIC (couldn't find significant coverage in my search on Google) so far as I can see. Unless someone can find sources that I can't see and show that he passes BASIC, Bircan is not notable. Java Hurricane 07:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
An unnecessary essay-like article, very much a tour guide, likely WP:OR. The museums have their own articles, or individual articles can be created where they do not. See WP:NOTGUIDE. This has been moved to draft once already. Unilaterally moving it back would be move warring, so I have brought it here for discussion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet with WP:GNG. And I've some doubt in WP:NPLACE. Because there is said that Attractions and landmarks often survive AfD. Here often means almost time. But I don’t know whether the often applies to it. || Orbit Wharf 💬 06:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Binturong32( talk) Hi its been a week since marked for deletion. Doesn't it normally expire after that? Binturong32 ( talk) 07:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was deleted as G7. Geschichte ( talk) 07:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT guideline. || Orbit Wharf 💬 05:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. My WP:BEFORE efforts were lacking. Users Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11 have added sufficient SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails both WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. 1968 Whitewater was a run-of-the-mill team (6–3–1 record) playing in the NAIA -- i.e., the lowest level of college football. The article lacks any independent sourcing, and my searches failed to locate any WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG, never played in a WP:FPL. BRDude70 ( talk) 03:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Article created by user named the same as the subject and mostly written by a single-purpose IP; most info on the page is completely without a source. The given references are just two book database/purchasing sites and a blogpost written by the
Berlicum library, nothing reliable. Meets no criteria of
WP:NAUTHOR as I could not find any professional reviews of any of the mentioned works in English or Dutch (though it is entirely possible I missed something in Dutch) or anything about the author specifically. All of the Authority control entries have zero or very little info. I even went searching on the things mentioned on the Wikidata entry -
this site which is used as a source for many of the statements contain no prose at all, while the "Iedereen Leest" site has no mention of her. The "Berlicum Children's Jury Award", mentioned in the article, is cited to the aforementioned blogpost (in Dutch which calls it "Berlicumse Kinderjury"), which states that the book was awarded it by six children from three primary schools
(Google Translate) -- certainly not a significant award and indeed there is essentially no other mention of "Berlicum Children's Jury Award" or "Berlicumse Kinderjury" on the internet.
eviolite
(talk)
01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WP:NAUTHORand the citations are weak. Created by user named User:Mary van der Valk. The article has been tagged for improvement since 2013, with no substantial improvements made. I can't find any reliabe sources for biographical information on this author. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
A run-of-the-mill, newly-opened hotel of no significant distinction or notoriety. Mangoe ( talk) 01:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 06:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGSIG and WP:NORG The Banner talk 08:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
"SAS works among the masses to transform unjust structures of society and to build harmonious communities of diverse peoples, religions, languages and cultures helping them to satisfy their basic human needs."Perhaps not surprising, as most of it is sourced to this 12-page paper, pp. 17—28, which is also written like an advertisement and is part of a collection with the subtitle "Marketing to promote local breeds and improve livelihoods". Note in the preliminary matter of this collection that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, as well as several other prestigious organizations involved, distance themselves from any responsibility for the opinions in the individual papers, and from any mention of specific companies or products. "The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of FAO, LPP or IUCN" (p. 4). So the mention in the footnote of the Food and Agriculture Organization as publisher, while true and surely offered in good faith, could be a little misleading. Bishonen | tålk 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC).
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (events), no sources are found for it. Pahlevun ( talk) 19:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable sports event. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NBASIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NACTOR, and WP:ANYBIO. There's also an apparent COI in the creation of the page; the photograph provided of the individual on the page is a high-resolution shirtless photograph (which appears to be a self-portrait) that is marked as the page creator's "own work". Furthermore, this page has been previously deleted and subsequently recreated by the same editor who created the initial version. Beyond a delete, I'd recommend that the page be salted so as to prevent future re-creation. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable session musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO on all counts, and WP:COMPOSER. The best references towards WP:GNG are the two on Stuff.co.NZ though both heavily quote him and have little or any WP:SECONDARY coverage so I would say fail GNG too.The author is an WP:SPA, having only made formatting and grammar changes to other articles. They moved the draft to mainspace themselves bypassing AfC, and removed my PROD. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 16:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail to have significant coverage required for WP:NCORP. I've searched up the charter airline on google news and have been unable to find non-churn significant coverage, though I have found a good bit of coverage relating to a U.S.-based design firm with the same name. The article itself has no references and contains a single external link to the company's website. Given this, I believe that the 5-plane Austrian airliner is unlikely to be notable. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete unable to find any significant coverage. This is my opinion. Thanks. Billyatthewheels ( talk) 19:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, in line with WP:NFO#1? I'm also not sure that the CineMagazine review is
full-length—it's three paragraphs and under 375 words—nor that Bart Rietvink is a nationally known critic. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
full-length, nor that their authors are
nationally known critics, which is important here. And, as shown in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hideout_in_the_Sun, Rotten Tomatoes occasionally aggregates reviews for the wrong movie. Sources are required to be WP:PUBLISHED, and
an archived copy of the media must existfor media to be considered to be published. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
[i]f a specific review is considered for inclusion, always ensure that it is a reliable source.And, I don't think Ode+Joy was saying that only Oscar-level materials are worthy of Wikipedia, hence Ode+Joy's writing
or. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This list article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of popes. All relevant age information is already given on the List of Popes page so it seems unnecessary to have a separate article for this. As it stands, the list is barely sourced and full of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA lists and does not even contain a full list of Popes and their age. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 22:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
A spot apparently in a larger locale with two campgrounds of the same name nearby (one forest service, the other private) and a mine, which may or may not be associated with our subject. All of this tends to clog searching. I did find one passing reference to it as a settlement but nothing of any substance, so I'm going to say it fails WP:GNG. Mangoe ( talk) 21:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The article is almost entirely sourced to primary sources, either the subject himself, or institutions that he works for or with. There are almost no independent secondary sources tht discuss the subject. The WP:GNG is not met, nor is WP:NACADEMIC; there is no indication that the subject's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Vexations ( talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Subject doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL as hasn't played or managed in a senior international match or a match between two teams from fully professional leagues. As for WP:GNG, there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources, per a quick search. Mattythewhite ( talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 17:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
This author does not appear to meet notability requirements for an author. Authors must show significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. This author did publish a book, but the sources are mostly her own website and Kirkus reviews, the latter of which are a baseline industry standard and do not reflect significant coverage. Interviews listed in the references cannot be accessed when I clicked, and the only major review I could find online appears to be a user-submitted review, here. In my view, the article itself does not appear to follow MOS guidelines and is promotional and unencyclopedic in style, which could be fixed, but that would require reliable, independent sources, which are hard to come by. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 20:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. New information has been brought to this, and some editors have made strong points. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 22:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete ( WP:SNOW). Geschichte ( talk) 07:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Bringing this to AfD after discussion at WP:COIN. Badly PoV article, written by CoI/PAID editors and cited (albeit with no footnotes) to sources published by the organisation which it promotes. The subject appears to be a neologism, promoted by the founder of that organisation; the organisation is a publisher which appears on the updated Beall's list (of "predatory open-access publishers"; see [6]).
If we need an article on this subject; this is not it, and WP:TNT should apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to divorce its notability from the primary inclusion criteria for films. As always, we do not necessarily want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every future film that enters the production pipeline -- with rare exceptions for films that garner a lot of coverage during the production process (e.g. Star Wars or Marvel films), we're normally only interested in films that have actually been released, and can show notability factors like having been reviewed by professional film critics and/or winning or being nominated for major film awards. But the release date here is still TBA, and the sourcing consists of two unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all and two very short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to deem this as having already cleared the bar. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film has been released and clears the notability bar accordingly, but nothing here is enough to deem this film already notable today. Bearcat ( talk) 19:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production."Platonk ( talk) 07:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep – there's consensus that the sources on he-wiki are sufficient to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable person. No SIGCOV besides the notice of her appointment and press announcements about a prison outbreak. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Seems like an UPE. Ramaswar (discuss) 16:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not an UPE and I ( Ricecakes55) am not connected to this company is any way. I do agree that additional information would help this article. 10:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricecakes55 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Princess of Ara 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. After two relists and no indication of further sourcing, I think there is a reasonable consensus to delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe the topic of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Standard Google searches didn't show any non-trivial or independent news coverage. The only nominally substantial coverage was in allinlondon.co.uk (doesn't seem like a reliable source) but that article is promotional and was duplicated on the company's LinkedIn page. The only other significant news mention I saw was a single paragraph on this Insider list. Zetana ( talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The sources (I've removed them all) were either not WP:RS or made no mention of a Chanda dynasty. Nothing shows up on Google either. (Note that there is a "Chandra dynasty" in a different region of India.) RegentsPark ( comment) 14:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kevin Pollak#Podcasting. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. Cannot find any reliable, non-promotional and non-self generated sources on this podcast. Kevin Pollak is notable, but the notability is not inherited by the podcast. None of the claims of notability in this article can be verified. If anyone can find reliable sources, I would be happy to see them. Rogermx ( talk) 02:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hamate bone. I'll add the hatnote as requested. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 14:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
There was WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) (2020) that the vast majority of specific epithets do not belong on DAB pages. This page consists of two such and one valid entry. Redirect to Hamate bone as {{ R from alternative name}}. Narky Blert ( talk) 14:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
If it is a synonym, on its own, please will someone add it to the article with a WP:RS.It is, and I have. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
{{redirect|Hamatum|its use in taxonomy|List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names#H{{!}}List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names}}
ie The result was delete. The redirect Draft:Achilleas Salamouras is also deleted as dependent on a deleted page, if more sources become available then anyone who wants a copy of the article to be restored to draft space can ask at WP:REFUND or on my usertalk. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Contested draftify. Draft:Achilleas Salamouras should be kept regardless of whether this one is deleted or not. Salamouras hasn't made his debut in a WP:FPL yet so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The creator has added some new sources but none of them are detailed enough; one is a profile page from PAOK's website, one is just a picture and the final one is just a sentence about him. A Greek language search comes up with multiple squad lists for PAOK B, some of which contain a sentence or two about him and briefly mention the loan moves to Volos and Niki Volos and the fact that he is a student, none of which meets WP:GNG in my view. Aside from that, I found one small transfer announcement.
We do sometimes keep articles on youth footballers that haven't made their debut in exceptional circumstances where the coverage is extremely strong and from multiple WP:RS websites. I'm not convinced that this is one of those extremely rare cases. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Interlude (1957 film). Eddie891 Talk Work 12:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The B-side of a single which charted at Billboard #73 ("Around the World In 80 Days"; we have no article; see The McGuire Sisters), sourced only to IMDb (non- WP:RS). Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Retarget to Interlude (1957 film), the film in whose soundtrack it first appeared. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Technically would qualify for a speedy keep under WP:SK#1 per the nom's subsequent comment supporting keeping the article but it's been 14 days anyways. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The single cited source contains no significant coverage of the subject, nor can I find any online. The article itself doesn't seem to contain any credible claims of notability. Lennart97 ( talk) 10:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. By a headcount, the outcome would be keep or no consensus, but we don't go by headcounts at AfD. We weigh arguments in the light of applicable policies or guidelines.
If, as here, deletion is requested because an article is alleged to fail the core policy WP:NOR, and prima facie valid arguments are made to that effect, then "keep" arguments must directly address and attempt to refute these arguments for deletion in order to be given weight in the closure. But in this AfD, very few "keep" arguments did so. Most defended the article on grounds of notability, but because non-notability is not the reason for which deletion is requested, these arguments are beside the point and are not given weight here. We don't keep original research even if it is original research about a notable topic. For the same reasons, the other "keep" opinions that do not address the WP:NOR problem must also be discounted.
For the most part, only two people attempted to refute the NOR arguments - Minimumbias and Ber31. Because reasonable people can disagree on WP:SYNTH questions, it is not for me to say whose arguments are stronger in this regard (even if I wanted to, I couldn't reliably do so because of the walls of text). But what I can say is that among the editors who addressed the reason for deletion, those supporting "keep" are greatly in the minority.
Accordingly, policy-based rough consensus is to delete the articles in their current state. They can be recreated if this can be done in a non-OR manner. Sandstein 21:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Textbook example of a trivial cross-categorisation of two entirely unrelated characteristics (which university one went/worked/... at vs. won Nobel prize). Also, and I must give credit to
OCNative on this one, This page begins with a list of tables with no refs. Then it goes into a whole bunch of subsections about the universities and then almost every university listed there's a note that the university's official count is lower than the article's count. Each university's table has a notes section where there is an explanation of why a particular university's affiliate is excluded from the list. This list seems to be heavy on WP:SYNTH if not outright Wikipedia:No original research. Strangely, the article also links Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
So fails both
WP:NOT and
WP:OR...
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
own value[s], motivation and understanding. Pages that have existed for a long time do get nominated for deletion upon occasion; the encyclopedia is a big place, and things can happen in corners of it without getting noticed by a wider circle of editors. There's no malice involved, just different perspectives. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Further explanationsis a collection of arbitrary choices. (Plenty of research happens over the summer, not least because the undergraduates are out of the way.) Taking the standards that Cambridge uses to make themselves look good and applying them to other institutions is synthesis. Strangely, the text itself makes reference to
Wikipedia policies on no original research and objectivity/neutrality, but without understanding what those policies mean. It's just as much OR to say that one type of position counts as much as another as it is to say they count differently. The entire page is an attempt to use MediaWiki for something the software was not designed to do — this calls out for a database if anything ever did. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Auditing students and exchange students are not included for similar reason. They are not officially enrolled. This is fact, not made up by us.Even accepting that fact as established, the list is still making a decision on top of it. Why draw the dividing line at "officially enrolled"? Why does getting a publication out of a summer project override the lack of official enrollment? None of that is Wikipedia's judgment call to make. The underlying facts aren't in dispute; using them to arrive at a decision is. Prior discussions at the Talk page don't override that basic concern. It's like arguing about whether the Saturday morning Star Trek cartoon is canon: you can put as much energy as you want into whether the line should be drawn here or there, but Wikipedia isn't the place to be drawing the line at all. XOR'easter ( talk) 08:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The page List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation doesn't claim that a CV is a reliable source.Yes, it does; the WP:LEAD says
reliable sources such as their curriculum vitae. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
the universities, research institutions or companies Nobel Prize laureates were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement. That way, the figure for Caltech would for instance be 20 laureates rather than 78, and Einstein would not be among them.I don't know that this is salvageable, frankly. It's plain to see that a lot of effort went into constructing this list, but it doesn't seem to be compliant with our WP:Core content policies and it's not self-evident to me that it can be made compliant with them. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, of course, but I'm leaning heavily towards this needing to be deleted. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
We are only stating facts., and Minimumbias said something similar previously, but you don't seem to appreciate what I was trying to get at in my second paragraph above: there is an active choice going into deciding which facts to present and how (which is a point XOR'easter has also made previously in the discussion). That's not only stating facts.I'll demonstrate with an example: If I were to say "I joined Wikipedia before you and Minimumbias and have made more edits than the two of you combined", I'm sure you would agree that while that would be stating facts, it wouldn't be only stating facts. The selection of facts we choose to present reflects a belief that those are the relevant facts (and for the record, tenure on Wikipedia and number of edits are not relevant here).I know that the list the official Nobel Prize website has is very different from this one, but that's actually my point: they have chosen to maintain and present a list like that, not a list like this. The differences you note reflect their assessment that (1) university affiliation is not relevant for the Literature and Peace Prizes and (2) only the affiliation at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement is relevant, not affiliations earlier or later in the laureate's career.Now I want to be clear: The problem is not that there has been an active choice – that's unavoidable. The problem is that we are not supposed to be the ones making that active choice, WP:Reliable sources are. We are supposed to follow the sources, and that means using their criteria, not ours. Of course, that assumes that there actually are some generally-accepted criteria we can use. TompaDompa ( talk) 09:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Different universities adopt different criteria—from generous to conservative—for claiming Nobel affiliates(to quote the WP:LEAD of the article directly).
This list looks at the intersection [...]to
[...] criteria decided upon by Wikipedia editors through discussion on the talk page., or do you think I got it wrong somehow?You are correct in assuming that I want to contribute meaningfully with regards to this list, but that doesn't necessarily mean adding to it. If I understand our respective positions correctly, you see the way the criteria were chosen through discussion and compromises as a good thing, reflecting thorough consensus-building. I, on the other hand, see it as compounding WP:Original research. Whether the criteria are robust is beside the point. Whether we think the criteria make sense is beside the point. What matters is what criteria WP:Reliable sources use. WP:No original research does not only apply to the application of the criteria, but also to the selection of the criteria. If there is a set of criteria that is generally used by WP:Reliable sources, that's the set of criteria we should use whether we agree that it's the best one or not. If there is no such set of criteria, we mustn't make one up for ourselves. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliations"in this context. That's the problem. We're taking a different approach. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Do the criteria used on this article reflect the consensus among WP:Reliable sources about which set of criteria to use?is no. Listing Nobel laureates by academic affiliation is actively choosing a set of criteria to use. We could, for instance, have only included alumni and called the list " List of Nobel laureates by alma mater" instead. That would also have been actively choosing a set of criteria. It would have been a different set of criteria, but it would have been neither more nor less "neutral" or "subjective". So the question is: Is there a consensus among WP:Reliable sources to list Nobel laureates by university affiliation defined this particular way, as opposed to listing them by a modification of this definition of "university affiliation" or by some other parameter such as alma mater? And from what you're telling me, the answer is no – there is not a consensus among WP:Reliable sources that this is how to list Nobel laureates. You're applying the concept of "university affiliation" (defined this particular way) in a context where reliable sources apparently do not. That's the problem. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
plainly stating the academic affiliations of the Nobel laureatesis listing a (well-defined) set of individuals by a parameter you have chosen (university affiliation). And here's the thing: if nobody else has done that before (because they have used some slight variation of the parameter you're using, in this case), you're producing novel content. It would be the same thing if you were listing them by handedness or which day of the week they were born ( List of Nobel laureates born on a Wednesday and so on). Do WP:Reliable sources list Nobel laureates by university affiliation (defined this particular way)? For the examples of lists by parameters you gave, the corresponding question (i.e. "Do WP:Reliable sources list 100-meter dashes by shortest time?") can be answered in the affirmative. Do you see the difference? Don't get hung up on subjectivity or the lack thereof—focus on novelty.Now let's take the criteria perspective. Assuming for the sake of argument that these are indeed the correct set of criteria for defining university affiliation, you're extrapolating from this being the appropriate set of criteria to use in one context (university affiliation) to it also being the appropriate set of criteria to use in another context (assigning Nobel laureates to universities or vice versa, however you want to look at it). That extrapolation is done in spite of WP:Reliable sources not using this set of criteria in the latter context, as you yourself have noted.
Finding a consensus in sources to count Nobel laureates in a particular way (with some agreed selected criteria) is not reality, at least for now, because different universities may do it differently.That's precisely my point. There is no consensus among WP:Reliable sources about how to list Nobel laureates by university. The very scope of this list lacks consensus external to Wikipedia that it is in fact a meaningful scope. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The bottom line is, you have to prove that we actually selected certain "criteria" by simply stating "academic affiliations", which I have repeatedly said to contain no criteria, but universally defined concepts."University affiliation", for the purposes of this list, is defined as belonging to one of three categories: alumni (graduates and attendees), long-term staff, or short-term staff. Those are the criteria for counting as having an academic affiliation to the university. The criteria for belonging to each of those categories are further outlined in the WP:LEAD:
Graduates are defined as those who hold Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorate or equivalent degrees from a university, while attendees are those who formally enrolled in degree programs at a university but did not complete the programs; thus, honorary degrees, posthumous degrees, summer attendees, exchange students and auditing students are excluded. The category of "Long-term academic staff" consists of tenure or tenure-track and equivalent academic positions, while that of "Short-term academic staff" consists of lecturers (without tenure), postdoctoral researchers, visiting professors or scholars (visitors), and equivalent academic positions.This is a set of criteria. That you refer to them with a collective term—university/academic affiliation—does not change that. Whether they are universally accepted as the criteria to use for defining that collective term also doesn't really matter—they are still a set of criteria. And the thing is, they are evidently not universally accepted as such, by your own admission:
However, cutting off certain affiliations, assigning different weights to different academic affiliations, or any other types of subjective criteria, is a practice of counting adopted by certain universities themselves, not us. In a word, if there are 5 people affiliated, what we are doing is saying there are 5 people affiliated, but some universities would say there only 4, 3, 2, 1.What you're saying is, essentially, that they're doing it wrong while we're doing it right. That's your assessment. But we don't go by your assessment of how it should be done, or by mine, or by any other editor's – we go by how WP:Reliable sources do it.At the end of the day, the problem is that this is novel content. You keep saying that we're just stating facts, but if no WP:Reliable sources have stated the facts in this way, you're still producing novel content. Wikipedia is not supposed to create novel content.
We are not counting Nobel laureates.That's flat-out wrong, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The universities are listed by number of affiliated Nobel laureates. This is, really, more of a list of universities by affiliated Nobel laureates. How on Earth is that not counting? TompaDompa ( talk) 12:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
"In a word, if there are 5 people affiliated, what we are doing is saying there are 5 people affiliated, but some universities would say there only 4, 3, 2, 1." That is because different universities have a different ways of counting Nobel laureates.Yes, that's the problem. Why are we not using their methods? Why are we using a different method that is not used by the sources?
there is no room for subjective criteriaas if the choice of criteria is not itself subjective. What makes including alumni, as we do, any less subjective than only including long-term staff, as Harvard does? The answer is of course that it's not—neither option is any more or less subjective than the other. The problem is that we're using a method that is at odds with the methods used by the sources.
On List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, reliable sources are counting Nobel laureates!If reliable sources are counting the laureates, why do our counts differ from those sources'? Because what's actually happening is that editors are using the sources to determine whether laureates should count according to the method used by this list (which is different from the methods used by the sources) and then tallying them to arrive at the number of laureates for each university. That's WP:Original research.I'll quote PresN from their closing comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania/archive1 (which was just delisted):
the entire subject is questionable. "Associated with" is suspect, as UPenn had nothing to do with the prize itself, and in most cases nothing to do with the research beyond being somewhere that the researcher once went to school. It's an arbitrary slicing of the data to give unearned prestige to a school.Those concerns apply equally well here. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
In our list, we are simply explaining the "academic affiliations", the common sense of academia, to the public in an unbiased way. But you misunderstood it as some criteria invented by us.It doesn't matter if it was invented by you or not, what matters is that you're applying it in a new context where it has not been applied by reliable sources, thus producing novel content. The problem is that the content is novel. The reason the content is novel is that you're doing something the sources don't: you're listing Nobel laureates in a way that the sources aren't. You're presupposing that a list like this—which looks at Nobel laureates and their university affiliation by this exact definition—should exist. Where is the evidence that this list should exist? In other words, where are the sources that keep lists like this (not similar to this, like this)? XOR'easter got it precisely right when they said
Taking a definition used for one purpose and deciding that it's the right definition to use for another is WP:SYNTH.For that matter, you say that this is
the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliations"and
common sense of academia, but where are the sources supporting this? I put it to you that this assertion is false, that these are in fact not universally accepted definitions. I'll demonstrate this by way of example: Johns Hopkins claims
29 Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkinswhereas we list 39, and Cornell claims 50
Nobel Laureates Affiliated with Cornell Universitywhereas we list 61. If it were truly universally accepted, those figures would be exact matches.@ Ber31:
you are arguing as if the official Nobel count of Harvard is the only reliable source that can be used on Wikipedia to count the Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard. No, actually. We could also use, say, the official Nobel Prize website's list. That would also give us a completely different figure than we have now, in fact an even lower figure than Harvard's own list gives. But we have to actually use a source, we can't just make it up ourselves.
Wikipedia:No original research is used to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.Correct, but incomplete. It also refers to material which can be derived from combinations of sources where that derivation has not been done by any sources. See WP:SYNTH, which says
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.. For instance: combining one source which defines "university affiliation" (though I'll note that such a source does not seem to currently be cited on the list), another source that says person X is a Nobel laureate, and a third source such as person X's curriculum vitae which mentions university Y (in some specified capacity) to reach the conclusion "person X is a Nobel laureate affiliated with university Y" which is not stated by any of the sources. If you had instead cited a "list of Nobel laureates affiliated with university Y" that includes person X, it would not have been a problem. Nor would it have been a problem if you had cited a "list of universities that Nobel laureate X is affiliated with" that includes university Y. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
this already refutes your own claim that by choosing a specific topic, one has to define a specific set of criteria, because we can have 100 different criteria under this same topicWhat are you talking about? If we write an article on the topic of "how universities do in actual fact claim Nobel laureates", the fact that they do it differently from each other is part of that topic. If the topic is "number of Nobel laureates per university by counting method X", then changing the criteria from counting method X to counting method Y is writing about a different albeit similar topic.
We do not claim laureates for the universities, ok?So you say, but that's untrue. We very explicitly do. We rank them by the number of laureates, for crying out loud! Who are you trying to kid?
This is like the birthplaces data of Nobel laureates, or age data of Nobel laureates.Even if that were true, you would have to demonstrate that this is something that WP:Reliable sources actually do, that we're not writing about some novel topic. The sources you link to don't actually support this topic. this one writes about how many Nobel laureates "were educated and received their highest academic degrees" at each university and later, about "the universities credited with Nobel Prizes". This one doesn't write about which universities the Nobel laureates are affiliated with at all, though it does discuss some biographical details. This one, after briefly discussing this very Wikipedia list, counts "both the current affiliations and the universities from which recipients received their advanced degrees". And this one writes about Nobel laureates publication records and says about affiliation that
“Affiliation” refers to the Nobel laureate’s affiliation while publishing the paper(which is, you know, a different topic than all their affiliations ever). You are blatantly misrepresenting what the topics of these sources actually is.
academic affiliations are universally definedSo you keep saying, but you don't back it up with sources. The definition for "academic affiliation" is entirely unsourced on the article. I'm saying that if it were true that academic affiliation is universally defined with certain critera, lists that say "these are the Nobel laureates affiliated with university X" would also use the same criteria as this list, but they don't (as evidenced by the fact that they come up with different figures).
You keep saying that we are writing for the former topic of how universities claim Nobel laureatesNo, I'm saying that we're writing about our own, novel way to do it. Which we are. TompaDompa ( talk) 07:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I've pointed out that a list of things by category is not listing these things one by one followed by a category name, but listing categories one by one followed by the things contained in each of these categories. You keep saying that we need to have an entry for Marie Curie or someone in this list.That's not actually what I said, and I don't know where you got that from. What I said was that if the purpose of the list had been to provide information about the laureates, the entries would have been laureates. And conversely, if the purpose of the list is to provide information about the universities, the entries would be universities (which they are). In other words: if you want to provide information about a laureate, you keep all the information about that laureate in one place (whereas the information about each university gets spread out across multiple laureates), but if you want to provide information about a university, you keep all the information about that university in one place (whereas the information about each laureate gets spread out across multiple universities). See what I mean?You're missing my point about e.g. Johns Hopkins and Cornell coming up with different figures than we do. The point is not that their figures are different per se. The point is that they explicitly say that these are people affiliated with them, but somehow their list of who is affiliated with them is different from ours. The sources are not using affiliation to mean the exact same thing we are. If their interpretation of affiliation were the same as ours, their lists would match ours. They interpret affiliation slightly differently. They use a different definition of affiliation. That wouldn't be possible if, as you claim, affiliation were universally defined exactly the way you define it.
I've repeatedly said our list represents universal facts and common senseWhich is to say that you've asserted it without any evidence. And I'm dismissing it for (A) lack of evidence and (B) evidence to the contrary.
You seem to live in a world that when you see 5 people, you don't want to say it unless an external source tells you it's 5 people.I don't know where you got that idea. If you have a list with 5 entries, you can say that it has 5 entries.
A set of criteria is defined for a particular purpose. [...]I honestly can't tell what point you're trying to make here. "Academic affiliation" is not a fundamental property of the universe. It's a human construct. It's defined by humans. The definition sets out criteria. Those criteria constitute the definition. The definition in the WP:LEAD is more than a paragraph long and it's full of criteria. What counts as an academic affiliation and what does not is a set of criteria—
all employment-based visiting positions, which carry teaching or research duties, are included as affiliations in the listis an inclusion criterion for the list, for instance. You say that we're "simply explaining" the concept of academic affiliations as if it were some fundamental property of the universe, but again, it's not. It's a human construct that exists as a collective term for a group of other human constructs.
I gave you examples to show you that the academic biographical data are of great value and interest, and I did not say the sources I gave you are exactly the same as our list. They are dozens of other sources such as [...] that share our purpose.Now you're just equivocating—"Those things are academic biographical data, and these things are academic biographical data, so if those things are of great value and interest, then these things are of great value and interest." It doesn't work like that, and you know it. You wouldn't accept an equivalent argument about something different.I want you to understand that I'm not saying that this article has to be deleted, necessarily. It's actually possible to construct a valid list with this title: a list of Nobel laureates by their university affiliation at the time they received the Nobel Prize. That list would not be novel, because sources do actually list Nobel laureates that particular way. But it would not be a different version of this list, it would be a fundamentally different list altogether. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
we are using universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation", instead of Cambridge's definition? You can't have it both ways; that's not what "universal" means. The Cambridge list is nice inasmuch as it clearly outlines their criteria:
Our list includes: alumni; academics who carried out research at the University in postdoctoral or faculty positions; and official appointments (visiting fellowships, lectureships, etc). We have not included informal positions, non-academic positions and honorary positions. We have omitted several Laureates where there is insufficient information available to confirm their connection with the University. That's not the same thing as we're saying (for one thing, our division into three categories—alumni, long-term staff, and short-term staff—is not used by them). Also, Cambridge explicitly says "Affiliates of University of Cambridge have received more Nobel Prizes than those of any other institution" whereas we list Harvard as having a significantly higher number, so clearly something is amiss here.You say that
The official counts of Cornell, Harvard and Johns Hopkins are different from List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation because they use subjective criteria for counting their Nobel affiliates. They use the same definition of academic affiliation as we do, but they use different criteria while counting Nobel affiliates in their official lists., but where are you getting that from? You're certainly not getting it from the sources. Johns Hopkins and Cornell don't say that they're using some subjective criteria, they say that they're listing
Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkinsand
Nobel Laureates Affiliated with Cornell University, respectively. They say that they're listing the ones that are affiliated with them, and you're basically accusing them of lying.
This list is the best that editors can create and maintain on Wikipedia.Maybe, but if that means we aren't following the sources, then we shouldn't have it. TompaDompa ( talk) 06:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
29 Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins). They don't say (for instance) "29 Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins, not counting short-term staff". Cornell likewise claims 50 Nobel laureates affiliated with them (
Nobel Laureates Affiliated with Cornell University) and they explicitly define this:
Fifty Nobel Prize winners have been affiliated with Cornell University as alumni or faculty members. Cambridge claims that
Affiliates of University of Cambridge have received more Nobel Prizes than those of any other institution.By our definition that's not true—Harvard would be number one—so that means that Cambridge is either wrong, lying, or using a different definition of affiliation. This is not consistent with a universal definition of affiliation being applied.Those links you provided as evidence ( [63], [64], and [65]) say nothing about affiliation or affiliates—the category is called "people". The first one even includes
Admin/Tech Staffamong the
People, whereas we explicitly exclude administrative staff. TompaDompa ( talk) 10:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Played 5 minutes of a game of professional football about 4.5 years ago, which is only a very weak presumption of passing WP:GNG, especially considering that the game itself was an inconsequential end-of-season fixture, where clubs often throw on kids as if it's a friendly match. A search of Greek sources only comes up with weak coverage like a video of a goal scored in a friendly match and a routine announcement of serving a suspension for accumulating too many yellow cards in the Cypriot Third Division. As with Agapios Agapiou et al, this type of coverage is often considered insufficient.
That being said, I appreciate the article creator's efforts to improve coverage of footballers from countries where there are a lack of articles, just, in my view, this footballer doesn't seem to pass GNG currently. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a similar case to Jodie Bain, Ebony Weidenbach and perhaps most of all Deanna Niceski (due to the only coverage basically being about her career outside football).
I can't find any clear evidence of a WP:GNG pass for Groenewald, unfortunately. An Australian source search yielded only very brief mentions in match reports, stats databases and pages about her subsequent career as a pilates teacher. The pilates coverage is written by her or by organisations connected with her so do not count as independent coverage and therefore doesn't confer any notability. ProQuest has nothing of note and Google News has nothing at all. Out of the two sources currently cited, the Canberra Times one seems to be permanently dead, however, the title indicates that it's a match report while the FourFourTwo source is clearly only a trivial mention.
It's quite clear that this is a WP:BLP of someone who isn't in the public eye. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was moved to Draft-space under Draft:Super League XXVII Regular Season Table. ( non-admin closure) -- MuZemike 11:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet with WP:GNG guideline. || Orbit Wharf 💬 09:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to J.P. Morgan in the United Kingdom#Retail banking. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable. Doesn't meet with WP:COM and WP:GNG guideline. || Orbit Wharf 💬 09:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I can't find any clear evidence that this meets WP:NWEB. The group definitely exists but the only evidence of existence is its own pages on Wiki and Fandom sites. It doesn't appear that any independent WP:RS have taken notice yet so at best this looks to be WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY (single appearance in a non-fully professional league) and WP:BASIC (couldn't find significant coverage in my search on Google) so far as I can see. Unless someone can find sources that I can't see and show that he passes BASIC, Bircan is not notable. Java Hurricane 07:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
An unnecessary essay-like article, very much a tour guide, likely WP:OR. The museums have their own articles, or individual articles can be created where they do not. See WP:NOTGUIDE. This has been moved to draft once already. Unilaterally moving it back would be move warring, so I have brought it here for discussion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet with WP:GNG. And I've some doubt in WP:NPLACE. Because there is said that Attractions and landmarks often survive AfD. Here often means almost time. But I don’t know whether the often applies to it. || Orbit Wharf 💬 06:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Binturong32( talk) Hi its been a week since marked for deletion. Doesn't it normally expire after that? Binturong32 ( talk) 07:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was deleted as G7. Geschichte ( talk) 07:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT guideline. || Orbit Wharf 💬 05:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. My WP:BEFORE efforts were lacking. Users Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11 have added sufficient SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails both WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. 1968 Whitewater was a run-of-the-mill team (6–3–1 record) playing in the NAIA -- i.e., the lowest level of college football. The article lacks any independent sourcing, and my searches failed to locate any WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG, never played in a WP:FPL. BRDude70 ( talk) 03:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Article created by user named the same as the subject and mostly written by a single-purpose IP; most info on the page is completely without a source. The given references are just two book database/purchasing sites and a blogpost written by the
Berlicum library, nothing reliable. Meets no criteria of
WP:NAUTHOR as I could not find any professional reviews of any of the mentioned works in English or Dutch (though it is entirely possible I missed something in Dutch) or anything about the author specifically. All of the Authority control entries have zero or very little info. I even went searching on the things mentioned on the Wikidata entry -
this site which is used as a source for many of the statements contain no prose at all, while the "Iedereen Leest" site has no mention of her. The "Berlicum Children's Jury Award", mentioned in the article, is cited to the aforementioned blogpost (in Dutch which calls it "Berlicumse Kinderjury"), which states that the book was awarded it by six children from three primary schools
(Google Translate) -- certainly not a significant award and indeed there is essentially no other mention of "Berlicum Children's Jury Award" or "Berlicumse Kinderjury" on the internet.
eviolite
(talk)
01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WP:NAUTHORand the citations are weak. Created by user named User:Mary van der Valk. The article has been tagged for improvement since 2013, with no substantial improvements made. I can't find any reliabe sources for biographical information on this author. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
A run-of-the-mill, newly-opened hotel of no significant distinction or notoriety. Mangoe ( talk) 01:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 06:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGSIG and WP:NORG The Banner talk 08:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
"SAS works among the masses to transform unjust structures of society and to build harmonious communities of diverse peoples, religions, languages and cultures helping them to satisfy their basic human needs."Perhaps not surprising, as most of it is sourced to this 12-page paper, pp. 17—28, which is also written like an advertisement and is part of a collection with the subtitle "Marketing to promote local breeds and improve livelihoods". Note in the preliminary matter of this collection that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, as well as several other prestigious organizations involved, distance themselves from any responsibility for the opinions in the individual papers, and from any mention of specific companies or products. "The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of FAO, LPP or IUCN" (p. 4). So the mention in the footnote of the Food and Agriculture Organization as publisher, while true and surely offered in good faith, could be a little misleading. Bishonen | tålk 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC).
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (events), no sources are found for it. Pahlevun ( talk) 19:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable sports event. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)