Jump to content

User:Ruud Koot/Feed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science

[edit]

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(26 more...)

AA: Computing

[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(25 more...)

Proposed deletions

(13 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(3 more...)

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(13 more...)

Articles to be split

(24 more...)

Articles for creation

(43 more...)

AfD: Computing

[edit]

Computing

[edit]

Solex (software)

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

Product that is entirely sourced to the software developer himself. It does not pass WP:NPRODUCT and a quick WP:BEFORE doesn't indicate there's enough SIGCOV to justify this product's existence on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Astronomy, Computing, and Software. Graywalls (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable as in there isn't many third-party sources talking about the software specifically. Searching on Google shows results that only briefly mention/cite SOLEX for asteroid and comet orbit computations, but do not talk about the software itself. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 04:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Chording

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Table of metaheuristics

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

Per WP:NLIST.

Some of the items (e.g. Genetic Algorithm) indeed have notability.

Otherwise, notability the list is not shown. Are there any mentions of metaheuristic algorithms as a group other than a reason to introduce another one, or to take action on unchecked creation of such algorithms?

As metaheuristic algorithms still continue to be introduced at a pace of (conservatively) dozens per year, this list is arbitrary in nature, which is another argument for not having it.

For more context, there is an attempt to have such a listing elsewhere, also lagging behind the current state.

Another possible course of action is to clean the list up (to those algorithms with a Wiki page) and merge into the main article.

Neodiprion demoides (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

OnLogic

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

Non-notable. Written like an advertisement. Almost all of the sources are just press releases or other marketing content. drt1245 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete: Never mind the obvious failure of the GNG -- with every source being WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE, namedrops or primary -- or that this reads like a sales brochure. That the article creator, with a handful of edits scattered over fifteen years, nothing for the last three, suddenly burst into activity to not only create this but to put mentions of OnLogic into several other articles? If it quacks like COI ... Ravenswing 00:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Chaya Keller

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

Reason: WP:COI: The author, user:Neriah, is (Redacted). Please see 1, 2: 1. image author and uploader, 2. Nathan (Chaya's husband, a full professor in the Biu) - the same author and camera, a different date; image was taken at home: no Torah books at the math dept. in Biu, and (Redacted).
Neriah does not have a WP:PMR permission, but moved the article without leaving a redirect.
WP:NACADEMIC: Neriah raised criteria 1,2: Krill Prize and a solution of the Ringel's problem.
There is no secondary international source, like the CNN or The New York Times, for example.
The solution of Ringel's problem was made with additional four colleagues. There is no Wikipedia article about this problem.
Chaya Keller is an associate professor, not a professor. Loeweopta (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted). Loeweopta (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep. As Helpful Raccoon has pointed out, international sources are not required to prove notability, and an alleged COI is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I'm unsure of whether the subject passes WP:NPROF, but I think she probably does pass WP:GNG on the basis of coverage like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Her team's solution to Ringel's problem also got some press coverage, such as this article in Haaretz [8]. Maths isn't my area and I'm not too familiar with the sources that covered her so I'm very open to changing my mind here, but my sense is that her publications and awards aren't quite significant enough to meet WP:NPROF, but that the other coverage is probably enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

NEWP

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. This was dePRODed without sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show how the subject meets WP: GNG -- do not use buzzwords like "influential" and "significant" without giving sources to back up your claims. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know who this Mr HyperAccelerated (MR HA) is, it seems they have nothing to there name on WP apart from this deletion notification. Thus MR HA is posting this under the guise of anonymity, which gives it less credence.
I thus suspect industry shenanigans. While the reason given (WP:GNG) is there is little findable online material apart from at Unisys (a full manual available), that is only a weak test, and certainly DOES NOT apply here.
Let's use this test: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."
Yes, NEWP has a reliable source at Unisys. Secondly this article has been worked on by multiple people for nearly 20 years. This article is also referenced from other WP articles, so is one of a related collection of articles. While NEWP is a specialist area, it is significant in the context of those other articles for which there are plenty of external material since the B5000 and descendants are very significant machines in this industry.
It may be that Mr HA has no familiarity with this subject so it might seem irrelevant to him, or that Mr HA has some industry axe to grind or works for some competitive concern. I find the whole 'flag for deletion' suggestion here nonsense in one way or another. Ian.joyner (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
This is (roughly) a crosspost of a discussion this user opened on the article's Talk page (see here). Unisys is the company that made this language, so their manuals can't be used to establish notability. I won't say too much about the WP: ADHOMs that attempt to attack my credibility, other than that if this user seriously believes that I have a conflict of interest, the proper venue to litigate that discussion is at WP: COIN, not here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
As I have already said, questioning your credibility, where you have come from, or your motives to launch this attack on a perfectly legitimate article is not actually ad hominem.
As for crossposting, WP is not at all clear as to where to respond to this scurrilous deletion request that seems to come from nowhere.
I'm not a WP lawyer (as you seem to be), I just edit and make positive contributions, not a negative attempt to delete the work of others who have given their time to provide this legitimate information. Ian.joyner (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether there is sufficient sourcing to make an article about NEWP. This is not Wikilawyering; this is how AfDs work. If you’re here to air personal grievances or vendettas, I have no business with you. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for that reply. It proves that you have come here to air your own personal grievances or vendettas. You are spinning on to me what you are indulging in. That is why I questioned the motives behind this move to delete a perfectly relevant article and sub article to other articles, saving them from being too long.
If anyone should have grievances towards Burroughs/Unisys, it should be me for the way I was treated by career-furthering management. But I put that history behind me, because it is good and RELEVANT technology, especially showing how structured programming can be used at all levels with no assembler.
I'm suggesting that Wikipedia have a very good look into the motives behind the suggestion to delete NEWP. Since I can't find any other activity from this nameless and anonymous person, that calls further into consideration the motives. Ian.joyner (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Delete: There seems to be absolutely no source that satisfy GNG—none that are Secondary-ly published by reliable sources, thus we need not even evaluate whether it only has trivial coverage. GNG is not a "weak test" at all. It is the standard for whether an article can be included, otherwise articles have a strong likelihood to be biased (due to only using WP:Primary sources, as we define the term) or false.
I'm surprised that Help:My article got nominated for deletion! doesn't mention the Secondary aspect yet, and I've now added a mention. In any case, one should take note of the notice on the top of that page stating it is not a policy or guideline—but merely a summary—and Wikipedia:Notability's status as a guideline. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Hello Aaron. Yes WP:GNG is a weak test. It is only a symptom to show possibly irrelevant articles. However, this test does not apply to NEWP. Let's rather apply the test of relevance, that this article has been worked on by several people, it is a sub article to other WP articles.
NEWP is the OS language used by a very significant vendor that has had profound effect on this industry showing that all system software can be written in structured languages.
NEWP in fact sets the standard for that. It seems that Rust has copied the idea of having unsafe regions. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
It would be a great mistake and do the industry and WP a disservice to delete this article, and maybe other articles that fail one test. Not everything of relevance will be referenced online. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
It is not "only a symptom" as it is a guideline that does not say it is a weak test, period. There is no test of relevance. These are not just "legal" terms or politics; these are collections of the wisdom and consensus of Wikipedia editors since 2001 on how to create quality and encyclopedic content. By refusing to read such pages, you would be going against the agreement of thousands of editors just like you—our core policy and tenet, WP:Consensus. Plus, the knowledge of this software is still up there in this company's excellent brochures; it's just that completely trusting a company's words on how amazing their product is would be a great disservice to encyclopedic reliability. Anyone can create a brochure and claim they verified it to be accurate to its subject, and it would take too much effort to manually verify every such claim. I will not be replying further if you don't address the notability of this article based on the GNG criteria. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
“It is not "only a symptom" as it is a guideline that does not say it is a weak test, period.”
Don’t be so dogmatic with “period”. Notice in the table on sources suited, the third column for “No or few suitable sources cited” says “Likely not notable”. Likely means it is not an absolute.
There are other criteria for notable. As I have noted, NEWP is the evolution of ESPOL, and the significance is that this was the language used to write the first OS exclusively in high-level syntax. It is now notable as the only OS/language requiring absolutely NO assembler. It is also notable as the first major OS that was open source. Because of ESPOL/NEWP customers could read the MCP OS source and even submit their own extensions. One such was BATS, the Burroughs Automated Tape System from New Zealand.
Other systems have inherited from that. That in itself is historically significant.
Note that under GNG, it is also said “"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.”
The cited manuals are not advertising, press releases, autobiographies, but technical manuals. This explains the decisions behind NEWP.
“in this company's excellent brochures; it's just that completely trusting a company's words on how amazing their product is would be a great disservice to encyclopedic reliability.”
NEWP is not mentioned in brochures. They do NOT hype NEWP. Removing NEWP is absolutely a disservice to encyclopaedic reliability and completeness.
The lack of wide coverage is not an absolute measure of irrelevance.
NEWP is a technically significant language.
I find the attempt to remove the NEWP article, along with ESPOL, Elliot ALGOL, ALGOL W, are all frivolous or maybe more sinister attempts to obliterate very significant bits of history, for what motive, I can’t exactly say, but it certainly does not look good. Perhaps it is at the very least that someone wants to look like they have had influence over Wikipedia, but not contributing to it in a positive way.
Removing these articles will indeed reflect poorly on the ad hoc “anyone with an inane pseudonym can be a Wikipedia editor” procedures.
“There is no test of relevance.”
You should read more carefully. I did read that significant contributions by several people to an entry counts as relevance. This article has been on WP for 20 years with notable and careful edits. It is not an article that has been placed on Wikipedia for frivolous purposes of for pushing any particular barrows, which it seems are the spirit of the guidelines.
But it seems that the suggestion to delete this and similar articles are an attempt to push a barrow. Ian.joyner (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't know what most of these Wikipedia legal terms mean. All I know is I and others come here to make a positive contribution to WP, and I don't want to get caught up in these negative political arguments.
Frankly, this is becoming the 'enshittification' of WP where bully boys win out, just like on other social media.
The rules and tests of WP should be to combat that, not to be used as an excuse for it. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Admin comment I have p-blocked Ian.joyner from this badge for bludgeoning and disruption. Star Mississippi 03:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Elliott ALGOL

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. An internet search for 'Elliot Algol' turns up half a dozen or so references (excluding Wikipedia), including a working version on an Elliott 803 computer at The National Museum of Computing. Murray Langton (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Plus, there's an entire 1966 book on it. There's an awful lot that one could write based upon that one as yet unused source alone, and huge scope for expansion here. Uncle G (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
      • Wooldridge, Roylance; Ractliffe, John Fuller (1966). An Introduction to ALGOL Programming. Applied mathematics (2nd ed.). London: English Universities Press.
    • Do either of you have sources that show the subject meets WP: GNG? I don’t care how many WP: GOOGLEHITS the subject has, and the book seems to be about ALGOL generally, not this specific implementation, for which we already have an article. Saying that there’s an entire book about it is misleading at best and outrageously false at worst. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
      • I just gave you an entire 250 page book on the subject, which you clearly have not even bothered to read any part of, since even reading just its preface (let alone, say, the title of chapter 4) tells you that it is specifically about Elliott ALGOL, noting where it differs from ALGOL60. The authors explicitly say so, as do contemporary book reviews for that matter. It is bad form to lazily not even read anything of a proffered source and then call what people who have read the book say "outrageously false". You are the one making false statements based upon zero effort whatsoever. You just earned one of my rare speedy keeps. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
        I’ve added a response below. Please remember that you need not respond to every comment you disagree with; WP: BLUDGEON is in force. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Elliott Algol was the first commercial Algol compiler, which is arguably the forerunner of 'C' and all other block structured programming languages in use today. It's highly significant in computing history. [1] Much historical information like this is known to people who were there, but pre-dates the WWW so won't be found in a Google search. Elliott itself is a very significant company in the development of commercial computing.

    Fjleonhardt (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

    • So do you have sources to show that this subject meets WP: GNG or not? No idea why you’re calling it “highly significant” when the source you’ve used to back up your claim doesn’t mention Elliott ALGOL even once. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree that Elliott Algol was the first commercial Algol compiler - I believe that the first commercial implementation of an ALGOL compiler was by Burroughs Corporation (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_Large_Systems). ALGOL was in fact a widely used language in the USA, courtesy of the widespread use of Burroughs large, medium and small systems. (I've got no reason to doubt any of the rest of the statements in this article). 60.242.32.210 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/ALGOL/
  • Delete: lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, isn't currently taught in multiple academic institutions, and lacks third-party instruction manuals for the Elliott ALGOL compiler. A comment on the sources: Lavington's book (arguably the best secondary source in this article) seems to talk about it in a broader context to the "golden years" of Elliott Brothers, and the parts of the chapter that talk about Elliott ALGOL directly are derived from Hoare's lecture. Lavington's book is therefore (in my opinion) not significant. The rest of the Google search results are just manuals written by Hoare, reports on the ALGOL 60 language or non-reliable sources. Fails WP:NSOFT. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    • In light of the sources found by Adam Sampson, I'm now leaning towards Keep, since it now appears to meet WP:NSOFT. MiasmaEternal☎ 10:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Not bothering to look at all at the aforecited 1966 book is poor form here, too. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Zero effort nomination by a lazy nominator who is not bothering to research things, nor even reading sources when proffered. Even the sources in the article at the time of nomination are not just mere mentions. The Lavington book covers Brian Randell on the subject, for example, as well as reporting what Hoare xyrself once said. Ractliffe returned to the subject in xyr later 1971 book on ALGOL. Brian A. Wichmann addressed the 4100 series compiler in xyr 1973 ALGOL book. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, generally when you throw a 250 page book at a volunteer and say “significant coverage is here, just trust me bro”, people will usually not go and read all 250 pages of the book. This truth is never a free pass to call someone “lazy” or their nomination “zero effort”. This is how life works.
    Anyway, the phrase “Elliott ALGOL” only appears three times in the book you mentioned above. For Chapter 4, I don’t even believe it appears outside of the chapter title. The other book (the one already in the article) only mentions Elliott ALGOL a few times; it talks about the broader subject of ALGOL, it talks about the Elliott brothers, but it does not address the subject directly except for a sentence or two in passing.
    Speedy keep doesn’t apply here: there is a coherent rationale. It just happens to be one that you disagree with. If this isn’t clear, I suggest reading WP: SK. Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    Have you read the contents of chapter 4 or even just 8.5.3 of the Springer book? SK3 requires you to state why the sourcing is not sufficient. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    "Zero effort nomination by a lazy nominator who is not bothering to research things, nor even reading sources when proffered."
    100% agree with that assessment. It seems that HyperAccelerated is going around nominating things for deletion that he does not know about, so they must be irrelevant and only using a single criterion of WP:GNG.
    These articles are relevant, at least to the history of the industry and influence on later development.
    From what I have seen of HyperAccelerated (whoever he or she is), this is an act of vandalism against Wikipedia and those who have expended effort to write these articles.
    It could be that HA wants to make a simplistic view of history based on their limited understanding. Ian.joyner (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge into Elliott 803.--cyclopiaspeak! 16:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    The Elliot 803 article is already long enough. Besides Elliot ALGOL was defined and developed beyond the 803. It was also an influential language beyond that machine. Ian.joyner (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources below by Adam Sampson.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was an widely-used early implementation of Algol, especially in the UK and Commonwealth, so it's discussed explicitly in contemporary books about the language. Elementary Programming and Algol (Nicol, 1965) has about 20 descriptions of Elliott-specific features throughout the book (which might be useful as a source for expanding the article). Basic Algol (Broderick and Barker, 1967) is written for the Elliott 903 version, and similarly highlights Elliott-specific features and limitations. Computers in Architectural Design (Campion, 1968) has a chapter about Elliott Algol with quite a bit of detail about how you compile programs and provide data for them in practice (again, maybe a useful source). ALGOL 60 compilation and assessment (Wichmann, 1973) has critical comments about limitations of Elliott Algol in several sections. Collected Algorithms from CACM (covering 1960-1963) gives evidence of how widely used it was, and several of the writeups describe Elliott features or problems explicitly. That's all from the first page of results on archive.org, so I expect a hunt in a university library would find more along the same lines. Adam Sampson (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. I strongly doubt the nominator's abilities to read the cited books in the five minutes after nominating ALGOL X (though I agree that ALGOL X should be removed). Aaron Liu (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the sources dug up by Adam Sampson, Uncle G et al. Reading the author blurbs for each of those books, they all seem independent from Elliott. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Executive Systems Problem Oriented Language

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This was dePRODed because someone baselessly claimed that the subject is notable. Remember that sourcing guides notability -- we do not have sources in the article to show this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Burroughs Large Systems#ESPOL and NEWP. Article is so stubby that the entirety can fit comfortably in the target article without running into WP:WEIGHT issues. DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge into, and redirect to, another related article. Burroughs Large Systems#ESPOL and NEWP is an excellent choice. Remember when sourcing, that in the 1960s and 1970s, the community using a given processor architecture was often smaller than the number of posts in many subreddits. Many interesting, even important systems were poorly or not documented in publicly available sources. ESPOL may be too small a topic for a dedicated Wikipedia article, given current article requirements, but the ESPOL material should not be deleted. Let's try to avoid another needless harmful article deletion. Jerryobject (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
    I managed to find quite a few sources (1, 2, 3, 4) that cover ESPOL in depth, including a newly written scholarly book (The Burroughs Corporation and Its Innovative Architecture, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2022) but only by searching "ESPOL" and "Burroughs" in tandem. Searching for "Executive Systems Problem Oriented Language" verbatim brings up very little. I guess the full name was too much of a mouthful for people to bother retyping? DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: I could not find the policy or guideline for "fit comfortably". However, three ESPOL Reference Manuals does fit nicely under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOTMANUAL (redirect policy to "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal") that should be a consideration upon closing. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    I could not find the policy or guideline for "fit comfortably". It's called WP:ATD-M.
    However, three ESPOL Reference Manuals does fit nicely under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOTMANUAL This isn't a manual; it contains no instructions on how to do things. This is a short encyclopedic description of a programming language that can and should be merged into the broader article of Burroughs Large Systems. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Searching for references didn't turn up very much: Organick 1973, Kurzban 1975 and Burgeron et al 1972 all have about a paragraph about it (the first two were also found by DigitalIceAce above). There are also in-depth, peer-reviewed but non-independent papers about it from Burroughs staff, and independent but non-reviewed brief mentions in several Masters/PhD theses about systems languages, but being a systems language it didn't get the kind of contemporary coverage that other Algol dialects did. It's notable enough to be worth describing, but merging into (the existing) Burroughs Large Systems#ESPOL and NEWP sounds reasonable unless more in-depth sources turn up. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete or Merge: While ESPOL was replaced by NEWP (which also should not be deleted), ESPOL was the first high-level language used to exclusively develop system software and an OS in 1961. This is a very significant event in computing. The evolution from ESPOL to NEWP is also of significant interest to people doing language and OS research and for the history. Ian.joyner (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Gate count

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

Prodded with the rationale: "WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH of unrelated topics." Deprodded with the edit summary "Tech Term Used". — Anonymous 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep: I agree that the current state of the article is pretty bad but I think we can make an article about this term. This paper from NIST discusses the effects of minimizing gate count on hardware efficiency; it appears to be used in quite a bit of quantum computing literature (see here); and this book has a couple sentences about how minimizing gate count "gives a simple estimate of the implementation cost of a reversible circuit" and minimizes "area and power consumption". I don't think this is the most notable topic in the world, but sufficient sourcing does exist. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I also removed the WP: SYNTH. That doesn't require a deletion discussion to go forward with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Alright, perhaps I'll withdraw in that case. My searching was not exhaustive, so I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that this was simply a generic technical term, which isn't something inherently notable. If it's something important and notable within computing (not exactly my area of expertise), then it should indeed be kept. — Anonymous 19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep provided the named sources are added. I agree that this looks like it should squeak by the notability threshold given this material, and it looks possible that more sources may be found later. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Chip Talk

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

Article about a radio show, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio shows. The attempted notability claim here is that it's "the longest-running computer-related broadcast program on the air", but there's no source shown to verify that, or anything else either -- the only "reference" present in the article at all is the external link to the self-published website of the show's host, but it doesn't contain any content verifying any of this either, and is instead just an archive of a handful of radio comedy clips rather than anything related to computers.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have proper WP:GNG-worthy referencing. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Cerego

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

This one may be close but appears to me to fail WP:NCORP. References from Venture Beat and The Next Web are churnalism based on the announcement of the company's launch back in 2012. There is this which appears to meet WP:ORGCRIT but everything else is routine announcements or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Intentional programming

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

This article doesn't appear to refer to an actual programming paradigm that was ever used by anyone. It seems to be a concept that was promoted by Charles Simonyi through his company Intentional Software, but that company is now defunct and I can't find any evidence that Simonyi ever gained any traction in moving this from an idea to an actual implementation that was adopted by anyone. Google reveals a couple of people criticising the idea back in the day, and marketing materials from the now-defunct company. Unless someone knows something about this that I don't, I think the best course of action would be merging relevant content from this article into Charles Simonyi and/or Intentional Software and deleting this page. -- LWG talk 20:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Not opposed to a merge or a redirect here, but most of the sourcing I can find is closely tied to Simonyi. Don't think we have enough coverage to establish notability of this particular subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Text Executive Programming Language

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP: NOTWEBHOST. We are not a website for hosting documentation, and this subject is not notable. Either of these being true is sufficient for deletion. The Knuth reference is a passing mention, and other citations appear to reference manuals for the language itself. There was a PROD more than a decade ago and the article's creator removed it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This seems mostly true but there is "Introduction to the TEX language - Part I" in the references section, which being in a magazine might not just be a reference guide. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
That reference can be found on Google Books. The author mentions that they've served as an advisor in the development of the language. It's not an independent source, and even if it is, we generally need multiple sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I wrote the TEX article. I used the language while working at the GE Telecommunications and Information Processing Operation in Schenectady NY in the 1980s. GE was a big customer of Honeywell.
TEX was a software product offering for timesharing from Honeywell that we used to test each new OS release. it came with a large body of testing code and an application support library known as Texas. Bob Bemer was a Texan, a noted computer scientist and an evangelist for Tex.
My understanding is that both TEX and AWK were created around the same time using regular expressions and line editing ideas from Multics, Unix and GCOS operating systems. The notion of extending a line editor with programmability like TEX is quite novel.
Bob Bemer gave a talk on it at the HLSUA conference showcasing a screen editor written TEX. He als wrote about it on his blog which is long gone and a three part article for Interface Age. Bitsavers has a downloadable copy of the TEX manual. The interface age magazines can be found on the Internet Archive site.
Currently, there is no implementation running other one running on some old Honeywell 6000 timesharing service somewhere in the world. The original developers are also long gone and Bob Bemer died some years ago.
It would be a shame to lose this small piece of computer history. It was the primary reason I wrote the article. Jedishrfu (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
So do you have sources that shows that this subject meets WP: GNG? I'm uninterested in hearing about anything else, and it's very disrespectful to inject paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs of your own off-topic nonsense into this discussion. Blogs, first-party manuals, and mirrors of the software do not count towards notability, and I'm not going to waste my time fishing around for some magazine for you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, Wikipedia rules and regulations are foreign to me.
All I know is this was a real Honeywell offering deserving of a page on Wikipedia. But should you decide to remove it there's little I can do except to look elsewhere to document these arcane seldom used languages.
I imagine roughly a hundred people would likely have used it based on it being offered as an extra licensing charge. The only reason GE bought it was to get the testing code as GE did customizations to the Honeywell OS prior to use on GE machines.
i deleted the content since its considered so unnotable. I'm sorry to have bothered you with such nonsense. Jedishrfu (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
"very disrespectful to inject paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs of your own off-topic nonsense" "not going to waste my time fishing around for some magazine" These comments are not only obviously rude but borderline personal attacks to boot @HyperAccelerated. Nobody here is forcing you to fish for anything. If you can't be civil with people acting in good faith, don't reply. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Nothing I wrote is intended to be interpreted as a remark about the character of any particular editor, including the person I was responding to. If you feel that it is, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Dell PowerConnect

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

Most of this article’s content is either unsourced or backed by primary sources. It also has two longstanding flags—one for an unencyclopedic how-to/instructional tone and another for insufficient sourcing. These issues highlight its failure to meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable and verifiable content. Due to the persistent lack of proper sourcing and unresolved flagged issues, I propose that the article be deleted and redirected to Dell Technologies. I am a Dell employee with a clear conflict of interest. This deletion nomination serves as an invitation for independent editors to review and provide their verdict. Thank you! JM with Dell Technologies (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – I don't like the current state of the article, but there is some verifiable content mixed in with the rest, so I'll be focusing on the notability of the topic. I see at least two independent, reliable sources with significant coverage: an article from The Register (which is generally reliable) and an article from InfoWorld (which was considered reliable in a 2023 discussion). Finally, there's an article from CNET (which was generally reliable in 2001). The CNET article has less significant coverage, but because the other two have more obviously significant coverage, it's likely enough to prove notability. The range in dates from these sources satisfies WP:NPRODUCT's sustained coverage requirement. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 06:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Fortran 95 language features

[edit]
Fortran 95 language features (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a website for hosting documentation, manuals, or essays about the features of a particular language. See WP: NOTWEBHOST and not WP: HOWTO. Talk page discussion indicates that this appears to be a mirror of another tutorial page, and thus there might be copyright issues here as well. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment: If you're here to complain because you personally feel that this content is "useful" (which everyone knows is a terrible argument that wastes valuable volunteer time, per WP: USEFUL), then we can transwiki this content to another place, such as Wikibooks, or selectively merge content to Fortran. Please remember that this AfD is not your soapbox to wax poetic about your purely subjective notion of "usefulness". It is to determine whether it violates Wikipedia policy; specifically WP: NOTWEBHOST, WP: NOTHOWTO, and Wikipedia's policy on copyrighted materials. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
    • I would argue that language features are what makes the language what it is. Especially when there are so many other languages out there. Labratscientist (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
      • You could talk about histories an all that non-stop, but for some, it is sometimes just down to the features or the support of the language that makes it unique from others. Labratscientist (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
        • There are multiple massive sections in the main Fortran article that already talk about the language's evolution. If you think that the content there is sufficient, this article isn't necessary and should be deleted. If you think that it isn't, then you've just made a great argument for merging. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge selected content, with added citations to Fortran. This is a very, very long article with only a single reference. I appreciate the work that went into it but this belongs on wikibooks or similar. BTW, while a lot of this reads more like a tutorial, we could use more detail on language features and syntax in programming articles here on Wikipedia in general! I welcome those involved in this article to improve the Fortran article. That article does not have a syntax section, is not well organized, and does not have a comprehensive overview of the language features and syntax. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
    • It has been badly written, over a period of 20 years, by many editors (at least one of whom one would think would know to cite sources — but, no, not a one) but that it has only one citation does not mean that many sources do not exist. I picked the "INQUIRE statement" from the bottom of the article to see what reference books come up covering just that. Before I ran out of steam, there being much more than what I cite here, I got:
      • "Other FORTRAN I/O statements". FORTRAN in MTS. MTS, the Michigan Terminal System. Vol. 6. University of Michigan Computing Center. October 1983. p. 356.
      • "INQUIRE". XL Fortran for AIX Language Reference (Version 4 Release 1 ed.). International Business Machines Corporation. 1996. pp. 311–316.
      • Carnahan, Brice; Wilkes, James O. (1989). "Additional input and output features". FORTRAN 77 with MTS and the IBM PS/2. College of Engineering, University of Michigan. p. 8—23.
      • Redwine, Cooper (2012). "Input/Output". Upgrading to Fortran 90. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 442–227. ISBN 9781461225621.
      • Gehrke, Wilhelm, ed. (2012). "Input/Output". Fortran 90 Language Guide. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 11—41–11—46. ISBN 9781447130147.
      • Behforooz, Ali; Sharma, Onkar P. (1986). "INQUIRE statement". FORTRAN 77 Syntax. Prentice-Hall. pp. 100–101. ISBN 9780835932738.
      • Counihan, Martin (2006). "Appendix A: Input and Output". Fortran 95 (2nd ed.). CRC Press. pp. 339–342. ISBN 9780203978467.
      • Adams, Jeanne C.; Brainerd, Walter S.; Hendrickson, Richard A.; Maine, Richard E.; Martin, Jeanne T.; Smith, Brian T. (2008). "Input and Output Processing". The Fortran 2003 Handbook: The Complete Syntax, Features and Procedures. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 346–361. ISBN 9781846287466.
      • Ramaraman, V. (1997). "Processing Files in Fortran". Computer programming in FORTRAN 90 and 95. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. pp. 282–283. ISBN 9788120311817.
      • Metcalf, Michael; Reid, John; Cohen, Malcolm; Bader, Reinhold (2024). "Operations on external files". Modern Fortran Explained: Incorporating Fortran 2023 (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 279–283. ISBN 9780198876595.
      • Joshi, Yogendra Prasad. "Use of files and related statements". An Introduction to Fortran 90/95: Syntax and Programming. Allied Publishers. pp. 388–397. ISBN 9788177644746.
      • Brainerd, Walter S. (2009). "Input and Output". Guide to Fortran 2003 Programming. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 294–299. ISBN 9781848825437.
      • Chamberland, Luc (1995). "INQUIRE". Fortran 90: A Reference Guide. Prentice Hall. pp. 270–272. ISBN 9780133973327.
    • Some people have a lot of {{sfn}}s to add, but it is possible, and this extent of content is verifiable. Indeed, some of the aforementioned reference books have more on the INQUIRE statement than this article has. The current article is actually shorter than references on the subject. So not only is it verifiable, there's even scope for expansion. And yes, it should be clear from the chapter titles that it's not just the INQUIRE statement section of the article that these references support.

      Uncle G (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

      • I think there are bigger issues here than the sourcing, though I agree with Caleb that the lack of sources in this article is independently problematic. We don’t host tutorials about how to use programming languages, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a repository of cookbooks, tutorials, and mirrors of documentation. This literature should be used to supplement the existing article we have about Fortran. There are many things I can think of that are verifiable but do not warrant standalone articles. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
        • This is not a tutorial in any way. Clearly, you have never encountered a tutorial. They do not look remotely like this article. This is encyclopaedic reference. The bigger issue is in reality your not understanding the basics of the policy, and what the difference between a tutorial and a reference work is. Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
          You’re way too fixated on the word “tutorial” here. Even if some part of this article doesn’t meet your weirdly strict definition of the word “tutorial”, it does not change the fact that we generally do not host mirrors of documentation or the nitty-gritty details about how the language works. We can discuss all day the difference between a tutorial, a manual, and a mirror of a documentation page, but the bottom line is that this is not an encyclopedic reference: it is a collection of indiscriminate information. In any case, I’m unlikely to be persuaded to go the other way on this issue, especially by someone who berates me by claiming I don’t understand basic policy. :) HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the detailed reply. While I agree that some content is verifiable and can be salvaged, I would still favor moving such content into Fortran - and rewriting it to be a bit less like a tutorial, and more like an encyclopedic overview of the language. I agree with HyperAccelerated here. Thanks! 17:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC) Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
        • It's not just some, it's almost certainly all content being verifiable, as the books are even more detailed than this article is, and (when I checked out their structures) seem to cover the same ground overall as this article does outwith the inquire statement section.

          Moreover, this is nothing like a tutorial. In fact it is an encyclopadic overview of the language, and quite clearly reference material not tutorial. Go and read a few tutorials. They provide instructions. They have worked-through problems showing how they are solved, literally step-by-step "how-to" stuff. They set exercises to the reader. This article provides description. There's not a single instruction to the reader anywhere in it.

          Arjen Markus's Modern Fortran in Practice (CUP, 2012) is a tutorial. It has chapters like chapter 9 on "Code Reviews", with sections saying "Be explict" (literally the 9.1 section heading) telling readers directly how to do things. Davis Miller's Learn Fortran (self-published, 2025) is a tutorial. Its chapter 2 starts off with a numbered step-by-step set of instructions, written in the imperative, on how-to begin doing the thing that the chapter is about. Rubin Landau's A First Course in Scientific Computing (PUP, 2005) is a tutorial (notionally with FOTRAN90 in it, but it seems to have been retargeted at Java without changing the part titles). Chapters start by setting a problem, then work through a solution to the problem, and end with setting further problems as exercises to the reader.

          Really, you should both learn what tutorials actually are.

          Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

          -1 per HyperAccelerated: You’re way too fixated on the word “tutorial” here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this AFD needs more discussion. But, foremost, I know you dislike doing this User:Uncle G but are you actually arguing to "Keep" this article as is? A closer shouldn't have to read between the lines in an AFD discussion and infer what you mean as far as the outcome of this discussion. Or would Merge be acceptable to you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

AE Industrial Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creepTalk 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge - Merge with history to Belcan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Do not merge - better to delete. I converted this article from a redirect to a stub article on seeing that AE had bought Israeli spyware company Paragon Solutions (currently redlinked, but in my opinion notable, they attracted notice by successfully attacking users of WhatsApp on behalf of state actors; spyware in my opinion is nasty) and that the company name redirected to Belcan, one of several companies that they had owned but no longer do. I was accused (totally falsely) of possible COI; see the discussion on my Talk page for my very detailed response about this article. If the consensus is that the article is not notable, I have no particular objection to it being deleted, though I think a $6b corporation that sells spyware is notable if not admirable; but it shouldn't redirect to Belcan, which AE does not own. It's just a stub at the moment, and can certainly be expanded and improved. If it is to be a redirect, it should redirect to Paragon Solutions, currently redlinked but notable,, not Belcan. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Delete: I read the Keep vote above three times and I still don't understand the point it's trying to make. We make judgments about notability based on sourcing. There are no carveouts based on arbitrary, magically made-up criteria like whether they sell spyware or bring in billions of dollars for shareholders. If you disagree, go read WP: GNG and WP: CORPDEPTH. I also don't think Belcan is an appropriate merge target. AE Industrial Partners sold their stake in that business to Cognizant last year. All the sourcing I could find is plainly routine coverage; it's not enough to establish a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Following my weak "keep" above, an article has just come out explaining my concerns about this company and its purchase of Paragon. Whether this is deemed good reason for its inclusion in a work of reference like Wikipedia is up for debate, but it's certainly becoming increasingly noteworthy. Kirchgaessner, Stephanie (10 February 2025). "Revelations of Israeli spyware abuse raise fears over possible use by Trump". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
The article only mentions AE Industrial Partners once: "The person also pointed out that Paragon was now a US-owned company, following its takeover by AE Industrial Partners.". This is a trivial mention and plainly does not rise to the standard of significant coverage necessary. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you've read and fully understood WP: SIGCOV. Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a passing mention used in a single sentence, trivial zero information on the company. It is a complete fail of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I'm sure there is something else going on here. scope_creepTalk 05:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

LeadDesk

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

The article on LeadDesk may warrant deletion if it does not provide sufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Loewstisch (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  • weak delete: I'm unable to ascertain the quality of finnish sources, but a cursory search shows that there is no WP:NCORP in english or french (while i was at it) sources. the fact this was PRODed before tells me this is probably not a very notable company, despite their impressive list of costumers.
themoon@talk:~$ 08:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

AfD: Science

[edit]
Shortcuts


Science

[edit]

Efisio Arru

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Google search returned few results, and the returned results weren't significant. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 14:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Quipu (cosmic structure)

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

Standard example of WP:TOOSOON. Proposed cosmology structure based upon a single article which was accepted for publication in January 2025 (a week or two ago), plus a writeup in a popular science magazine (Smithsonian Magazine) a few days ago. No secondary sources, work is far too new to have been analyzed by the wider community. Article was draftified, pointing out that Wikipedia is not for recent proposals or neologisms, only for established science with secondary sources etc. Editor ignored draftification and moved back to main without any attempt to explain or generate a consensus. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Pages such as this belong on Facebook or similar until there is a body of secondary sources, not Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Draftify Yep, that's prime WP:TOOSOON territory. Wait for some secondary literature to pick up the term, then try to write an article about it. Sheesh, the sole source hasn't even been formally published yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Darryl Hudson

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

WP:BLP of a "scientist, inventor, serial entrepreneur, and musician", not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for any of those things. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as the self-published websites of companies and organizations that he's been directly affiliated with, and his musical career being "referenced" entirely to Bandcamp and YouTube, rather than GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about any of it.
The only proper media footnotes present at all are a Toronto Star article that briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else, and one article in The Hill that tangentially verifies a stray fact about a piece of legislation without ever mentioning Darryl Hudson's name at all in conjunction with it, neither of which are support for notability either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced a hell of a lot better than this. Also, just for the record, the only two inbound links to this page from any other Wikipedia article are both expecting a basketball player from New Zealand, not a magic mushroom entrepreneur. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete: The article definitely has problems (I kinda think the music section could almost be cut down to a sentence or two about how he enjoys music and self-publishes in his personal life?) but I did review some non-primary sources related to his career: He has two quotes and a decent blurb in the aforementioned Star article[1] and another blurb in a Toronto Sun article[2]. There's also coverage of him in cannabis or psychedelic specific(I think?) news websites [3][4]. I found an archived version of the Senate testimony source[6], which includes a paragraph about him. All of these seem independent, with mixed levels of sigcov and also mixed levels of reliability.
Taken altogether I think the sources still fall short of GNG and subject does not meet WP:BASIC, but I could be persuaded otherwise if other sigcov is found. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - my initial reaction can't be repeated in polite company, but let's just say that he lacks significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - having provided expert testimony due to his scientific knowledge and position in the groovy grove industry, he might come kind of close to requirements per WP:NBASIC. However, he does not have enough significant coverage per the additional requirements for scientists (widely published/cited) or business people (leadership of large firms). His music hobby is nowhere close to notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - the initial author of this article is currently blocked. Additionally, there is notable reasons to consider currently lack of GNG. If rewritten and resubmitted suggest inclusion of additional high quality references. --Trex32 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Harry Kloor

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

Reads a lot like a resume, tangentially mentioned in a few RS. Article may have been made for payment. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: The tone is promotional, but if one is going to claim paid advertising, then one needs to prove it. The issue is whether the tone can be fixed by ordinary editing. That's all. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment as nominator- the article has had the banner claiming it was made for payment since 2022. I had assumed that there was some official process that determines that; I am a new editor. I don't claim to have evidence that the article was paid for: I mean no harm to MichaelQSchmidt. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Ptenothrix species 4

[edit]
Ptenothrix species 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never scientifically named, and thus fails WP:NSPECIES. One of several preliminary recognised species mentioned in a paper. These can be covered in the genus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge with Ptenothrix. Coverage on these recognisable but undescribed springtails is unfortunately quite minimal - I haven't been able to find anything on sp. 4 besides its mention on collembola.org, which is obviously not enough to build an article on nor to meet any notability standards. Hemiauchenia, you say sp. 4 was recognised in a paper, can you give me the citation/link the paper? I haven't been able to find anything more than the briefest possible mention (eg. presence of the name on iNaturalist/BugGuide) anywhere besides collembola.org, but either way, I strongly doubt there's anywhere near enough to meet WP:GNG. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I think I was mistaken. I must have erroneously assumed that the species was described in a scientific paper when it was only described on collembola.org. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
No worries :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Bosavi woolly rat

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

Never scientifically described, and thus fails WP:NSPECIES. Nothing more than passing coverage in a handful of scientific papers. Perhaps worth a brief mention on the genus article, but no more than that. I don't think it's a good idea to have articles about species based solely on preliminary news reporting, and the coverage isn't WP:SUSTAINED either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I stand somewhat corrected. I meant the current article which is still only sourced to the 2009 news coverage. Even still, I don't think we should have articles for undescribed species when they can be covered in the genus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC
Actually I was confused. I thought this was in the journal Nature, but it's actually the website of The Nature Conservancy a nature conservation charity. I don't think this is significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG from the BBC, CNN and Smithsonian articles, and while it has no official name from taxonomists yet, I suspect that is simply because it was discovered so recently. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    2009 is not so recently. Plenty of mammals have been discovered, named, published, and catalogued since then. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per WP:NSPECIES, without a described name, this is just a pipedream. I could see draftify as an WP:ATD and WP:TOOSOON. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: While this is certainly worth mentioning at the genus article, I see no purpose in giving it a dedicated article until it has a name and/or a listing in a taxonomically reliable source such as the IUCN or ASM (although the latter would tend to imply the former). Until then, we don't even really have any good evidence that there's anything to report, rather than that somebody once thought that there might be. If that changes, we can revisit it then... until then, the genus article is the best place for this and any other unnamed species. Anaxial (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep on the basis that, while this fails WP:NSPECIES, we've got coverage from the Smithsonian[12], the Guardian[13], the Nature Conservancy[14], the BBC[15], CBC[16], etc, along with several mentions in scientific publications... You can argue that it's WP:TOOSOON, but with this level of coverage I have to disagree, and I don't see much use in deleting this article when all we are waiting on is a published description and an ICZN compliant name. This is the absolute best case scenario for an article on an undescribed species: reliably documented (clear photo and video evidence from a reputable source to support its existence) with good news coverage and a likely genus placement. NSPECIES should not be interpreted as putting a kibosh on all articles on species not yet described (that was clearly not the intention behind the guideline), but rather, as a reflection of the community practice of giving all described species the presumption of notability. At the absolute least, the information in this article should be preserved in the Mallomys article (though in my opinion this is not to the benefit of the Mallomys article, especially given that the placement in Mallomys is not yet confirmed). I just can't say I see any benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: if the generic placement was uncontroversial I'd agree with merging it to Mallomys, but with it unconfirmed I'm a very weak keep. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    Basically all of the coverage is from the same few days in September 2009 though, over 15 years ago now. There's no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage (charity websites don't count), required for having Wikipedia articles on a topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    It makes sense that an animal that has only been seen once due to its prescence in a remote area will attract the vast majority of its detailed coverage in relation to that initial discovery, but there are later mentions of this animal. Hopefully these links work, I absolutely loathe trying to link pages on Google Books/the Internet Archive but it's the best I can do... Most recently, a 2025 memoir by Gordon Buchanan, one of the members of the documentary crew, discusses it[17], and it's also mentioned several times in one of Steve Backshall's books from 2011[18]. It's also discussed in this 2013 book on extinction published by the Natural History Museum[19], this 2019 book on the Smithsonian published by the University of Georgia[20], and extremely briefly in a 2022 book on live mammal trapping[21] and a 2011 book on zoo management published by Wiley[22]. This is just what I could find through my limited online research tools, I imagine there are things I've missed. In 2021 it appears someone even published a children's picture book based on it[23]! Not terribly relevant to notability, but an interesting thing I found during my research and wanted to share, I thought it was very cute :P
My point being that this is an animal that has recieved a decent amount of coverage even in the absence of further sightings. I imagine the difficult terrrain and remoteness of its habitat are major barriers that have prevented it being rediscovered and described. Again, I think this is the best case scenario for an organism known only from a single sighting, and I think dismissing it on the basis that it has yet to be described goes against the spirit of NSPECIES and does not benefit Wikipedia readers. This is encyclopedically valuable information on a species that will be automatically presumed notable the moment a description is published, and I would hate to see it removed entirely.
For what it's worth, I would be more than happy to expand the article based on the sources I've found (Backshall's book in particular provides a lot of detail on the expedition). An alternative proposal would be to redirect Bosavi woolly rat to an article on the expedition/documentary that documented this animal and broaden the scope to include not just this particular rat, but also the other undescribed species they documented and the "story" of how the expedition was conducted. I find this slightly preferable to redirecting and including information on this purported species at Mallomys, both on the basis that this placement is not confirmed and that I feel having an entire section on a single undescribed species in a genus article looks ugly and reads poorly. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
A redirect as you describe would probably be the best course of action, if such a destination existed. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
If there's consensus for it, and we can decide on an article title/focus (should it be named after/focused on the documentary, the expedition, or both?), I would be happy to move the page and expand it out. Just to be clear, my vote remains keep rather than merge, but if there is no consensus to keep I would prefer a merge as described in my previous comment over deletion/merge to Mallomys. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
With no existing destination, "merge" gets thrown out. I think it's the best option, though. "Draftify as ATD" is the best action that would lead to the effect of merging to something non-existent, as that can be resolved in the draft. I understand your desire to keep, but if this were a draft, you'd have time and space to make it something better we can all agree to. (Well, more of us...) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
I think merging this into an article on the expedition would be better than having an article on a topic about which little meaningful can be written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Fails GNG, NSPECIES, and SUSTAINED. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge/redirect (ATD) to either List of rodents discovered in the 2000s where it is listed, Lost Land of the Volcano#Discoveries, where it and the possible subspecies "Bosavi silky cuscus" are listed, or Mallomys. It would seem the "possible" species (2009 article) would have had a listing by now. The article DOES NOT PASS WP:GNG or NSPECIES The "established rules of scientific nomenclature" indicates that Kristofer Helgen, a biologist and curator of the Smithsonian Institution, or Muse Opiang a biologist with the Papua New Guinea Institute of Biological Research, apparently the co-discoverers, can (possibly did) tentatively name a new species. Apparently there has yet to be genetic analysis nor has the species been formally described (so undescribed), named, or name accepted, by a published scientific paper, so not officially recognized. It is an "undescribed putative species". All the current information is speculation, even supposition, so why create an article? After the initial discovery what has happened? 15+ years and still too soon. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Richard J. Baer

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

Page on someone who is described as a Swiss banker and scientist, although I cannot verify the "banker" part. Except for a short obituary by Erwin Schrödinger I don't see any significant coverage, and even that orbituary is not effusive. Article is very short of inline sources (almost none), and seems to have avoided being flagger for this in NPP. If someone can dig up more information I would be glad to change my opinion, but currently it does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment. This article contains a short biography: Singh, Rajinder (2003). "Richard Bär and His Contacts with the Indian Nobel Laureate Sir C.V. Raman" (PDF). Indian Journal of History of Science. 38 (4): 377–387. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a Titularprofessor at Zuerich he meets criterion C5 of WP:NACADEMIC (the policy reason for keeping him); and although we have little information about him, getting an obituary in Nature written by Schroedinger is a pretty solid indication of academic notability in itself. The less policy-related reason to keep him is that our readers have a right to know about the figures who shaped physics during this important period, when information is scant. He's a medium-sized actor in a large-sized drama, and I think our account of the drama would be weaker without him. If we were to delete, I'd want a redirect rather than total deletion, and I can't think where to redirect to. Elemimele (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are enough sources to write an article. There is the article by Singh (above), necrolog at [24] (pp. 60-62). The pages 84-89 in the book by Bieri, Holenstein, and Völk (1990) also presumably discuss him, although I can't confirm it. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    Here are also two mentions from Einstein papers: [25][26] Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    Richard Bär's role in Erwin Schrödinger's flight from Nazi-occupied Austria is mentioned in Moore (1989) Schrödinger, life and thought, pp.341-2. Jagdish Mehra discusses Bär's work in Zurich in Erwin Schrödinger and the rise of wave mechanics (1987), p.284. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Logarithmic timeline

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

An attempt was made to bundle this into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detailed logarithmic timeline, but the bundling was not done properly. I don't think enough analysis was put into determining if the topic meets WP:GNG — the main reason Detailed logarithmic timeline was deleted was WP:IINFO. Google Scholar returns lots of results about time perception, such as Ren et al. (2020); as well as a few odd items like Deane and Stokes (2002) on the physics of breaking waves; but nothing about a logarithmic timeline for history or the far future. The lone source is to one about an individual timeline that is linear; it mentions and links to a timeline on the history of life in passing, but not that it is logarithmic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Advanced search for: 
"logarithmic timescale"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
refseek
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive
BASE  · Persée

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
Advanced search for: 
"logarithmic calendar"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
refseek
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive
BASE  · Persée

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
  • This is where not just mechanically looking for the article title and having an idea of what to look for pays off. The concept of a logarithmic timescale was documented by, amongst others, Nigel Calder in 1983: A logarithmic time line

    […] is no more mysterious than the maneuver of an aircraft as it nears touchdown and flares out to avoid hitting the ground too hard. The rate of "descent" through time diminishes as one approaches the present, according to a strict but simple rule that a stipulated proportional change in ancient dates always corresponds to the same distance along the timescale.

    — Nigel Calder, ISBN 9780701139254 p. 75
    Alas, Börje Ekstig' 2011 book ISBN 9781456779542 is self-published through AuthorHouse, because on pages 12–13 it not only explains what a logarithmic timescale is, it gives much the same reverse logarithmic calendar as in the reverse timeline section of this article, their both going back to the origin of life at 10^9 Ma BP, for example.

    But Joel Levy's Big Book of Science (ISBN 9780785835998, Quarto) is not self-published and explains on page 94 that when it comes to the difficulties of comprehensibly visualizing the history of the Earth, "[o]ne way around this is to use a logarithmic timescale".

    Where rôte mechanistic keyword searching fails to pay off is that it doesn't find David Christian's Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History, a book that nowhere says the word "logarithm" but that is logarithmic (albeit not base 10) in overall structure, the scale of the book increasing as it works chapter by chapter towards the present, going from Ga at the start through Ma by chapter 5 to decades by chapter 11, and at least useful for being able to source explanatory notes on events in the table, satisfying any "But what do historians include?" questions. For another actually explicit logarithmic timeline of the history of the Earth, albeit a less detailed one (but in colour ☺), see Foley (ORCID 0000-0001-7510-0223) et al., chapter 16 of ISBN 9783030822026 (also published as doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2013.11.002), page 206. There's a logarithmic timeline of the past 10Ma on page 217 of ISBN 9780241280904 by Simon Lewis, for yet another "logarithmic timescale, where each jump is an order of magnitude" going down from 1Ma to 1Da from left to right.

    This most definitely is not some novelty that was invented by Wikipedia. And to those, not historians/geologists/whatever, who opine that it is not useful, I give the words of the late geomorphology professor Antony R. Orme about xyr reverse logarithmic timeline of the Earth going from 1Ma up to 4.5Ga in doi:10.1093/oso/9780195313413.003.0008: "The logarithmic timescale condenses the distant past, thereby enhancing Mesozoic and Cenozoic events relevant to the present landscape."

    Uncle G (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. Expressing time in the logarithmic scale is a legitimate approach for analyzing many different phenomena - see Google Scholar search [27]. The page can be improved of course. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per My very best wishes. Svartner (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per my comment about this page at the bundled AfD: The concept of a timeline is encyclopedic, but the idea of making the axis logarithmic is just a convenient display convention, not a separate concept that needs a page unto itself. The bulk of the page is unsourced and would be, at best, synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Adam B. Sefkow

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

Assistant professor who works on team projects in high-energy physics with no major awards, WP:TOOSOON. Page was Prodded since his h-factor of 35 is small for the field, particularly as almost all of his publications have 5-32 coauthors. PROD was opposed by Espresso Addict with the argument that 35 is enough to possibly pass WP:NPROF#C1, it appears unaware of the consensus that h-factors have to be field normalized. As has previously been discussed at WT:NPROF, an h-factor of 35 is very notable in math; a good start in solid-state physics and low for high-energy physics. There is also the need to consider the number of authors, de-emphasizing large team citations such as he has been involved in. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not unaware of any of that, just unkeen to set a trend of uncontested prods of academics with that kind of citation profile. I don't pay much attention to the h-index, more to the total citations and the citations of the top papers. Here both appear healthy (5386 in total, with the top papers 732, 506, 242, 189, 178 and a further ten papers >100); I don't think the wider discussion of AfD is unwarranted even if it turns out I'm the lone soul opposing deletion. Will look into it a bit further on the morrow. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Very few of these papers have anything like 150 coauthors; they are mostly in the range of ~12–20. Ignoring those with >=10 coauthors, the top papers seem to be 732, 189 (1st author), 120, 110, 72. Several of those I've omitted, Sefkow was placed third, which at least in fields I know would be one of the major contributors (1st, 2nd, 3rd, last). There's also the award, which I'd say was more early to mid (under 42 years) than early career. I'm coming down on neutral; I don't feel an urgency to delete, but I'm willing to go with the flow. It would be good to hear from the article creator, Debrah Minkoff. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. In a field where some of his highly-cited publications have 150 coauthors, we cannot set much store on h-index and citation counts of all publications. This sort of pattern of publication immediately gives most researchers publications with high citation counts, and the h-index is merely an indicator of longevity, not of being a leader. It is too indiscriminate and I don't think the standard should merely be that all high-energy physicists are notable. Alternatives are to look for notable awards and society fellowships, distinguished and named professorships, or heavily-cited first-author papers. His "Design of magnetized liner inertial fusion experiments using the Z facility" is first-author and has triple-digit citations, but it's the only one. He is an assistant professor so WP:PROF#C5 is out of reach. There is a 2017 reference for two awards [28], but one is really just a startup grant (not a prize or medal) and the other is also an early-career award [29]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Jens Beckmann

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

Full professor with a Scopus | h-factor of 33. He has an honorary degree from Novosibrisk which might contribute to WP:NPROF#C3 (although it is unsourced) I am not certain. Citations look a bit weak for C1. I tagged it for unclear notability more than a month ago, nothing has changed. I feel it is time for more opinions about notability as I am on the fence with this one. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I think, we should keep the article. I will try to find a source for the honorary degree from Novosibirsk - he told me in person, that he got one, but I don't have a source.
Also he is the first person, who found a stable nitrene and published an article about that, which is a huge deal in this field. ScienceBecky (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep: The article is lacking in references in a few places, but the discovery of a stable nitrene is discussed in multiple sources that give Beckmann more than a passing mention as part of the work. It's tough but I lean towards passing WP:GNG if considering the Chemistry World and C&EN articles on top of the Novosibirsk doctorate (if true). Reconrabbit 14:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I have advertised this AfD at Wikiproject Chemistry in the hope of getting an expert opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Honorary degrees can potentially count toward C1, they aren't guaranteed to be contributory, especially when they're not from world-renowned institutions. They definitely don't count toward GNG. The write-ups about his nitrene work are fairly standard, though they're not insignificant. I don't see a GNG pass here, but I might check his Scopus metrics to see if they line up with notability in this field. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion

[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Deletion Review

[edit]

AfD: Academics

[edit]

Academics and educators

[edit]

Sean Spiller

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

Union leader, gubernatorial candidate, and former mayor of a town with a population of ~40k. Not really a bio that necessitates a Wikipedia page, and I can't find anything on Google that rises beyond the level of routine coverage. If he loses the gubernatorial race, is anyone really going to be searching him on Wikipedia in 10 years? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the author of the more-than-a-stub-article with multiple reliable references and seeking completion of profiles in Wikipedia of all declared candidates in the 2025 NJ gubernatorial election. In the most recent Emerson College poll, he's polling in second behind Mikie Sherrill and tied with Ras Baraka, and ahead of Josh Gottheimer and Stephen Sweeney (and far ahead of Steve Fulop, another mayor in the gov's race). In addition to all of that, he is indeed a union leader of what is, in New Jersey, one of the most influential unions in the state. Some may find it interesting that there actually seems to be an effort to not have a coherent set of data for Spiller; part of the reason I created the article was I couldn't find a clearly defined biography for him. Thus, in the best manner of Wikipedia, I set forth to assemble one for others who may be wondering about the only candidate for which there was not only no Wikipedia article...but not a lot of clear through-line on his life, work and what put him in the #2 spot (the answer actually seems to be..."the NJEA"). Feel free to peruse my history, but as a solid Deletionist, saying the word Keep in an AfD feels weird. RasputinAXP (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete until he is elected governor. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC).
  • Delete as there is nothing to support a claim of notability as either a politician or union leader. Alansohn (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete candidates for political office do not get articles only for running - the keep !voter is completely mistaken on that regard. SportingFlyer T·C 03:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Michael Snediker

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

Fails WP:PROF pretty clearly and probably WP:BASIC as well. Sources present are largely blog posts or proofs of publication. A short search shows that other available sources don't appear to have significance or independence from the subject. The overall language leads me to suspect COI editing as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: This subject has a chapbook that was a finalist for the Lamba Literary Award. I’ll make a search now as there are possibilities of passing WP:NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Canada, Maryland, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. The book "Queer Optimism" has 377 citns in Google Scholar; I think that's pretty high for the field, and will probably mean there are many published reviews; just from PQ there are Matz, Jesse.  Modernism/Modernity; Baltimore Vol. 17, Iss. 3, (Sep 2010): 690-692 & Cui, Lily.  Essays in Criticism; Oxford Vol. 59, Iss. 4, (Oct 2009): 363. & Hammill, Graham. Postmodern Culture. ; Baltimore Vol. 19, Iss. 1, (Sep 2008). DOI:10.1353/pmc.0.0032 as well as a lot of commentary. His other book Contingent Figure has two reviews in PQ: Mullaney, Clare.  The Emily Dickinson Journal; Baltimore Vol. 31, Iss. 1, (2022): 67-70. & McLaughlin, Don James.  Genre Vol. 55, Iss. 2, (2022): 173-78. There's also, according to the article, two nominations for the Pushcart Prize, Lambda Literary Awards Finalist for Best Gay Poetry, as well as the win of Poets Out Loud prize; not sure what the last is, perhaps [30], but the other two look significant. I think WP:AUTHOR is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Efisio Arru

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Google search returned few results, and the returned results weren't significant. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 14:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Alain J. Picard

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

A superficially nice article about a regional artist with no claim of notability. Weak citations, a few small awards, and no evidence of impact or reputation to support WP:NARTIST (e.g., "has been recognized for" links to his own site and a gallery that doesn't suport the claim). Two instructional books, no evidence of independent reviews, not a valid basis for WP:NAUTHOR. I did WP:BEFORE searches and I was unable to find anything additional to support WP:GNG.

Although not strictly a grounds for deletion, the article has hallmarks of WP:NOTCV. The lengthy gallery in particular makes this looks like a promotional page. Oblivy (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Lack of sources as well as WP:GNG. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 02:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 09:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Best I can find on Proquest is Award Winners Announced at the Connecticut Pastel Society's Annual Juried Exhibition. Anonymous.  American Artist; New York Vol. 72, Iss. 785, (Mar 2008): 10. which does not have full-text but the snippet mentions one of his works "won the CPS Founders' Award". Leaning delete unless other sources can be found. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Chaya Keller

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

Reason: WP:COI: The author, user:Neriah, is (Redacted). Please see 1, 2: 1. image author and uploader, 2. Nathan (Chaya's husband, a full professor in the Biu) - the same author and camera, a different date; image was taken at home: no Torah books at the math dept. in Biu, and (Redacted).
Neriah does not have a WP:PMR permission, but moved the article without leaving a redirect.
WP:NACADEMIC: Neriah raised criteria 1,2: Krill Prize and a solution of the Ringel's problem.
There is no secondary international source, like the CNN or The New York Times, for example.
The solution of Ringel's problem was made with additional four colleagues. There is no Wikipedia article about this problem.
Chaya Keller is an associate professor, not a professor. Loeweopta (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted). Loeweopta (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep. As Helpful Raccoon has pointed out, international sources are not required to prove notability, and an alleged COI is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I'm unsure of whether the subject passes WP:NPROF, but I think she probably does pass WP:GNG on the basis of coverage like [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Her team's solution to Ringel's problem also got some press coverage, such as this article in Haaretz [39]. Maths isn't my area and I'm not too familiar with the sources that covered her so I'm very open to changing my mind here, but my sense is that her publications and awards aren't quite significant enough to meet WP:NPROF, but that the other coverage is probably enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Richard J. Baer

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

Page on someone who is described as a Swiss banker and scientist, although I cannot verify the "banker" part. Except for a short obituary by Erwin Schrödinger I don't see any significant coverage, and even that orbituary is not effusive. Article is very short of inline sources (almost none), and seems to have avoided being flagger for this in NPP. If someone can dig up more information I would be glad to change my opinion, but currently it does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment. This article contains a short biography: Singh, Rajinder (2003). "Richard Bär and His Contacts with the Indian Nobel Laureate Sir C.V. Raman" (PDF). Indian Journal of History of Science. 38 (4): 377–387. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a Titularprofessor at Zuerich he meets criterion C5 of WP:NACADEMIC (the policy reason for keeping him); and although we have little information about him, getting an obituary in Nature written by Schroedinger is a pretty solid indication of academic notability in itself. The less policy-related reason to keep him is that our readers have a right to know about the figures who shaped physics during this important period, when information is scant. He's a medium-sized actor in a large-sized drama, and I think our account of the drama would be weaker without him. If we were to delete, I'd want a redirect rather than total deletion, and I can't think where to redirect to. Elemimele (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are enough sources to write an article. There is the article by Singh (above), necrolog at [40] (pp. 60-62). The pages 84-89 in the book by Bieri, Holenstein, and Völk (1990) also presumably discuss him, although I can't confirm it. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    Here are also two mentions from Einstein papers: [41][42] Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    Richard Bär's role in Erwin Schrödinger's flight from Nazi-occupied Austria is mentioned in Moore (1989) Schrödinger, life and thought, pp.341-2. Jagdish Mehra discusses Bär's work in Zurich in Erwin Schrödinger and the rise of wave mechanics (1987), p.284. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Laurence Westgaph

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

UK television presenter and PhD student with some academic activity. The best sign of notability appears to be various allegations of sexual misconduct over time [43], more recently [44] [45]. I am not seeing much sign of NPROF, and am not certain that the sourcing meets WP:BLPCRIME -- the Telegraph describes him as a "high profile historian", but I am not seeing so much of the kind of evidence of impact that we generally look for. There are a lot of tabloid sources that we cannot use. I am a weak delete here, and am bringing this to AfD to get clarity on notability before expending effort on bringing the article into shape. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Please clarify what is meant by 'in depth' coverage and 'reliable sources' as I am concerned that unless these comply with the dominant culture's concept and definition of 'in-depth' and 'reliable' sources of information will too readily be discounted.Truth Emissary (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC) — Truth Emissary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dewi Evans

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

Dewi Evans may meet notability criteria, but only as the main prosecution expert witness in the Lucy Letby murder case of 2023, and so does not warrant an independent article. That case, and Dr. Evans’ role in it, is currently the source of a great deal of public focus in the United Kingdom. This article was only created six days ago, and is already becoming a focus for people with a given agenda (casting aspersions on Dr Evans’s evidence) which is not part of the mission of an Encyclopaedia. For the time being, Dr. Evans’ contribution to the Lucy Letby case can be encapsulated within the Lucy Letby article and with a redirect from the current article. The material in the current article is either far more detail than is warranted for a retired paediatrician, or cherry-picked controversies. Should Ms. Letby’s conviction be vacated as a result of Dr. Evans’s evidence, there may be grounds for an independent article about him. But I understand there is consensus and precedent from a certain case in 2007 is that tangential witnesses in criminal cases are not notable in and of themselves (I am sorry I do not know the specific case, user:Bearian drew it to my attention).

Seeing as Dr. Evans has not generated enough interest to warrant an article about his life before now, it seems to me that precedent applies here. ElectricRay (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - While I agree that being a star witness in one case doesn't make one notable, as an elected fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, he meets WP:NACADEMIC #3. If there are issues with balancing and WP:NEGATIVESPIN, the BLP article should be fixed not deleted. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment: Still deciding. On one hand, yes, there's precedent for deleting this sort of article, where the main claim to fame is being a witness, but on the other hand, they might be independently notable. I'm no longer an admin. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
One suggestion from user:Sirfurboy is that the Lucy Letby article be converted to the Lucy Letby case which might allow a section about Dr Evans insofar as it is relevant to that case.ElectricRay (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
@ElectricRay, while I do think there is a case to WP:SPLIT most of the material about his activities during the Lucy Letby case as too much of Dewi Evan's article is focused on the case per WP:PROPORTION. I oppose merging his biography into a potential article on the basis that Dewi Evans is independently notable.⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
@⁂CountHacker my main concern is that this article is plainly being used by people to character assassinate a person who gave evidence in a criminal trial. As I said, he meets notability criteria on that score; beyond that, he is basically a retired doctor. He certainly does not warrant a 2,000 word+ article with 54 footnotes. Is there a way of protecting the article, or limiting it to the introductory 4 lines? i.e.,
“Dewi Richard Evans (born July 1949) is a retired British consultant paediatrician and professional expert witness. He is a fellow of both the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health. During the 1980s-90s, he helped develop the maternity unit in Singleton Hospital, Swansea.
Beginning in 2022 he rose to prominence as lead expert witness for the prosecution in the Lucy Letby trial.”
This is really all it is justified in saying. ElectricRay (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
AfDs aren't the proper venue for dealing with a content dispute about a BLP and discussing how the article can be fixed. The subject is clearly notable and article can be fixed. It's best to go to the talk page and discuss with the editors involved in this article on how to fix the article after this AfD is closed. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - I also agree that Evans meets C3 of WP:NACADEMIC. The article should be edited for quality and conformity to WP:BLP. Mellangoose (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the C3 criterium: is Evans an academic? Dr Evans seems to have published only two scientific papers, very many years ago. Both very short and with co-authors. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12098-009-0171-5, https://www.bmj.com/content/2/6183/171.short The medical Royal colleges do have many academics as members but are primarily, in my opinion, professional organisations. The organisations do carry out academic functions, among others, but probably most members don’t. Richard Gill (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Mysecretgarden (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Lucy Letby, and I think that page should be renamed to Lucy Letby case as the page is only really about the case and Letby has no notability beyond the case. That move cannot be decided here, but the merge can be. Reasons for merge are as follows:
    1. the Royal College of Physicians is a respected professional body, but not an academic one as envisaged by WP:NACADEMIC. Evans has a lot of experience in clinical practice and such like, but is clearly not an academic. Those notability guidelines would be misapplied to him. What matters, and what always really matters are secondary sources from which a page can be written.
    2. Evans is, in fact, covered in at least one excellent secondary source: Coffey & Moritz (2024) Unmasking Lucy Letby London: Seven Dials. The book paints him as more than an expert witness in that case. It suggests that his analysis directly led to the nature and extent of the case itself. It talks about him at length. There are plenty of other sources (many primary but some secondary) that cover him, but always in relation to the case. Although he has worked on previous cases, they don't appear to be covered anywhere. So we have sufficient sourcing to say he is notable, but it is notability entirely related to the Letby case, and this is apparent in the concerns about this page as it stands. These concerns cannot be adequately addressed. The vast bulk of secondary sourcing on Evans will be about his participation in the Letby case. Thus WP:PAGEDECIDE pertains. Should we allow this page to persist, noting concerns that it is an attack page, and concerns that it will always be very closely related to the Letby page? Or should we cover him in relation to the Letby case, which is exactly what the sources do too. At AfD we too often look only at GNG/ANYBIO, and forget PAGEDECIDE. I think the PAGEDECIDE case lies in favour of merger. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - As an author of many articles on Wikipedia, I'm against the proposal to delete this article. However, as a user of Wikipedia, I came here looking to find out about the background of Dewi Evans since his name has cropped up several times, not only regarding the Lucy Letby case. He is involved in other controversial cases in South Wales, including those of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Linda Lewis. He is definitely notable, some would say notorious given his past record. He is not an academic (his publication record is insignificant) and he is not a scientist (despite calling himself that), but he is a physician who, during the course of his career and subsequent retirement, has left a stream of controversial medical decisions that are highly questionable e.g. the Linda Lewis and "Bonnie" Lewis cases are horrendous - with Dewi Evans deeply involved. See Bonnie Lewis.This makes him and his background of interest in an article on Wikipedia that follows the usual criteria. Deleting such an article would be a dis-service to the public, who need to know about this man, his work, and his character. Egrabczewski (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    The Bonnie Lewis link is an advocacy page about Letby, which does not demonstrate Evans had any notability outside of the Letby case, even though he was indeed criticised over that one. I am also unaware what he has to do with Sally Clark and Angela Cannings. Are there any sources that speak to those, and that are not linked so inextricably to the Letby case? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem

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

Despite major improvements since it was moved to mainspace I see nothing here to show she passes WP:NPROF in particular nor WP:BIO / WP:GNG more generally. I am unable to return it to draft unilaterally under WP:DRAFTOBJECT. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Etowusu: I've reverted your move to draft, because you cannot move a page while it is subject to an AfD. Please do not move this page again. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep: H-index of 6 is pretty low even in a low-citation field like psychology, and I can't find any GNG. However I think she could meet WP:NACADEMIC C3 via full membership in the International Academy for the Philosophy of Science (AIPS).[46] InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Soft delete: Not enough impact for C1 of WP:NPROF. The 100 brilliant women award does not satisfy C2. C3 is closer; I confess that I had never heard of the IAPS, but it looks like it was founded by a group of giants in this field and its members are elected (see here). However, I cannot determine whether or not membership is truly prestigious, and I see that she is a corresponding member - that may not be as prestigious as being a full member. Since I can't tell, I am using it as one indicator of academic notability but not as fully satisfying it. C4-C6 don't apply. Her work for UNESCO and for GC REAIM indicate at least partial satisfaction of C7 of WP:NPROF but I think it's not enough. Editorial board membership, or service as an associate editor, is not the same as actually being the editor and does not satisfy C8. I think this is a strong faculty member but I am not yet seeing their work as being broadly impactful in the field. Perhaps in 5-10 years the situation will be different on one or more of the criteria, and I think that if the page is deleted it should be done "softly." Qflib (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Just double-checked because I thought I remembered she was listed as a full member in AIPS, and we're both right because there's a discrepancy: her profile on the AIPS website says she corresponding, but the AIPS membership list says full. I can't find any reliable independent sources which could clarify one way or the other. For what it's worth, it looks like corresponding members are non-voting but elected in the same fashion. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just wanted to note that the page was moved to draftspace by the author while this AfD was ongoing. I've reverted their move and restored the article's original title. CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Courtney Savino

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

Subject does not meet ANYBIO as far as I can tell. From a music standpoint, subject's songs have not been featured in any SIGCOV I can find. There is also routine coverage of middle school and high school theater performances from over a decade ago, but I don't see it rising to level of notability. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fails guidelines set by WP:SINGER. Sources addressing music are just links to spotify/youtube/apple music. Sources addressing school musical career are just local interest pieces. The source "'Wonka' at the Warner in Torrington" doesn't seem to mention Savino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthnope (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Truthnope. Also per WP:MILL and per the lack of any encyclopedic content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet WP:SINGER or WP:ANYBIO. The only coverage I can find is what's already in the article - a local newspaper reporting that the subject, as a 13 year old, would appear in a school performance. No coverage of her songs or singing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - we routinely delete articles about people who have millions of followers on YouTube, and the subject has "thousands" of listeners. Bearian (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: I haven't found any significant coverage on the subject, so I don't believe it meets the WP:NMUSIC criteria. Additionally, most of the sources in the current article are unreliable. Baqi:) (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Dorian Wallace

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

previously deleted article not yet ready for namespace: non-WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY dependent BLP, no WP:SIGCOV by unrelated reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to mention that I am not very experienced in editing on the English Wikipedia and that I have been more active since June. I mainly contribute to the Serbian Wikipedia, where I am an administrator. On the Serbian Wikipedia, when an article has a "construction" template, no one edits it. So I assumed it was the same here. I haven't finished the article yet and plan to add more references. Here, I mostly write about musicians from jazz and classical music, and for them, there is often a problem with fewer available references. When I started editing here, an experienced user told me that the website allaboutjazz.com is considered a reliable source for musicians of this genre.I found Dorian Wallace while researching the article on John Sanborn (media artist), where his name was in red, and that led me to explore more about him. Could you please tell me which parts of the text are considered promotional? I did use his official website as a source, but I did not copy sentences directly. Dorian Wallace has been mentioned several times in The New York Times, but I haven’t included those references in the article because access requires a paid subscription. I do have a paid subscription—can I include those references in the article? The New York Times is a highly significant media outlet. If you allow me, I will add all the references I can find today and possibly tomorrow. If they are not adequate, you can delete the article. However, I kindly ask for your help in identifying which parts of the article should be removed to avoid promotional content. Thank you in advance for your guidance!--Марко Станојевић (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - I have added several new references and will add a few more. There are also independent sources, such as The New York Times, but I haven’t included them because access requires a paid subscription. However, I will add them now. Here is the proof: [47], [48], [49].--Марко Станојевић (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

He is also mentioned in The Independent [50]--Марко Станојевић (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Wallace has composed and collaborated with artists including Robert Ashley, John King, Dave Liebman, Frank London, Matt Marks, John Sanborn, Son Lux, Aleksandra Vrebalov, and Pamela Z.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have doubled the number of references, added neutral sources, and expanded the content. I would appreciate it if someone could review it again, as it is no longer the same article as when it was initially nominated for deletion.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Mireille Grosjean

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

No significant coverage independent of the subject. Aŭstriano (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Aŭstriano (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I originally created this page as a way to test Wikipedia's translation interface (to possibly use it with a class), so I translated a very short page from Esperanto Wikipedia. I agree that the page does not currently pass notability criteria. Her page on French Wikipedia, has more sources, but I'm not sure if they are suitable for establishing notability. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Rachel Helps (BYU) So why didn't you translate the whole article from Esperanto wiki (https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mireille_Grosjean) , and include the many sources there? PamD 16:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
    I can't remember! Probably because almost the whole page on Esperanto Wikipedia lacks in-line citations. It's very common on Esperanto Wikipedia. Also in 2018, my Esperanto skills weren't as advanced as they are now. The two cited references there are from edukado.net and the Liberia Folio. Both are Esperanto publications and can't show her notability outside of the Esperanto world. One of the external links is to a French website that has a video with her, and I can't tell if it's a RS. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
    When I made the above comment I hadn't realised that you'd created the article in 2018! PamD 16:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not found. Please don't use Wikipedia main page for your experiments. Use your sandbox. It wastes the time of editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC).
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment The Esperanto and French articles both have much more content and multiple sources, though I have not checked them for reliability and independence. PamD 16:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G7, belatedly, per @Rachel Helps (BYU): 2018 comment at Talk:Mireille_Grosjean#Test. (Or does adding an infobox count as a substantial edit?) There has been no substantial edit to the actual text of the article since RH's creation. PamD 16:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Rajendra P. Parajuli

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

Article doesn’t meet criteria for notability. Has promotional tone. Information provided are not supported by sources indicating COI of editor. Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Dragon Award nominees. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Shami Stovall

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

Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR, I could not find any reliable independent sources about them. The current source used for their bio is a podcast interview their spouse did. Suggest deletion or redirect to List_of_Dragon_Award_nominees#Best_Young_Adult_/_Middle_Grade_Novel Emm90 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Science fiction and fantasy, Law, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Dragon Award nominees as WP:AtD for now. That's where Shami Stovall appears, and her being nominated seems notworthy, but in itself does not establish notability. This may well be a case of WP:TOOSOON, so I strongly feel a redirect is preferable to deletion. I don't know if the awards she has won are siginificant enough to establish notability in accordance with WP:ANYBIO. Daranios (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
    Regarding the awards, here is an explanation of the non-Dragon Award ones for anyone who is reading:
    • CYGNUS Book Awards, awarded by Chanticleer Book Reviews, a pay-for-review service for indie authors.
    • New Apple Book Awards, defunct presently, seems to be the same thing as Chanticleer Books. They advertise literary services for indie authors.
    • Reader's Favorite basically advertising in the form of an award, and is, again, ultimately a site that sells book reviews for indie authors.
    • Baen Fantasy Adventure Award, a legitimate award given by Baen's Books, but it's not a significant literary award.
    Emm90 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Adam B. Sefkow

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

Assistant professor who works on team projects in high-energy physics with no major awards, WP:TOOSOON. Page was Prodded since his h-factor of 35 is small for the field, particularly as almost all of his publications have 5-32 coauthors. PROD was opposed by Espresso Addict with the argument that 35 is enough to possibly pass WP:NPROF#C1, it appears unaware of the consensus that h-factors have to be field normalized. As has previously been discussed at WT:NPROF, an h-factor of 35 is very notable in math; a good start in solid-state physics and low for high-energy physics. There is also the need to consider the number of authors, de-emphasizing large team citations such as he has been involved in. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not unaware of any of that, just unkeen to set a trend of uncontested prods of academics with that kind of citation profile. I don't pay much attention to the h-index, more to the total citations and the citations of the top papers. Here both appear healthy (5386 in total, with the top papers 732, 506, 242, 189, 178 and a further ten papers >100); I don't think the wider discussion of AfD is unwarranted even if it turns out I'm the lone soul opposing deletion. Will look into it a bit further on the morrow. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Very few of these papers have anything like 150 coauthors; they are mostly in the range of ~12–20. Ignoring those with >=10 coauthors, the top papers seem to be 732, 189 (1st author), 120, 110, 72. Several of those I've omitted, Sefkow was placed third, which at least in fields I know would be one of the major contributors (1st, 2nd, 3rd, last). There's also the award, which I'd say was more early to mid (under 42 years) than early career. I'm coming down on neutral; I don't feel an urgency to delete, but I'm willing to go with the flow. It would be good to hear from the article creator, Debrah Minkoff. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. In a field where some of his highly-cited publications have 150 coauthors, we cannot set much store on h-index and citation counts of all publications. This sort of pattern of publication immediately gives most researchers publications with high citation counts, and the h-index is merely an indicator of longevity, not of being a leader. It is too indiscriminate and I don't think the standard should merely be that all high-energy physicists are notable. Alternatives are to look for notable awards and society fellowships, distinguished and named professorships, or heavily-cited first-author papers. His "Design of magnetized liner inertial fusion experiments using the Z facility" is first-author and has triple-digit citations, but it's the only one. He is an assistant professor so WP:PROF#C5 is out of reach. There is a 2017 reference for two awards [51], but one is really just a startup grant (not a prize or medal) and the other is also an early-career award [52]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Jens Beckmann

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

Full professor with a Scopus | h-factor of 33. He has an honorary degree from Novosibrisk which might contribute to WP:NPROF#C3 (although it is unsourced) I am not certain. Citations look a bit weak for C1. I tagged it for unclear notability more than a month ago, nothing has changed. I feel it is time for more opinions about notability as I am on the fence with this one. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I think, we should keep the article. I will try to find a source for the honorary degree from Novosibirsk - he told me in person, that he got one, but I don't have a source.
Also he is the first person, who found a stable nitrene and published an article about that, which is a huge deal in this field. ScienceBecky (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep: The article is lacking in references in a few places, but the discovery of a stable nitrene is discussed in multiple sources that give Beckmann more than a passing mention as part of the work. It's tough but I lean towards passing WP:GNG if considering the Chemistry World and C&EN articles on top of the Novosibirsk doctorate (if true). Reconrabbit 14:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I have advertised this AfD at Wikiproject Chemistry in the hope of getting an expert opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Honorary degrees can potentially count toward C1, they aren't guaranteed to be contributory, especially when they're not from world-renowned institutions. They definitely don't count toward GNG. The write-ups about his nitrene work are fairly standard, though they're not insignificant. I don't see a GNG pass here, but I might check his Scopus metrics to see if they line up with notability in this field. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Arthur D. Yaghjian

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

Nominating for deletion on behalf of the article subject per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:GNG. The article subject believes he is a nonnotable person who should not have an article on Wikipedia. See VRTS ticket # 2025012410006294. Geoff | Who, me? 14:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. IEEE Fellow ("Life Fellow" but that just means fellow+older) is a clear pass of WP:PROF notability. The subject's modesty is virtuous, but not a convincing reason to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you David. However, the Wikipedia article is not an accurate representation of my personal or professional biography. I tried to revise the article but Wikipedia would not allow me to do that. Therefore, after great effort to figure out how to do get in touch with the deletion editor, I requested that my article be deleted. Please do not try to prevent my article from being deleted, as well intended as you may be. Arthur Yaghjian Arthur D. Yaghjian (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    Not particularly arguing either way here, but one possible solution would be for someone with relevant expertise, perhaps David Eppstein or Ldm1954, to action Arthur D. Yaghjian's edit request, as an alternative to deletion. Looking at the edit history, it looks as if the edits were primarily rejected on copyright grounds rather than for conflict of interest. I have noticed that the editors responding to COI edit requests of late have become less and less inclined to honour even the most vanilla of changes and I can see why this might lead the subject of an article to request deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    I might suggest to ADY that (from my experience as the subject of a Wikipedia article) it generally works much better to suggest (on the article talk page) the facts that should be updated, rather than suggesting the wording of how to present those facts. Doing so sidesteps both the issue of copying copyrighted text that seems to have tripped up the requests in this case, and the issue of promotional rather than encyclopedic wording that often arises in other cases and is difficult to avoid when writing about yourself. One might also, following Burns, take the existence of an article describing how one appears to others as a blessing, rather than insisting that only one's own view of oneself can be presented. It does not make me sympathetic to a deletion request like this one to see a subject who would be happy for Wikipedia to host an autobiography but is unwilling to allow a biography to be edited and worded by others. Every once in a while I look at the article about myself, shake my head at its haphazard state, and speak to myself the magic incantation: someone else's problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Sergio De La Torre

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

No good coverage can be found, not notable person according to the Wikipedia's general notability guideline Taking off shortly (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Photography, and California. North America1000 10:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Maquilapolis. As an associate professor of art, focused on making and curating art rather than on publishing art scholarship, most criteria of WP:PROF appear out of reach to him, leaving only WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. But that would require in-depth coverage of him or his works, published independently. Thus, for instance, this news story about one of his projects doesn't count as independent, because it's in the student newspaper of his university. I also found independently published stories quoting him about the greying of the Mission [53] but they don't have the necessary depth of coverage of him. His film appears notable, though, and there is some discussion in that article of his role in creating it, so I think it would make a good redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Ilia Stambler

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

Highly promotional article whose references are almost all primary--the subject's resume, their publications, or the longevity websites they seem to be running. Two books, that's promising in terms of WP:PROF, but they are self-published and really not a in a good way: see this one. Instead of references or reviews, then, we have spam links, and maybe one independent reference--but this is pretty lousy, in a publication that doesn't inspire much confidence. In addition, the article was created by a now-blocked sock (blocked by Spicy but I can't tell if G5 applies. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep his books and publications are quite notable. Thus pass WP:AUTHOR. 102.91.93.141 (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Duplicate vote from near-identical IP struck. Left the one below. -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Though notability of the person is really under question, it is rather "yes" than "no". I added several references to the article. There are other short mentiones of the person in press in various languages. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet in my opinion, relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus Talk 17:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems to very quickly drop into using profiles to support it, particularly on the new references. I would have expected to see a lot more in that first block of references, but quickly becomes very poor. I had a look for the books to see if they had a WP:NAUTHOR pass. The current refs are non-rs and there is not much there. I found one link for 'A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century' but is mostly blurb and not a real review so no multiple published reviews. The single Wired article insufficient for blp. When compared to other academics of a similar field, he is non-notable. scope_creepTalk 06:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep [54], [55], [56], [57] and [58] are enough to establish notability. 102.91.92.159 (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The first and third of those are plainly non-independent. The second is the Wired article mentioned by scope_creep above. The fourth does not contain significant coverage (it's one sentence, mostly not about Stambler). These sources do not help show GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: I lean keep. Per Google Scholar [59] he has published multiple things with varying amounts of citations. He has a chapter in a book published by a scholarly press [60]. He's referenced in a book about Transhumanism as well [61] and cited in this Encyclopedia of Biopmedical Gerontology by Elsevier [62] and his work is briefly discussed in this book from the University of California press [63], also this news article [64]. To my understanding, Times of Israel was declared generally reliable here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_461#RfC:_Times_of_Israel, and this article by them describes Stambler and some of his work noting him at the time as "the director of Research and Development at Shmuel Harofe Geriatric Medical Center in Beer Yaakov"[65]. Per its own description, Shmuel Harofe is a government hospital affiliated with the Tel Aviv University Sackler Medical School. If the article is promotional, it should be re-written, but I don't think deletion is appropriate here. Emm90 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Just not seeing enough to meet NPROF or GNG here. Other than the Wired article, which has borderline coverage at most, the sources listed above are typical citations, non-independent, passing mentions, or quotes from him. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I had thought that per WP:NACADEMIC being the Director of Research and Development at Shmuel Harofe Geriatric Medical Center would have fulfilled "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society", no? Given its association with the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, with Tel Aviv University being the largest University in Israel and all. Emm90 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
That is neither an academic institution nor an academic society, and "director of R&D" is not the highest-level position... C6 also says director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university). JoelleJay (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Stephan Matthai

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

Falling short of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics Cinder painter (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus Talk 14:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think his citation count is probably just about enough for WP:NPROF#C1, with an h-index of 43 and first authorship on quite a few highly cited papers. His position as Chair of Reservoir Engineering at the University of Melbourne is probably also enough for WP:NPROF#C5. Not the strongest NPROF pass (although for some reason his university profile is down and I'm having trouble checking for any potential pass on the other criteria), but I think it's enough. MCE89 (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    FYI that's not a "named chair" and so wouldn't count towards C5. JoelleJay (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    Ah looks like you're right, my apologies! Not sure why I'd assumed it would be — now that I've found his archived UniMelb profile it definitely isn't a named chair. Will strike that part. MCE89 (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The citation record would ordinarily be enough for a weak keep for me. But I'm having trouble verifying anything recent about him. He is no longer listed in the staff of the University of Melbourne department where he once worked [66] nor in a centre he was formerly affiliated with [67]. There are still some legacy university pages discussing him but they appear not to have been updated in a long time. None of the information in the article can be verified because there are no sources listed. Some of the same things are mentioned in his ORCiD profile [68] but without the particulars that would allow us to cross-check their accuracy. Unless we can tell his story accurately and based on reliable sources I think we should default to not telling it at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  • weak delete barring any more substantive bio information appearing, per David. We can't write an article based on what we have here. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Would have a chance to atleast pass WP:NPROF#C5 and WP:NPROF#C6 if career information was referenced, it's a delete for me since it doesn't even pass either WP:BLP or WP:GNG.-ANUwrites 15:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Julie Szego

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
    A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPathtalk 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:

https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/julie-szego

https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2015/04/24/32926/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2015-shortlists-announced/

https://www.theage.com.au/by/julie-szego-hvf9s

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/podcast-ashley-talks-to-journalist-julie-szego

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/julie-szego

MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  1. Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
  2. bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
  3. The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
  4. thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
  5. The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.
None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Per TarnishedPath nomination and extensive explanation. Easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom, above discussion and online research that rendered 2 books (no reviews), a sacking, and a couple articles about George Szego. Nothing significant for a career spanning decades. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
I've seen editors cite multiple reviews in the past as sufficient reason for a keep (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here as you've obviously stated there are no reviews). I'm not sure that multiple book reviews, by itself, is a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I presume the editors are basing their keep vote based on criterion 3 which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series), but to me it would appear that when they are doing so that they are disregarding the first sentence of that criterion. TarnishedPathtalk 00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - I found hundreds of search results for her in The Wikipedia Library, but the overwhelming majority of them were her bylines on articles she has written, and yes, there was SIGCOV about her, but it was not independent, because her byline was on those articles as well. Just because she was fired from her job doesn't automatically bestow notability on her, because that news cycle about her getting sacked has already come and gone. Maybe in the future, she might pass GNG for a BLP, but right now she does not, she's a BLP1E. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tony Lupton#Personal life per ATD and CHEAP. The reasoning of the delete-supporters is sound; the conclusion differs. gidonb (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    I have no objection to the suggested redirect. TarnishedPathtalk 04:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Keep. RebeccaGreen convinced me that the author passes NAUTHOR. See list in her comment below. gidonb (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Having found multiple sources (8 so far, just in a google search, and no, they are not publications she has worked for, they're in books and journal articles) where she is quoted or her stances affirmed or questioned, I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR #1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The article as it stands does not reflect this, but can be improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    See Isaidnoway's comment above. If you're going to claim that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" on the basis of them writing two books then you're going to need to provide some sourcing that makes that clear. TarnishedPathtalk 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
    No, it's her articles which are widely quoted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
    Being quoted is not independent from the subject. Isaidnoway addressed that above. We don't count sources which are not independent from the subject as counting towards notability. TarnishedPathtalk 12:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
    Being quoted is being cited, that is exactly what WP:NAUTHOR #1 is about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. At least 10 sources, other than "The Age". Her views are being widely discussed. SRamzy (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
    What sources? I have demonstrated above that none of the sources brought to the AFD demonstrate notability. TarnishedPathtalk 01:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per multiple sources presented during the AfD that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" clearly has the numbers, but none of these keep !votes have appropriate evidence backing them up. If there are independent sources about her and her views, let's see them, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment - Independent sources that cite her views include: Voices of Us [69]; The Bible and the Business of Life, p201-202 [70]; Rise of the Right [71]; Pandemic of Perspectives [72]; an article in the Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics [73]; Guy Rundle, 'Goodbye to All That', p 329, in The Best Australian Political Writing 2008 [74]; and see Google Scholar's list of her works and the articles and books they're cited in [75]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
    All of the articles in mention that you've provided appear to be mentions in passing. 6 mentions in passing is not what I consider would meet the criterion "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors".
    The 7th link you've provided appears to be mostly populated by her own articles. I see J Szego - The Age, 20xx or similar over and over. TarnishedPathtalk 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    The Google Scholar link shows Szego's articles and the number of times each has been cited. If you click on 'Cited by N', you see lists of the other books and articles which cite her - evidence that she has been widely cited by peers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    Some of her newspaper articles are getting between 2 and 4 quotes. I hardly see that as evidence of being regarded as an important figure in the field of journalism or being widely cited. Indeed when I look at that list the only sources that get more than 4 cites are the works of others, which would be mentioning her in passing. TarnishedPathtalk 10:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    @TarnishedPath We're long past the point of WP:BLUDGEON. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as per rationale of RebeccaGreen.Onel5969 TT me 10:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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