Wikipedia

User:Ruud Koot/Feed

< User:Ruud Koot

AA: Computer science

edit

Articles for deletion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(31 more...)

AA: Computing

edit
Shortcut

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(28 more...)

Proposed deletions

(5 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Miscellany for deletion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(34 more...)

Articles to be split

(17 more...)

Articles for creation

(53 more...)

AfD: Computing

edit

Computing

edit

MIRACL (security firm)

edit
MIRACL (security firm) (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 fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. The IBTimes article about them discontinuing a product is seemingly the only reliable, secondary source in the article right now. A cursory search hasn't turned up more coverage. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Kindergarden (demoparty)

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

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

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

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

Phoenix Object Basic

edit
Phoenix Object Basic (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:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Oggcast

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

There are no sources establishing WP:N. The definition is based on a 2016 blog entry apparently by the main contributor to the article. The rest of the sources appear to discuss the Ogg and MP3 codecs, their history and merits - but not the topic of the article (the link for the last source that might have contained some information does not work, but the site does not appear to be a good WP:RS). The article was WP:BLARed in January of the 2016, but restored per the Articlefy (without prejudice) result of an RfD WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_31#Oggcast. The article was WP:PRODded in January 2012, so going the AfD route. Викидим (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete - this article lacked notability at the time of creation and the passage of time has only made that more clear. Brandon (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete: no non-blog available sources other than things used for original research; even if the term was notable it could easily and more appropriately be under OGG. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not a notable concept, unable to find reliable sources. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete This feels like more of a snobby and complex WP:HOWTO about how to listen to non-notable podcasts made that way on purpose because of a bizarre hate of an industry standard file format, and only one of them has a bluelink (and moved onto acceptance of MP3 long ago). I'm not saying Ogg is a bad format at all, just that this is a niche that nobody for a high-quality open audio format is searching for (people talking about the format they're listening to when MP3 serves that purpose just fine and plays on anything). Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsensical article thinly veiled as a promotion for non-notable podcasts. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 08:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Security Compass

edit
Security Compass (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 fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Specifically lacking reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Syhunt

edit
Syhunt (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 lacks any reliable sources. Fails every criteria of WP:ORGCRIT. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hacktivity

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

I found no significant coverage for this conference. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

BigID

edit
BigID (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 to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Sources are _almost entirely_ related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Panorays

edit
Panorays (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 seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Israel. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Sources in the article mentioned the subject in passing, some are PR materials except one that give significant coverage and seems reliable. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Heid

edit
Alexander Heid (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)

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

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

MTA SZTAKI Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Systems

edit
MTA SZTAKI Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Systems (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 whole article currently relies on primary sources. Also, I am not convinced that a research laboratory of a university and/or a research institute needs a separate article, since there are no major achievements for this. All relevant information can be easily migrated to MTA SZTAKI; therefore, the article can be either completely deleted or, more suitably, merged with MTA SZTAKI. Chiserc (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Kosmic Free Music Foundation

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

I was only able to find mentions and brief descriptions (<100 words) of the subject in reliable sources (such as by searching "filetype:pdf "Kosmic Free Music Foundation" " on Google). The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s. Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community. 75.3.240.177 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

TokenEx

edit
TokenEx (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 fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP.

References include: - Two local news articles (Tulsa World, The Oklahoman) - Two trade press article (PYMNTS, SatelliteTODAY) - One press release (PRNewswire)

Most coverage is brief and concerns partnerships with other companies. Brandon (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Grapevine (disk magazine)

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

I am struggling to find sources that discuss Grapevine in depth. Per the article's own description, it was "a [d]isk magazine for the Commodore Amiga published by the [d]emo scene group LSD." (my bold emphasis added). A publication by none other than those involved in the demoscene would have a high bar to clear in order to count as notable. Predictably, the few sources I can dig up refer to it passingly, and some old Amiga magazines did look at Grapevine, but from what I saw, they were reviewing the disk magazine's issues, not writing about its importance or influence in the Amiga community. The only thing that can save this article is if others happen to find more information about Grapevine, and in depth, which I could not. FreeMediaKid$ 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak delete due to insignificant coverage Vorann Gencov (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Amiga Active

edit
Amiga Active (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)

Probably this magazine was popular among the few users who clung onto the Amiga, but the OS had been dead for five years when Amiga Active was launched, and I found no evidence as to why the magazine is notable. Simply put, this article does not pass notability muster and is a permastub. FreeMediaKid$ 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, and Computing. FreeMediaKid$ 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Note AmigaOS 3.5 was released in October 1999 (the same month the magazine was introduced), so at least this part of the AfD nomination is not entirely true (there were few updates even before that - eg. new Installer utility and support for drives bigger than 4 GB). The article in question mentions a connection to former CU Amiga staff, maybe a simple redirect to our Commodore User article may be the best course of action here (the article subject is mentioned there and I may be able to find a proper source for this information). Pavlor (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Pardon my ignorance. Having fiddled with Amiga Forever for months now and uploaded dozens of Amiga-related items to the Internet Archive, I should have known better. I would have come across as less hyperbolic with language like, "The Amiga was long past its prime by 1999," and I have heard of AmigaOS 4 (it amazes me to know how such a formerly popular OS as the Amiga would receive continued support long after its original manufacturer had folded, and that was 30 years ago). FreeMediaKid$ 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science

edit
Shortcuts


Science

edit

Society of Physicists of Macedonia

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

I found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas A. Moore

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

Academic without a significant publication record or major awards. While he has written two textbooks, notability of them is unclear with only one review. In any case, even if the book is notable the author does not have to be. Page was moved to draft following NPR; editor rejected draftification and moved back to main without attempting to prove notability. Hence time for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. The subject holds a named chair at Pomona College, but I am unconvinced that Pomona is a "major institution of higher education and research" in the sense of WP:NPROF C5. It is difficult to disambiguate this Thomas Moore from the many others of the same name for citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed, I forgot to add that point to the nomination, I should have. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The specific criteria notes at NPROF state that Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Pomona is one of the most selective higher education institutions in the U.S., so it unambiguously meets that standard. Sdkb talk 14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Ultimately, NPROF is for impact in the larger field. The Pomona press release [3] certainly makes it sound like this endowed chair is essentially a high-powered university-wide teaching award. So I am unconvinced by NPROF C5. I will think about the NAUTHOR case you make below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The press release focuses on teaching because Pomona is a liberal arts college and liberal arts colleges emphasize teaching over research. But authoring a popular textbook is certainly impact on the field (academia's bias toward research over pedagogy notwithstanding).
    In any case, the NPROF C5 discussion is now moot given that the additional sources XOR'easter has found (two reviews of his other book in peer-reviewed academic journals, plus a fourth academic source with SIGCOV of Six Ideas) make the NAUTHOR case pretty unimpeachable. Sdkb talk 18:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are paths to notability both under WP:NPROF #5 and under WP:NAUTHOR #3, either one of which would be sufficient. For NPROF, he holds an endowed chair indicating a significant level of academic achievement, having previously been a full-tenured professor.[1] For NAUTHOR — 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 — Moore is the author of Six Ideas that Shaped Physics, which has been the subject of multiple reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals.[2][3][4] Contrary to the nominator's assertion that I rejected draftification without attempting to prove notability, I communicated with them about NPROF and then more recently added the three reviews, which they may have missed in stating that there is only one review. Their comment that these would count only toward notability of the book and not Moore is a misunderstanding of NAUTHOR, per a plain reading of the guideline text. Sdkb talk 15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, reviews of a book can count towards the notability of an author (what else should an author be known for, other than their books? their stroganoff recipe?). However, authors are generally not seen as notable unless there are multiple reviews of multiple books apiece. An author with only one book is typically seen as a person known for only one thing, in which case it makes more sense to write an article about the book instead. There are exceptions, of course. Someone who writes a book that becomes one of the standard texts used in nearly every university course on a topic would be argued to meet WP:PROF#C4, even if none of their other accomplishments stand out. Jackson would be notable just for writing Jackson. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Having done a literature search for substantial, reliably-published reviews of his textbooks, I believe that WP:AUTHOR is met. (In addition to the references I added, there is also [4], which I wasn't quite sure how to incorporate; it's more about the work that led up to the Six Ideas book than the book itself.) I don't think that Moore is at the level where the book is known by his last name, which roughly speaking is the kind of status that would meet WP:PROF#C4, and I have no opinion about the WP:PROF#C5 case, but neither of those is necessary here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Thomsen, Marilyn (22 May 2024). "Faculty in Biology, History and Physics Named to Endowed Professorships". Pomona College. Retrieved 20 June 2024.
  2. ^ Joseph Amato (1996). "The Introductory Calculus‐Based Physics Textbook". Physics Today. 49 (12): 46–51. doi:10.1063/1.881581.
  3. ^ 李广平, 张立彬 (2012-03-20). "决定物理学发展的六大思想" [Six Ideas That Shaped Physics]. 大学物理 [College Physics] (in Chinese). 31 (3): 55. ISSN 1000-0712.
  4. ^ Bernatowicz, Thomas J. (2006-03-01). "Post-Use Review. Six Ideas That Shaped Physics (second edition, six volumes)." American Journal of Physics. 74 (3): 243–245. doi:10.1119/1.2149873. ISSN 0002-9505.
  • Keep, now the case has changed from WP:PROF#C5 to WP:AUTHOR I have no problem with retaining the page, given the sources that XOR'easter found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. WP:NAUTHOR case now looks reasonably solid, with two works that got multiple reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: His "Six Ideas" textbook would make him notable [5] with it used to teach an introduction to physics. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sally Norton

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. I have checked the sources are most of them are primarily about the Australian Grains Genebank and small mentions of this person not meeting WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thelma Rodgers

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

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

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

ELKO theory

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

Article based upon one source which has been cited 4 times, plus a second more cited source that has nothing to do with the topic. The page was previously deleted, and as part of NPR I tagged a newly created version for questionable notability, no significant scientific coverage and in need of better sourcing to avoid a future AfD. Editor User:TakuyaMurata immediately removed the maintenance tag of notability claiming that a Google search indicates that it is notable; I find no evidence of this. Hence time for an AfD as not notable for a more complete discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: Perhaps the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass dimension one fermions is helpful here. There does seem to exist some sufficient amount of publications to justify the notability (please Google with “elko field” too). According to the previous AfD, there is some coi issue, which I cannot tell just from looking at the article alone. But at least the notability is considered, it looked ok to me. Needless to say, the more citations and references there are the better (and more such are probably needed). —- Taku (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    Just saying "Google it" is absolutely useless for determining notability. What reliable, independent, secondary sources exist now that didn't exist in 2020? XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe not new. But in order to determine if the topic is notable or not, we just look at the amount/quality of publications: Google is a standard way to see that. I suppose you can create the appearance of research activities by citing each other (not saying this one is). That’s not a good practice but Wikipedia isn’t a place to judge whether certain research activities are genuine or not. —- Taku (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    No, Google is not "a standard way to see" how much relevant, peer-reviewed material there is on a topic. General-purpose Google has never been good for that — and grows worse by the day — and even Google Scholar is only useful if employed carefully.
    What peer-reviewed publications, not written by the original inventors of this idea, discuss it in depth? Name three. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t think it matters much whether some papers are independent of the creator of the theory. In some field, the originators have a very strong influence; that doesn’t mean the theory is not notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. As a research activity, that’s too promotional and problematic? Perhaps, but again in Wikipedia we don’t judge the quality of the research. I know especially for biographical articles, we need secondary sources but research articles are somehow different (again because of the way some research topics are pursued). The existence of the textbook I mentioned below especially seems a very strong indication for the notability, since the publisher thinks the topic is worth publishing. —- Taku (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it very much matters, by policy. A textbook by one of the authors of the original publication is not an independent source. It's very much the opposite of an independent source. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    Like I said above, some research topic just doesn’t develop independent of the originator. That should not be a ground for non-notability. Of course, the textbook isn’t an independent source but, unlike bio articles, it doesn’t mean it is not a reliable source; that part of policy isn’t about like textbooks that can be cited. If interpreted literally, it’s like you can’t cite Grothendieck since he is involved in the creation of scheme theory. It doesn’t work that way when we cover scientific topics; throughout Wikipedia, we do cite plenty of textbooks that are not independent of the subject. —- Taku (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (To add, it seems there is a conflict of reliability: in academia, a primary source is usually considered more reliable than the secondary one. Because of this, even in Wikipedia, for scientific articles, we often prefer to cite textbooks by the authors close to the subject than the secondary ones. —- Taku (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC))
    We can cite textbooks and monographs and review articles by people involved with an article topic. But we don't base notability decisions on them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    For scientific topics, I think a primary textbook can be counted towards the notablity. We have the notability criterion in part because we need reliable sources to write an article. For scientific articles, primary sources can be reliable (arguably more reliable in some instances). So, the existence of such sources could and should be a ground for the notability. Here, it is important to note that the textbook in question is published from a reputable publisher not a self-publishing book. —- Taku (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    No, primary sources aren't enough. Otherwise anyone who managed to get a paper published in a journal could claim that their work deserves a Wikipedia article. And that just isn't the case. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    Of course, a primary paper isn’t sufficient. A textbook seems different though: not anyone can publish a textbook (except self-publishing ones). A textbook from a reputable publisher thus should count something. (I guess, in a sense, you can say a textbook isn’t completely primary; it comes with a sort of authorization from a publisher.) Taku (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    By the exact same logic, a published paper wouldn't be "primary", because it "comes with a sort of authorization from a publisher". Moreover, the book you linked is a monograph, not a textbook: it's a single-author work in which the author describes their own research. Cambridge UP has printed dozens of those. Some of them are on notable topics, others perhaps not. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    The difference is that monographs (yes, I should have said textbook or monograph as the book is a monograph) are more selective and fewer than journal papers. A reputable series like the Cambridge one does not publish books on topics that are fringe or of marginal research interest. In that way, being part of the series gives the topic a sort of authority; in fact, we often use some selective list or awards to determine a given topic is notable or not (and the Cambridge series is independent of the subject). I agree some topic covered in the series is something quite personal, something inseparable from the author. But as said above, I don’t think that is a problem. A one-man’s work can be perfectly notable. Taku (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    By the way, there is apparently a book about the topic according to the previous AfD (I think this one [6], which isn’t a self-published one). That seems significant. Maybe the previous article was promotional in tone (which I don’t know since I can’t see the deleted article), but this article doesn’t sound promotional in tone. —- Taku (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    XOR'easter, for clarity I don't see your vote on the AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    Haven't had time to come to a final judgment yet. The current state of the article would incline me to !vote "delete", but I wanted to sift the literature myself first. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Insufficient sources to support notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. czar 05:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize

edit
Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize (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 from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g. [7]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shen, Alice (2018-09-17). "Science prizes put technological innovation at the heart of China's progress. Prestigious Hong Kong science foundation rewards the brightest and the best". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."

    2. "People's Daily article". People's Daily. 2005. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"

      From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."

    3. Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.). "杨振宁获求是终身成就奖 系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"

      From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."

    4. Zhu, Lixin (2015-09-20). "TCM doctor receives 'grand award' from Qiu Shi foundation". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Qiu Shi Awards (simplified Chinese: 求是奖; traditional Chinese: 求是獎) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: Cunard did a very thorough search of sources. However, I found the nominator's main concern is that many of the sources are about the award ceremonies and awardees, rather than the award itself. While the South China Morning Post and People's Daily sources provided by Cunard are indeed about the award itself, The Beijing News and China Daily sources seem to fall under what the nominator would consider as non-independent sources. Therefore, I found two additional sources from Guang Ming Daily[8] and Ta Kung Pao[9] which documented the founding of the award, and I believe these should be adequate to address the nominator's concerns. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep another easy @Cunard sourcing win, truly one of the GOATs of AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Science Proposed deletions

edit

Science Miscellany for deletion

edit

Science Redirects for discussion

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


Deletion Review

edit

AfD: Academics

edit

Academics and educators

edit

Yossi Elran

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

One of a number of BLP recently created directly to main space by קוונטום דוץ. Multiple editors have pointed out issues with these such as notability, sourcing, refbombing. This is perhaps the weakest. Lecturer with an h-factor of 8, no major awards, no major mentions, weak independent sourcing and many unsourced paragraphs. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that we will examine your behavior, then each and every of your claims. There have been elapsed 32 minutes since the moment you marked the entry until you put it under discussion for deletion. I assume your were so insulted by my comment in your talk page that you've determined to teach me a lesson. Ok, well. Let us now examine your comments one by one:
1. "Multiple editors have pointed out issues with these such as notability, sourcing, refbombing" - there were only issues in Eli Jerby and you were the one that have decided to crusade the entry. Refbombing? are you serious? to cite academic articles is refbombing?
2. "Lecturer with an h-factors of 8" - Yossi Elran is mainly notable not as a scientist but as an educator. h-index (and not h-factor, I expect you to know that) is irrelevant in this case.
3. "No major awards" - I understand that you have a fantastic aquaintance with all the awards and accolades in education and science journalism.
4. "Weak independent sourcing" - sorry, I don't have plenty of times like you to mend an entry within 32 minutes.
Have a wonderful day. קוונטום דוץ (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
pls delete page thanks Lorenzo1235 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
pls keep or delete page thanks Lorenzo1235 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar)

edit
Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar) (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 sources do not show that the notability guidelines are being met. There are no significant claims to notability. The majority of the sources are from an online bookstore and obituaries. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911 There are references in Bengali and English language to verify the article. Most of the references are in Bengali, because he is a Bangladeshi man. And the book references given are his published books. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas A. Moore

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

Academic without a significant publication record or major awards. While he has written two textbooks, notability of them is unclear with only one review. In any case, even if the book is notable the author does not have to be. Page was moved to draft following NPR; editor rejected draftification and moved back to main without attempting to prove notability. Hence time for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. The subject holds a named chair at Pomona College, but I am unconvinced that Pomona is a "major institution of higher education and research" in the sense of WP:NPROF C5. It is difficult to disambiguate this Thomas Moore from the many others of the same name for citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed, I forgot to add that point to the nomination, I should have. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The specific criteria notes at NPROF state that Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Pomona is one of the most selective higher education institutions in the U.S., so it unambiguously meets that standard. Sdkb talk 14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Ultimately, NPROF is for impact in the larger field. The Pomona press release [11] certainly makes it sound like this endowed chair is essentially a high-powered university-wide teaching award. So I am unconvinced by NPROF C5. I will think about the NAUTHOR case you make below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The press release focuses on teaching because Pomona is a liberal arts college and liberal arts colleges emphasize teaching over research. But authoring a popular textbook is certainly impact on the field (academia's bias toward research over pedagogy notwithstanding).
    In any case, the NPROF C5 discussion is now moot given that the additional sources XOR'easter has found (two reviews of his other book in peer-reviewed academic journals, plus a fourth academic source with SIGCOV of Six Ideas) make the NAUTHOR case pretty unimpeachable. Sdkb talk 18:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are paths to notability both under WP:NPROF #5 and under WP:NAUTHOR #3, either one of which would be sufficient. For NPROF, he holds an endowed chair indicating a significant level of academic achievement, having previously been a full-tenured professor.[1] For NAUTHOR — 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 — Moore is the author of Six Ideas that Shaped Physics, which has been the subject of multiple reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals.[2][3][4] Contrary to the nominator's assertion that I rejected draftification without attempting to prove notability, I communicated with them about NPROF and then more recently added the three reviews, which they may have missed in stating that there is only one review. Their comment that these would count only toward notability of the book and not Moore is a misunderstanding of NAUTHOR, per a plain reading of the guideline text. Sdkb talk 15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, reviews of a book can count towards the notability of an author (what else should an author be known for, other than their books? their stroganoff recipe?). However, authors are generally not seen as notable unless there are multiple reviews of multiple books apiece. An author with only one book is typically seen as a person known for only one thing, in which case it makes more sense to write an article about the book instead. There are exceptions, of course. Someone who writes a book that becomes one of the standard texts used in nearly every university course on a topic would be argued to meet WP:PROF#C4, even if none of their other accomplishments stand out. Jackson would be notable just for writing Jackson. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Having done a literature search for substantial, reliably-published reviews of his textbooks, I believe that WP:AUTHOR is met. (In addition to the references I added, there is also [12], which I wasn't quite sure how to incorporate; it's more about the work that led up to the Six Ideas book than the book itself.) I don't think that Moore is at the level where the book is known by his last name, which roughly speaking is the kind of status that would meet WP:PROF#C4, and I have no opinion about the WP:PROF#C5 case, but neither of those is necessary here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Thomsen, Marilyn (22 May 2024). "Faculty in Biology, History and Physics Named to Endowed Professorships". Pomona College. Retrieved 20 June 2024.
  2. ^ Joseph Amato (1996). "The Introductory Calculus‐Based Physics Textbook". Physics Today. 49 (12): 46–51. doi:10.1063/1.881581.
  3. ^ 李广平, 张立彬 (2012-03-20). "决定物理学发展的六大思想" [Six Ideas That Shaped Physics]. 大学物理 [College Physics] (in Chinese). 31 (3): 55. ISSN 1000-0712.
  4. ^ Bernatowicz, Thomas J. (2006-03-01). "Post-Use Review. Six Ideas That Shaped Physics (second edition, six volumes)." American Journal of Physics. 74 (3): 243–245. doi:10.1119/1.2149873. ISSN 0002-9505.

Mehran Tebyani

edit
Mehran Tebyani (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)

Moved from draft by conflicted editor, no evidence of passing WP:GNG primary sources and interviews don't help with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redraftify until notability issues fixed. Procyon117 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Mehran Tebyani
is a notable figure in the field of music, particularly recognized for being the first Iranian conductor to hold a doctoral degree. His contributions to the music industry are significant and well-documented. Here are key points highlighting his notability and accomplishments:
  • Academic Achievements: Mehran Tebyani holds a doctoral degree, making him the first Iranian conductor to achieve this level of academic success in the field.
  • Publications: He has published a book in Iran, which contributes to his recognition as a scholar and expert in music.
  • Media Coverage: Tebyani has been interviewed by numerous newspapers in Iran, demonstrating his influence and prominence in the Iranian music scene.
  • Radio Sessions: During his time in Los Angeles, he hosted a radio session dedicated to the history of music for one year, further showcasing his expertise and commitment to educating the public about music.
  • Concerts and Performances: He has conducted several concerts at UCLA in Los Angeles, adding to his international recognition and illustrating his active involvement in the music community.
Dr.Hana jalili (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Nick Clifford

edit
Nick Clifford (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)

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    This archive URL of his profile from Loughborough has Cliffords employment history: [14] - I've also updated the citation in the article to include the archive-url. Furthermore I've identified and added two SCOPUS profiles including [15]. ResonantDistortion 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Noted academic.... Full Prof at KCL and Loughborough till retirement 2020. Lots of cited works (including Key methods in geography Cited by 1500+) (Perhaps searching GS under NJ Clifford, Nicholas Clifford (and checking is the same Clifford) adds up to substantial pubs... Technical clear Pass of WP:prof (8) by virtue of being (formerly) the editor of Progress in Physical Geography. Added refs, including editorials in the journal, substantiating this (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC))
    • Is the River Science Wikidot source reliable? I had assumed not, but on further review it does seem to be a closed-wiki with some editorial control. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Kade Ferris

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

I believe this article should be deleted because it clearly fails WP:NOTE. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The cited sources are a bit thin but I wouldn't say it's 'clear' either way. Did you look for sources? The article lists several books authored by the subject, did you look for reviews per WP:NAUTHOR? – Joe (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah I can't find anything to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. I still stand by deleting this article. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    Nope this article fails notability guidelines for authors too. It seems this page was made by friends of the article's subject. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    What makes you think it was made by friends of the subject? Belbury (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. His books appear to be self-published but that would be ok if there were reliably published reviews of them. I couldn't find any. The sources in the article now include a book review, but of someone else's book and mentioning Ferris only in passing. The only in-depth source that we have is a local-news obituary, appearing to be a family-written obituary rather than a work of independent journalism. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein Kade Ferris is the author. Charles Albert Bender = Chief Bender and is the subject of the biography. There are other reviews of that book too. Anyway I'm leaning keep. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    Chief Bender meets notability guidelines for his sports career while Ferris does not meet any Wikipedia notability guidelines. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Are you telling me that the book Métis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People, with the author listed as Michel Hogue on the cover, is really by Kade Ferris? Because that is the book whose review I was referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein Right. I clocked that the first time I read your comment, but the second time I read it, I read it the other way. I can add the other book reviews (of his book) and also quote from at least one other book I found. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    This article still seems to fail WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Minnesota, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see that the review in American Indian Children's Literature got removed from the article as a source. I am adding it back. While the site itself could be construed as a blog, the reason this particular blog qualifies as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS, is that it is produced by Debbie Reese, who is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - I expanded it to include more about the impact of his tribal history preservation work and the impact that has on reservations, ND and MN educational standards and added information about his mapping skills.  oncamera  (talk page) 08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    I still don't see how this article ceases to fail WP:NOTE WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    His written work as an author and oral traditions that he embedded within his maps, blogs, and recorded videos for the state of North Dakota established notability. He was a respected tribal historian and elder knowledge keeper and professional work reflects that.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    The article has now been puffed up with some 30 footnotes, most of which do not seem to be the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. Of the ones that actually mention Ferris or his works in their title, "Kade Ferris's Gift" is an interview (not usually counted as independent), the Red Lake Nation News obituary reads like a family-written obituary (not independent), the Mendoza book review is in a blog (not reliably published), Teachings of Our Elders is by him not about him, and Archaeologist presents has no depth of coverage of Ferris. Perhaps, per WP:THREE, advocates of keeping the article could save us the effort of similarly evaluating all 30 of the footnotes and point us to three sources that are actually in-depth, independent, and reliably-published? I'm looking for a small number of high-quality sources, at most three, not many low-quality sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that it would be helpful to hear the three best sources. It seems like notability is marginal at best and it's hard to see through all the passing coverage. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article was already extremely well cited, but I added an infobox and a little bit more. His notability stems from his tribal historic preservation work which is interdisciplinary (history, anthropology, archaeology, policy making, language advocacy, etc.) Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    Can you please address the discussion above about lack of high-quality sourcing, rather than merely asserting that "This article was already extremely well cited" when clearly it isn't? It has many sources but that misses the point. We need a small number of high-quality sources, and continuing to add larger numbers of low-quality sources only makes notability harder to discern by hiding the good sources in a big pile of dross. It would be better to remove both the low-quality sources and the material sourced to them so that we can focus on the essentials. The sources you added (his own dissertation and a web page about someone else that mentions him in passing) do not contribute to notability according to Wikipedia's standards for notability, which are not based on the work the subject might have done but rather on the depth of coverage of the subject in sources that are independent of him and meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't appreciate the suggestion that tribal newspapers are "low-quality sources." Like I wrote, his notability is based on being a THPO, so it's interdisciplinary. He was not just a writer. While several pieces (Red Lake Nation News, Minnesota Native News) focus on him specifically, even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    Tribal newspapers are as reliable as any other newspaper. But when a local newspaper (tribal or not) runs an obituary that reads like the sort of obituary written by a family member to announce a death, rather than the kind of obituary that major newspapers write themselves when famous people die, it doesn't count much towards notability. For one thing, if it is indeed written by family, it is not an independent source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    .... even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    So much a part of the enduring historical record that the only Wikilink to him from any other article is a an unsourced sentence about him in an article about a village in Lebanon, stating that he is also of Lebanese descent, something that appears nowhere in the Kade Ferris article itself? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    If that's an issue to you, you can help expand topics on Turtle Mountain, the Ojibwe or Metis history and credit/wikilink his article from those edits. Wikipedia needs more editors in that area.  oncamera  (talk page) 10:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    I definitely think the Métis have an interesting history that deserves to be better-known, but I have no special expertise in that area, and I have even less knowledge of Turtle Mountain or the Ojibwe.
Incidentally, I can find no evidence that Kade Ferris had any connection to Lebanon, outside of a few unreliable web sources. I have removed the link to him from the Lebanese village article. His mother was from Minnesota and his father was originally from the Turtle Mountain Reservation. I suspect his father, Albert Ferris, may have some notability as an artist. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just came across this AfD and don't entirely feel experienced enough with guidelines to vote either way, but I'd like to note that Ferris' work on map decolonization and geographic technologies (as THPO for the Red Lake Nation) was significant enough that he gave a full-fledged presentation at the Council for Minnesota Archaeology's 2023 annual conference, entitled "Creating a Virtual Database for Regional Tribal Resource Management and Consultation". I don't know if, for example, a program (with an abstract of his talk) from the conference (the most important one on Minnesota archaeology, as far as I know) would count towards GNG, but I do have such a document if uploading it somewhere could prove useful. Thanks. SunTunnels (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Vincent Bastien

edit
Vincent Bastien (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)

Cited sources do not establish notability, and could not find anything more convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Not enough coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR. The NYT source above is not actually a review, and instead just offers a trivial mention of him and his book; the rest of the article is about something completely different. The other link is not an independent review either. The Maeil Business News source is the best available, but aside than that I can't find anything about him at all. Appears to just be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL businessman who also wrote a book. McSyl, I recommend you strike out your vote because simply writing a book does nothing to contribute to notability. I could write a book right now and pay for it to be published. That obviously does not make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. C F A 💬 00:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Coverage doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. No indications of notability elsewhere in the citations or from a quick search. nf utvol (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Marco Magnani

edit
Marco Magnani (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)

Not particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:

Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [27][28] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [29] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America, il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?
Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.
I'm not 100% sure if the book sources transfer over to his notability, but he's still got a case either way. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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