AA: Computer science
editArticles for deletion
- 06 Jan 2025 – Database seeding (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mikeblas (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
- 26 Dec 2024 – Computational human modeling (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Fgnievinski (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 02 Jan 2025; see discussion (4 participants)
- 26 Dec 2024 – Marco Trombetti (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Richard Yin (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 02 Jan 2025; see discussion (6 participants)
Proposed deletions
- 01 Jan 2025 – Jakub Szefer (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Sahaib (t · c) was deproded by Espresso Addict (t · c) on 03 Jan 2025
Good article nominees
- 04 Dec 2024 – Yao's principle (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by David Eppstein (t · c); start discussion
Articles to be merged
- 05 Jan 2025 – Round-tripping (computer science) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Round-trip format conversion by Killarnee (t · c); see discussion
- 25 Nov 2024 – 3D Face Morphable Model (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 3D Morphable Model by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
- 10 Aug 2024 – Hazard (computer architecture) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Data_dependency#Types by 142.113.140.146 (t · c); see discussion
- 08 Aug 2024 – Multitask optimization (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Multi-task learning by Biggerj1 (t · c); see discussion
- 17 May 2024 – Free software (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Free and open-source software by Buidhe (t · c); see discussion
- 17 May 2024 – Open-source software (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Free and open-source software by Buidhe (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Jan 2025 – Bash (Unix shell) (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to Bash (Unix shell)#Versions by Cedar101 (t · c) was closed; see discussion
Articles to be split
- 06 Jan 2025 – Bash (Unix shell) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Cedar101 (t · c); see discussion
- 12 Nov 2024 – Relational algebra (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Rp (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Jul 2023 – Rosenbrock methods (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by HTinC23 (t · c); see discussion
- 05 Dec 2020 – 3D reconstruction (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Fgnievinski (t · c); see discussion
- 01 Jun 2020 – Computer Olympiad (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Grutness (t · c); see discussion
Articles for creation
- 07 Jan 2025 – Draft:Ralph Grishman (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Saparagus (t · c)
- 04 Jan 2025 – Draft:Susan L. Epstein (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by NBmua (t · c)
- 04 Jan 2025 – Draft:HILO HDL (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 2A00:23C7:E30:BE01:7956:BE7D:4149:2891 (t · c)
- 24 Dec 2024 – Draft:Object Life Cycle Diagram (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by VŠEesej (t · c)
- 17 Dec 2024 – Draft:Alexander Tetelbaum (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Atetelbaum (t · c)
- 29 Nov 2024 – Draft:Iman Sadeghi (computer scientist) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 136.52.62.43 (t · c)
- 28 Nov 2024 – Draft:Common Core Ontologies (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by FinnWilson (t · c)
- 28 Nov 2024 – Draft:Harry B. Hunt, III (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Wo43420 (t · c)
- 28 Nov 2024 – Draft:Michael Rhoades (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by AugmentedIntelligence (t · c)
- 23 Nov 2024 – Draft:Fine and Wilf's theorem (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MatthewKonefal (t · c)
- (10 more...)
AA: Computing
editDid you know
- 03 Jan 2025 – Mark IV (software) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Maury Markowitz (t · c); see discussion
Articles for deletion
- 09 Jan 2025 – Samsung Galaxy Tab E 9.6 (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Madeline1805 (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
- 08 Jan 2025 – Falken (bulletin board system) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
- 08 Jan 2025 – Vivo X30 (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by TheTechie (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
- 08 Jan 2025 – Winxvideo AI (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
- 07 Jan 2025 – Localgiving (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Cinder painter (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
- 06 Jan 2025 – Dell Axim (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by JM with Dell Technologies (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
- 06 Jan 2025 – Database seeding (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mikeblas (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
- 06 Jan 2025 – MediaWiki version history (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Pppery (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)
- 06 Jan 2025 – Personal wiki (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Pppery (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
- 06 Jan 2025 – Benedikt Johannes Hofer (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by CanonNi (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
- (21 more...)
Proposed deletions
- 09 Jan 2025 – Village Area Network (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Bearian (t · c): concern
- 08 Jan 2025 – Usher (software) (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Brandon (t · c): concern
- 08 Jan 2025 – Densify (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Brandon (t · c): concern
- 08 Jan 2025 – Galvanize (software company) (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Brandon (t · c): concern
- 08 Jan 2025 – Aisera (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Brandon (t · c): concern
- 08 Jan 2025 – Composite Software (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Brandon (t · c): concern
- 06 Jan 2025 – List of USB video class devices (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by 2A0C:5A84:E209:E600:3913:6FEC:F6A7:DC40 (t · c): concern
- 05 Jan 2025 – Landscape Express (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Mika1h (t · c): concern
- 05 Jan 2025 – Parallel Intelligence (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Apocheir (t · c): concern and endorsed by Bearian (t · c) on 07 Jan 2025: concern
- 03 Jan 2025 – Salary calculator (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Asteramellus (t · c): concern and endorsed by Bearian (t · c) on 07 Jan 2025: concern
- (5 more...)
Redirects for discussion
- 08 Jan 2025 – Wirtland (micronation) (talk · edit · hist) →List of micronations was RfDed by XRozuRozu (t · c); see discussion
- 07 Jan 2025 – VVikipedia (talk · edit · hist) →Wikipedia was RfDed by Heyaaaaalol (t · c); see discussion
- 05 Jan 2025 – Wiki encyclopedia (talk · edit · hist) →Wikipedia was RfDed by Heyaaaaalol (t · c); see discussion
- 05 Jan 2025 – Dreamshell (talk · edit · hist) →Dreamcast was RfDed by Mika1h (t · c); see discussion
- 04 Jan 2025 – Zhan 66 desktop (talk · edit · hist) →List of HP business desktops was RfDed by Blethering Scot (t · c); see discussion
- 04 Jan 2025 – I use arch btw (talk · edit · hist) →Arch Linux was RfDed by Heyaaaaalol (t · c); see discussion
- 03 Jan 2025 – Hitachi LXG-1 (talk · edit · hist) →Hitachi was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
- 03 Jan 2025 – N*gga stole my bike (talk · edit · hist) →YTMND was RfDed by Zzuuzz (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Jan 2025 – Nigga Stole My Bike (talk · edit · hist) →YTMND was RfDed by 1857a (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Jan 2025 – Triple dub (talk · edit · hist) →World Wide Web was RfDed by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c); see discussion
- (4 more...)
Miscellany for deletion
- 04 Jan 2025 – Draft:Windows 12 (talk · edit · hist) was MfDed by Vitaium (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 23 Dec 2024 – Terry A. Davis (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by OpalYosutebito (t · c); start discussion
- 27 Oct 2024 – Charles O'Rear (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Vacant0 (t · c); start discussion
- 26 Aug 2024 – IMac (Apple silicon) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by David Fuchs (t · c); see discussion
- 19 Aug 2024 – IBM and unions (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Shushugah (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Jun 2024 – Client Hints (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Sohom Datta (t · c); see discussion
Good article reassessments
- 07 Jan 2025 – Fortinet (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Brandon (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Jan 2025 – MacBook (2006–2012) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussion
Peer reviews
- 28 Dec 2024 – 15.ai (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Alalch E. (t · c); see discussion
Requested moves
- 04 Jan 2025 – CollegeHumor (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Dropout (media company) by Anne drew (t · c); see discussion
- 03 Jan 2025 – Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Beyond, Inc. by 162 etc. (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Jan 2025 – Samsung Galaxy S series (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Samsung Galaxy S by Intrisit (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 06 Jan 2025 – Personal information management (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Personal information manager by Brandon (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Jan 2025 – Personal information manager (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Personal information management by Brandon (t · c); see discussion
- 05 Jan 2025 – Round-tripping (computer science) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Round-trip format conversion by Killarnee (t · c); see discussion
- 04 Jan 2025 – Amazon Elastic File System (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Amazon Web Services by Beland (t · c); see discussion
- 31 Dec 2024 – Comparison of CRT, LCD, plasma, and OLED displays (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Comparison of display technology by Emir of Wikipedia (t · c); see discussion
- 27 Dec 2024 – Event (synchronization primitive) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Event (computing) by Tule-hog (t · c); see discussion
- 19 Dec 2024 – Home page (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Web browser#Start page by Fgnievinski (t · c); see discussion
- 13 Dec 2024 – Kaplan University (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Purdue University Global by Wizzito (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Dec 2024 – Wireless router (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Router (computing) by Sceeegt (t · c); see discussion
- 05 Dec 2024 – Ancient UNIX (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Research Unix by Sceeegt (t · c); see discussion
- (18 more...)
Articles to be split
- 06 Jan 2025 – Bash (Unix shell) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Cedar101 (t · c); see discussion
- 26 Dec 2024 – Smartphone (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Kvng (t · c); see discussion
- 04 Dec 2024 – Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Primefac (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Dec 2024 – Twitter (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
- 12 Nov 2024 – Relational algebra (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Rp (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Oct 2024 – Acorn Electron (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Dgpop (t · c); see discussion
- 26 Jul 2024 – List of Android smartphones (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by OzzyOlly (t · c); see discussion
- 08 Jun 2024 – Tubi (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Slgrandson (t · c); see discussion
- 11 May 2024 – List of Intel Core processors (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by AP 499D25 (t · c); see discussion
- 16 Feb 2024 – Pretty Good Privacy (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Artoria2e5 (t · c); see discussion
- (23 more...)
Articles for creation
- 08 Jan 2025 – Draft:BlueRange Mesh (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by DomHel (t · c)
- 02 Jan 2025 – Draft:Genemod (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Jckim712 (t · c)
- 02 Jan 2025 – Draft:Harish Bhaskaran (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 2A0A:EF40:4E8:7D01:35FE:E7D4:67BA:C9CB (t · c)
- 30 Dec 2024 – Draft:RemoFirst (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by SabrinaKJones (t · c)
- 27 Dec 2024 – Draft:Gretel AI (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Mckornfield (t · c)
- 27 Dec 2024 – Draft:Engineering Historical Memory (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by ArgonautOfHistory (t · c)
- 23 Dec 2024 – Draft:Uni-app (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 内存溢出的猫 (t · c)
- 20 Dec 2024 – Draft:AdoroCinema (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Mtvdanilo (t · c)
- 20 Dec 2024 – Draft:Planon (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Stella2707 (t · c)
- 18 Dec 2024 – Draft:Ukr.net (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by EmilyAlise (t · c)
- (34 more...)
AfD: Computing
editComputing
edit- Samsung Galaxy Tab E 9.6 (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 don't see why this should be its own page. Nothing generally notable outside of its launch. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Falken (bulletin board system) (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 any sources to establish notability. This article was dePRODed without sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vivo X30 (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 shown notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Winxvideo AI (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)
All of the sources are promotional. 🄻🄰 01:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, Computing, Software, and California. 🄻🄰 01:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Software promo, I can't find a single article in a reputable source that isn't simply a press release or sponsored article. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - rather obviously created by an editor with a close/paid relationship with the company. Brandon (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dell Axim (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 has barely any citations and is rich in detail that I don't believe can be substantiated by secondary sources. Additionally, the product has been defunct for nearly 20 years and doesn't seem to have left a lasting cultural footprint. I would recommend deleting with a redirect to the Dell Technologies article. Please note that I'm a Dell employee with a COI, so my opinion shouldn't be a determining factor. I'll leave developing consensus up to independent editors. Thanks! JM with Dell Technologies (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep There are links to some reviews in the External links section. Seems to be quite popular line in its time - judging how easy was to find some reviews/news:
- PC Mag, 5 August 2003, p. 33 - 1/4 page First Looks
- PC Mag, 25 November 2003, p. 38 - 1/3 page First Looks
- Maximum PC, September 2004, p. 76 - full page review (X30)
- PC Mag, January 2005, p. 36 - 1/2 page First Looks
- PC Mag, 22 November 2005, p. 48 - 1/4 page First Looks
- The nominator is right that the article is in a bad shape with only few references and too much unreferenced content. From my POV, the article subject is notable, but my computer time is limited, so I'm unable to improve it much (well I may provide some references on the talk page for others to use). Pavlor (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Database seeding (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 dictionary definition, as far as I can tell. No footnotes, only one of the external links seems relevant but describes "data seeding" instead of "database seeding". Mostly example code with no context given, no explanation of the technique or its purpose or applications; or its development or relevance. Certainly, no expressed claim to notability. mikeblas (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It's certainly 'a thing', but I can't see any possible claim to notability, or anything that could really be said about seeding beyond the dictionary definition. At the very most it might merit a sentence in an article like database as one of the possible steps involved in set up. MCE89 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect: to database. The issue with this article is that it is essentially a bunch of code snippets with little explanation. Since Wikipedia is not a site for hosting documentation, the presence of this article is inappropriate. I did find a couple books that describe what database seeding is and how to implement one. However, these books discuss database seeding through code snippets rather than e.g. a discussion of the history of database seeding. There is source material we could use, but I don’t believe that it’s enough to expand beyond the article beyond a WP: DICTDEF and a bunch of questionably relevant code. I think this AtD gives this concept some deserved presence on the encyclopedia, but I generally agree that this standalone article should not continue to exist. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Chinese Information Processing Society of China (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)
Looks to be almost entirely self-promotional in nature. Amigao (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Computing, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Qian, Duoxiu (2023) [2014]. "Translation Technology in China". In Chan, Sin-wai (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology (2 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 308. ISBN 978-0-367-76736-5. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "There are many active participants in the research and development of machine translation (MT) and CAT. One leading organization is the Chinese Information Processing Society of China (CIPSC; www.cipsc.org.cn/index.php). It was established in June 1981, its mission being to develop methods for processing Chinese with the aid of computer technology, including automatic input, output, recognition, transfer, compression, storage, concordance, analysis, comprehension, and generation. This is to be done at different linguistic levels (character, lexical, phrasal, sentential, and textual). The field has developed into an interdisciplinary subject area in a very robust way with collaborative work by scholars from fields like philology, computer sciences, artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and mathematics. This organization has been in close contact with the outside world, playing a very active role in the world MT-Summits."
- Yan, Yiming 颜逸明; Yin, Binyong 尹斌庸 (2002). 语文现代化论文集 [Collection of Papers on the Modernization of Chinese Language] (in Chinese). Beijing: Commercial Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-7-100-03535-4. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "1981 年,以钱伟长为理事长的中国中文信息学会成立。中文信息学会及所属的汉字编码专业委员会、《中文信息学报》《中文信息》等杂志成为组织交流汉字编码的理论的场所和媒介。1981 年至今中文信息学会、汉字编码委员会召开国际性、全国性学术会议 10 余次,发表的国内外论文和公布编码方案约在 1000 份以上,申请专利超过 200 件,上机运行的也有近百种。"
From Google Translate: "In 1981, the Chinese Information Processing Society of China, chaired by Qian Weichang, was established. The Chinese Information Processing Society of China, along with its affiliated Character Encoding Committee, the Chinese Journal of Information and Chinese Information magazines, became venues and mediums for organizing and exchanging theories on Chinese character encoding. From 1981 to the present, the Chinese Information Processing Society and the Character Encoding Committee have held more than 10 international and national academic conferences, published over 1,000 domestic and international papers, and released encoding schemes. More than 200 patents have been applied for, and nearly 100 encoding systems have been implemented in machines."
- Zhang, Pu 张普 (1992). 汉语信息处理研究 [Research on Chinese Language Information Processing] (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. p. 231. ISBN 978-7-5619-0211-0. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "1981 年,正式成立了中国中文信息学会,推举钱伟长教授为第一任理事长,学会下专设了一个“汉字编码专业委员会” ,专攻汉字键盘输入技术。 1983 年,中国中文信息学会与联合国教科文组织在北京联合召开“中文信息处理国际研讨会” ,仅在会议同时举办的“计算机中文信息处理展览会”上,就展出了 15 个省市 34 个单位的 38 项成果,展期销售成交额 1078 万元。这个成绩不只受到联合国教科文组织欧沃拉比先生及国内外观众的赞赏,也使盯着中国这一庞大市场的国外各大计算机公司大吃一惊,他们没想到中国的步子迈得这么快、"
From Google Translate: "In 1981, the Chinese Information Processing Society of China was formally established, and Professor Qian Weichang was elected as the first chairman. The society set up a "Chinese Character Encoding Professional Committee" to specialize in Chinese character keyboard input technology. In 1983, the Chinese Information Processing Society of China and UNESCO jointly held the "International Symposium on Chinese Information Processing" in Beijing. At the "Computer Chinese Information Processing Exhibition" held at the same time as the conference, 38 achievements from 34 units in 15 provinces and cities were exhibited, and the sales turnover during the exhibition period was 10.78 million yuan. This achievement was not only praised by Mr. Owolabi of UNESCO and domestic and foreign audiences, but also surprised major foreign computer companies that were eyeing the huge Chinese market. They did not expect China to move so fast,"
- Liang, Qinghai 梁清海; Man, Hing-wu 文兴吾; Lam, Tsz-hing 林子卿 (1992). 当代中国科学技术总览 [Overview of Contemporary Chinese Science and Technology] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Science and Technology Press . p. 319. ISBN 978-7-5046-0862-8. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books. [zh]&rft.date=1992&rft.isbn=978-7-5046-0862-8&rft.aulast=Liang&rft.aufirst=Qinghai 梁清海&rft.au=Man, Hing-wu 文兴吾&rft.au=Lam, Tsz-hing 林子卿&rft_id=https://books.google.com/books?id=zG2uAAAAIAAJ&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:User:Ruud Koot/Feed" class="Z3988">
The book notes: "1981 年 6 月成立。由钱伟长、中国中文信息学会甄建民、安其春、李金铠等人发起。宗旨是:团结广大科技工作者,繁荣发展我国科学技术事业,促进科学技术的普及和推广,促进科技领域出成果、出人才;为振兴经济,促进两个文明建设,加速实现我国社会主义现代化做贡献。该会设有土地利用、地籍管理、土地复垦、土地经济、建设用地、土地信息与遥感、土地法学等专业学术组织。出版刊物《中国土地科学》。 1988 年以来,先后与香港测量师学会、英国皇家特许测量师学会、国际测量师联合会、香港房地产建筑业协进会筹建立了联系。该会隶属中国科学技术协会,挂靠国家土地管理局;会址:北京市海淀区大柳树北村 25 号;邮政编码: 100081 。"
From Google Translate: "Founded in June 1981. Initiated by Qian Weichang, Zhen Jianmin, An Qichun, Li Jinkai and others from the Chinese Information Processing Society of China. Its purpose is to unite the vast number of scientific and technological workers, prosper and develop my country's science and technology, promote the popularization and promotion of science and technology, promote the production of scientific and technological achievements and talents; to contribute to the revitalization of the economy, the promotion of the construction of two civilizations, and the acceleration of the realization of my country's socialist modernization. The association has professional academic organizations such as land use, cadastral management, land reclamation, land economy, construction land, land information and remote sensing, and land law. It publishes the journal "Chinese Land Science". Since 1988, it has established contacts with the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the International Federation of Surveyors, and the Hong Kong Real Estate and Construction Industry Association. The association is affiliated to the China Association for Science and Technology and is affiliated to the State Land Administration; the address is No. 25, Daliushu North Village, Haidian District, Beijing; the postal code is 100081."
- Qian, Duoxiu (2023) [2014]. "Translation Technology in China". In Chan, Sin-wai (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology (2 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 308. ISBN 978-0-367-76736-5. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
- The "Purposes and activities" section is sourced to the the subject's website and could be considered to contain promotional wording. I consider the rest of the article to be largely neutral. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says,
If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says,Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
Cunard (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "Purposes and activities" section is sourced to the the subject's website and could be considered to contain promotional wording. I consider the rest of the article to be largely neutral. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says,
- Benedikt Johannes Hofer (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 person. None of the sources are reliable (tiiny.site is user-generated), and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Computing, and Germany. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- delete: previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming Benni; doesn't this qualify for some speedy deletion criterion? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP: GNG, could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Needs sources that are reliable and independent. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - cross wiki promo spam by globally locked sock farm see file here. Many times placed via the "name game" also on this language version as Benedikt Hofer, Draft:Gaming_Benni, Gaming Benni and Coden mit Benni. This sock even created a fake ai-generated user page with nonsense. Hoyanova (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- SenzMate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article on an IT firm, which was soft-deleted a couple of months ago and then WP:REFUNDed on request of a new WP:SPA. I agree with Alpha3031's previous nomination rationale regarding the article references. Aside from the given sources, there is an Economy Next interview about the founders' AI aspirations "SenzMate: Enabling A Global AI-IoT revolution from out of Sri Lanka", 22 August 2022), which is effectively a primary piece insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a firm going about its business, marked by local awards, but I am not seeing evidence that it has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Sri Lanka. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: per nomination. A smattering of industry awards isn't out of the ordinary for any business. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources to establish the notability of this subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Georg C. F. Greve (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)
Tagged for notability for over 4 years, seems to have been (self?) created for promotional purposes. -- Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Article entirely lacks secondary sources. If there is any notability here, it would appear to be exclusively around the subject's involvement in FSFE and a separate article is not warranted. Brandon (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- SLUBStick (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 indication of notability. Could be merged elsewhere. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't even know where this article could be merged. Linux kernel#Security does not seem like a good fit and there does not appear to be a Security of the Linux Kernel themed article. Brandon (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Significant vulnerability that will very likely see further developments in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dujo (talk • contribs) on 2024-01-08 at 15:31:10 (UTC)
- That's a pretty bold claim. If this technique was being received as significant I'd expect to see _some_ response that just never materialized. The references are all just repackaging the researcher's press briefing. Is there any material from the Linux community, vendors or other academics? I was unable to find any. Brandon (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- SLUBStick is not a security vulnerability in itself, it is a technique that makes exploitation of other vulnerabilities easier. There is an official response from the SUSE Linux vendor: https://www.suse.com/support/kb/doc/?id=000021529. Dujo (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your argument makes no sense. Based on what you have provided, it may manifest to greater depths in the future. Alas, we can't keep articles on the bet that it will gain notability in the future. That'd be like if we created an article for Windows 13 betting that there would be a Windows 13 in the future (we don't know if there will be, and would be some pretty serious CRYSTALBALL violations). We only decide to keep or delete an article based on the current notability, not what we predict will be there in the future.
- As such, I don't think your vote is necessarily justified. Even if SUSE released something about it (as you mentioned in your comment), doesn't mean it is notable. Per GNG, we need reliable sources. A support article isn't really reliable.
- Why don't we analyze the sources, including the ones you added (based on this revision):
- 1. "Linux kernel impacted by new SLUBStick cross-cache attack"
- Reliability: medium to good
- In-depth: yes
- Independent: yes
- 2. SUSE source
- Reliability: ok; support article isn't the best given only a few sources
- In-depth: no, just lists a brief about what it is and what to do to avert it, nothing more
- Independent: interpretations vary. Independent of Linux? No. Independent of parties tied to the exploit? Yes?
- 3. USENIX source
- Reliability: I don't know here, it seems like a research paper so I'll say yes.
- In-depth: heck yeah. It's a 19 page research paper.
- Independent: Probably yes
- 4. SecurityWeek source
- Reliability: I might be wrong, but doesn't seem that well-established. So I'll say probably no.
- In-depth: 2 paragraphs is less than enough to be in-depth/
- Independent: yes
For this article to pass GNG, you would generally need 3 sources which pass all three criteria. None of the sources fully pass.
Since this appears to only be your 3rd AFD, I recommend you put some thoughts into your votes before participating in your next AFD. Please also reconsider adding sources for the sake of an argument also, it never helps as you can see. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your argument makes no sense. Based on what you have provided, it may manifest to greater depths in the future. Alas, we can't keep articles on the bet that it will gain notability in the future. That'd be like if we created an article for Windows 13 betting that there would be a Windows 13 in the future (we don't know if there will be, and would be some pretty serious CRYSTALBALL violations). We only decide to keep or delete an article based on the current notability, not what we predict will be there in the future.
- SLUBStick is not a security vulnerability in itself, it is a technique that makes exploitation of other vulnerabilities easier. There is an official response from the SUSE Linux vendor: https://www.suse.com/support/kb/doc/?id=000021529. Dujo (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a pretty bold claim. If this technique was being received as significant I'd expect to see _some_ response that just never materialized. The references are all just repackaging the researcher's press briefing. Is there any material from the Linux community, vendors or other academics? I was unable to find any. Brandon (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- IREDES (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)
Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Article is promotional in tone about a nonprofit, and has been unsourced since its 2008 creation. Search turns up no independent coverage of subject. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Computing, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar mining journals [1] or [2] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
KeepComment. A search on Google news and Google scholar shows the standard is in use by multiple equipment and mining companies, and the website is live. It turns up in a mining glossary, and is mentioned in articles about mining robotics and smart mining. We have few articles about tools for data capture or analysis because it is hard to find independent in-depth information about them; even harder for a tool such as this used in industry rather than academics. It would not be an orphan if we had articles about some of the current modern methods in mining. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)- We don’t keep articles on the basis of trivial mentions or appearances in directories. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- A glossary is not a directory but indicates it is a term in the literature. Finding that literature is a problem. I was hoping someone with access to the industrial mining literature would find something. All I can find is unpublished master's theses and a presentation at an industry symposium not in libraries. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "presentation" is a peer-viewed conference paper from an academic conference, one can find it on Scopus. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hard to say how prestigious or rigorus the conference is. FWIW, the paper has never been cited (Google Scholar: [4]) --ZimZalaBim talk 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "presentation" is a peer-viewed conference paper from an academic conference, one can find it on Scopus. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A glossary is not a directory but indicates it is a term in the literature. Finding that literature is a problem. I was hoping someone with access to the industrial mining literature would find something. All I can find is unpublished master's theses and a presentation at an industry symposium not in libraries. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - Found some coverage in some papers. Here [5], which Oaktree b also found, and here [6]. I fail to see how ZimZalaBim found that the first paper by McBain and Timusk had no significant coverage, when there is a section of the paper for just the standard (B. International Rock Excavation Data Exchange Standard) and another section for using IREDES with condition monitoring (V. IREDES AUGMENTATION FOR CONDITION MONITORING). This is more than just passing mentions, if sections of a paper are given for the topic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because it appears to be minimal mention in only small number of very minor publications, which to me doesn't align with WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- From my understanding WP:SIGCOV just means "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail". If sections of a paper are about the topic, then it's more than just a trivial mention. Per the definition of WP:SIGCOV, the sources mentioned clearly pass by addressing the topic in significant detail. The only question is whether the sources should be considered as reliable. I do think it's fair to question the reliability of an academic conference and the proceedings published by it. However, if the academic conference is legitimate and peer-reviewed with acceptable academic standards, then these sources should be accepted as reliable sources verifying the notability of the article. For a niche subject matter like automation in the mining industry, one should not expect as much citations compared to a more prominent subject. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because it appears to be minimal mention in only small number of very minor publications, which to me doesn't align with WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
AfD: Science
edit
Science
edit- Gennady Degtyarev (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 an academic created directly in main after being declined once at AfC. Beyond an unsourced statement about creating new naval equipment, the only suggestion of notability is academic participation in D-SELF theory, a very low citation neologism created in 1989. Citations and awards don't pass WP:NPROF and there is nothing for general notability here or via a search. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. We have no evidence of WP:PROF notability, except maybe through #C2 and the "Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation". We have no sourcing for this (nor for most of the article content) so I cannot tell whether this award was handed out indiscriminately to many people or as a high honor to a very limited number of people. Without that information I do not feel confident using it as the only basis for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This international non-governmental research institute for physical sciences fails to meet NCORP and is full of Original research. BoraVoro (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, Asia, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Living Textbook of Hand Surgery (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 cannot find any indication that this specific work passes GNG or NBOOK. However, the "Living Textbooks" as a platform (which this was the launch of) might. If there are sources for that this could be turned into an article on that, but I am not sure there even are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I can't find anything that would substantiate the wiki-notability of this book itself. It might be possible to describe the "living textbooks" platform/series at German National Library of Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - I see literally zero secondary coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alan S. Kornacki (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)
BLP shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Science, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Google scholar shows an h-factor of 14 with 940 citations in total. While he has three papers with > 100 cites, that is not enough to pass NPROF#C1. Awards listed are minor. One thing I don't understand is the (unsourced) statement that he is a retired army colonel. Maybe he did not publish because work was classified? Very odd. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment He does appear here as being on the promotion list for lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserves in 1993-1994, but that doesn't indicate notability to me. It just confirms that he was in the Reserves.Intothatdarkness 16:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- List of inorganic reactions (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 has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopiaspeak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not just sure how much is inaccuracies vs. it just being subjective and ambiguous what you want to consider to be inorganic. The coordination chemistry with the nickel-phosphine complex feels inorganic, even if the reactants are all organic molecules. Do we want to consider organometallic chemistry to be inorganic? I noticed our Template:Branches of chemistry lists organometallic chemistry under inorganic, rather than organic chemistry, but it really is a mixture of both. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Is it possible to bring this list up to par with List of organic reactions? And are they comparable in terms of scope, notability and "helpfulness"? YuniToumei (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Having looked at the issue more closely, I find it hard to set a clear limited scope for this list. This conversation might be of interest, as it discusses this list's purpose, relation to the other list and why it was previously decided to not limit this list to purely inorganic reactions.YuniToumei (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a completely pointless and useless list, infinitely expandable. What about a List of Novels that include the Word "and"? Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you think there is infinitely numers of inorganic reactions [types]? Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Lots of books covers inorganic reaction (types) and/or mechanism (same thing). E.g. search on google books with 'named "inorganic" reactions'Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This clearly only lists notable reactions and mechanisms, so it's certainly not infinitely expandable. There are plenty of articles and textbooks about inorganic reactions so this may be an appropriate navigational list that complements List of organic reactions, especially if perhaps made into a table to explain reagents and significance. As much as I dislike basic bullet point lists, there isn't a related category. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The lack of citations is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Frankly, I don't think it needs citations given its a list of things (most other lists of the ilk do not have citations.) It follows the same principle as List of organic reactions. A lot of inorganic reactions are legitimately used in organic synthesis & that doesn't detract from their inorganic nature. Organometallic reactions (e.g. Suzuki/cross-coupling, Metathesis, metallation etc) are very organic, but they're also very inorganic. Organic chemists may find them to be useful tools used occasionally to achieve an end, but the inorganic chemist treats them with respect as their own unique grouping - not just occasionally dragged out the shed for their utility - and understands how and why they occur. This encyclopedic grouping is important and shouldn't be lost - something supported by the numerous books on the topic. See M.J. Winter's 'd-Block Chemistry', R. Whyman's 'Applied Organometallic Chemistry and Catalysis', Jenkin's "Organometallic Reagents in Synthesis", Henderson's "The Mechanisms of Reactions at Transition Metal Sites", R. Bates "Organic Synthesis Using Transition Metals". The list is theoretically infinitely expandable, but it shouldn't include every single reaction under the sun - and it doesn't. Keep it to the important ones, and the list is a wholly manageable and useful encyclopedic tool to help people navigate the field, and find the various tools at their disposal. - EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I think there might be an assumption that some are making that this article is about every reaction between any given inorganic chemical with any other given chemical. But this article is about general kinds of reactions (oxidation, amination, dehydration, etc.) of which there is a finite and manageable number of notable such reactions. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Remake from scratch or delete. As identified by @YuniToumei, this list was created in August 2011
to be an inorganic parallel to the "List of organic reactions" page
. The creator suggested it shouldbe reasonably selective
, but includeall common general classes of reaction that rely on the action of inorganic compounds
. The list has since ballooned out to 129 reactions. Most of these reactions are also covered in List of organic reactions, which is unsurprising as the organic list holds 790 reactions (i.e. it suggests ~10% of organic reactions involve at least one inorganic catalyst or reagent).
As an encyclopedia reader, I would expect a list of inorganic reactions to link to reactions whose primary topic is inorganic chemistry, rather than re-covering organic reactions. To fix this, I suggest we:- Create a category Category:Reactions using at least one inorganic compound (a subcategory of Category:Chemical reactions) to hold the reactions currently listed (as suggested by @Mangoe), then
- Remake the list to cover only inorganic reactions (i.e. those in scope of Category:Inorganic reactions). For example, the list should cover the various metallothermic reductions, e.g. Aluminothermic reaction, Calciothermic reaction, Silicothermic reaction, and the Kroll process (magnesiothermic reduction), none of which are currently listed.
- Comment: it is surprising that editors with little or no track record in chemistry editing are voting with such confidence. We're not talking about Taylor Swift or pop culture here, but hard core chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't make too many assumptions about people's backgrounds from their editing history. I have a degree in biochemistry, even though I primarily joined to add my photos of Japan. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hard core chemistry? Inorganic chemistry is taught in high school, you don't even get big into the organic until post-secondary levels of schooling. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are evenly divided here between editors advocating Keep and those supporting Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep base on the title, this can be a useful and informative list so it's satisfy WP:LISTPURP. Though the article is in garbage shape as of now. Someone whose familiar with chemistry should fix it. Deleting this is a bit of an overkill, an alternative to this is draftfying it until someone fix it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for providing no value beyond Category:Inorganic reactions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Any substance that doesn't contain carbon would be inorganic... I'm not sure this list serves a purpose. Unsourced, no discussion as to why these are important reactions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly rename and improve (this is actually a list of types of reactions). The Category:Inorganic reactions is very incomplete, hence the list does serve a purpose, just as a similar list for organic reactions. Some of the types of reactions in this list can be actually qualified as "organic" (the distinction is not always clear), but I think this does not invalidate the list. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Inorganic reactions' parent category, Category:Inorganic chemistry, states
Inorganic chemistry is a catch-all discipline that covers everything in chemistry that is not organic chemistry.
Hence there should be minimal overlap between List of inorganic reactions and Category:Organic reactions. Would expanding Category:Inorganic reactions address your concerns re: needing the list for navigation purposes? Preimage (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Inorganic reactions' parent category, Category:Inorganic chemistry, states
- Yes, sure. I agree: there can be an overlap, and improving the navigation would help. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep and repair. (reinstated) Rambling comments: I contributed to the article, so I am biased I guess. The list has an organic or organometallic-homogeneous catalysis slant. As others imply above, even the definition of "inorganic" is debatable. As I have explained before, there are very few card-carrying inorganic editors, so few are qualified to build it out. The list doesn't hurt anyone. It has some questionable and ambiguous classifications, but that is true for many lists. Having a crude article makes it easier clean it up. There are lots of books on inorganic reaction mechanisms (Wilkins, venerable Basolo and Pearson, Hartwig, etc), and these provide a framework to build on. We might even transform the article into "inorganic reaction mechanisms". --Smokefoot (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
(note: this was originally in reply to a comment that has since been removed) seems like you've voted above already, would you like to strike the old one? Cheers!has been revised YuniToumei (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC); edited 20:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm with Team TNT. If you're willing to give a try at rescuing this mess, do so immediately and then ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Science Proposed deletions
edit- Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
- Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)
Science Miscellany for deletion
editScience Redirects for discussion
editDeletion Review
editAfD: Academics
editAcademics and educators
edit- Martin Smith (academic) (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)
Please click the blue button that says "show" to reveal my rationale.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.mdx.ac.uk/_samllogin/mdx-intranet?url=https://www.s.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/profile?name=smith-emily | ~ Former employer but there is probably some editorial oversight on their website | Has a press in good standing I think? | 404 error and I couldn't retrieve it from the Internet Archive | ✘ No |
http://www.cybsoc.org/contacts.htm | Website of the organisation that he was the leader of | Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live | Website 404 error | ✘ No |
http://www.cybsoc.org/contacts/people-Smith.htm | Website of the organisation that he was the leader of | Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live | Website 404 error | ✘ No |
https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/k?id=k#editorial-team | The source doesn't mention the subject so it's independent in that regard . | Emerald Group Publishing appears to be in good standing | Doesn't mention the subject | ✘ No |
https://wosc.co/board-of-directors/ | Website of an organisation whose board he sat on. | No discussion at WP:RS that I am aware of | Just a mention in a primary source | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Television, Engineering, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Giulio Tiozzo (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)
Associate professor in mathematics. One article cited 166 times, but with h-factor of 16 he does not pass WP:NPROF#C1 yet, WP:TOOSOON. Only high-schools and starter grants so far. While the trend of his publications is strong, with 861 cites only it will be a few more years before he passes the bar. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Husam Zaman (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 person does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, for being a university president! Sabirkir (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Saudi Arabia. Sabirkir (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Less than 200 cites in GS fails WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC).
- Dmytro Shestakov (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)
Purely promotional Amigao (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Technology, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with the characterization of "purely promotional" for these reasons:
- 1. Source Quality and Independence:
- - All major claims are supported by exclusively independent, third-party sources without any references to personal websites, blogs or current company materials
- - Coverage comes from established media outlets (Forbes, Business Insider, Sifted EU)
- - Academic work is verified through institutional repositories and peer-reviewed journals
- - Professional roles are documented by the organizations themselves (NATO DIANA, DARPA, Ukrainian Startup Fund)
- 2. Notable Impact and Recognition:
- - The article documents verifiable achievements rather than promotional claims
- - Leadership roles influenced significant national initiatives (Energy Efficiency Fund, defense innovation)
- - Academic contributions include peer-reviewed research and a scholarly book published by Columbia University Press
- - Recognition comes from established institutions rather than self-promotion
- 3. Public Interest:
- - Work spans multiple fields of public significance (defense innovation, energy efficiency, academic research)
- - Contributions to national and international organizations demonstrate broader impact
- - Innovations in blockchain technology and research integrity have wider societal implications
- 4. Article Tone and Sources:
- - Content focuses on factual information and verifiable accomplishments
- - Claims are consistently supported by reliable third-party citations
- - The article deliberately avoids any promotional materials, personal blogs, or current company websites
- - Language maintains Wikipedia's neutral point of view and encyclopedic standards
- These elements suggest the article serves an encyclopedic purpose supported entirely by independent sources rather than promotional content. Dmytroshestakov (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - Considering my comments and the links provided below.
Repetitive filibuster |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1. Significant institutional roles: - Expert at NATO's Defense Innovation Accelerator (DIANA) - Established DARPA-modeled innovation unit in collaboration with former DARPA Director - Led $1 billion Energy Efficiency Fund of Ukraine strategy implementation - Expert Council Member at BRAVE1 defense tech accelerator - Expert at Ukrainian Startup Fund (largest pre-seed investor in Eastern Europe) - Professor at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy - CEO of Research Integrity Chain Ltd 2. Academic credentials and publications: - Published book with Columbia University Press (2024) with foreword by former DARPA Director - Dual PhDs in Finance and Economics - Multiple peer-reviewed publications indexed in academic databases 3. Independent media coverage: - Sifted EU coverage of university spinout fund work - Forbes coverage of cryptocurrency exchange work - Business Insider coverage of Hacken Ecosystem - Multiple other independent media sources 4. Leadership in major organizations: - Director of Innovation at Ukrainian Defense Concern - Advisory roles with UNDP and Ukrainian government These credentials are verified through independent sources cited in the article. Dmytroshestakov (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
1. The subject has demonstrated sustained impact in multiple fields: - Technology (blockchain, scientific research protection) - Academia (finance, innovation) - Public sector (defense innovation, energy efficiency) 2. Received recognition through: - EB1-A visa for extraordinary ability - Excellence in Leadership Award from London Business School - Multiple academic honors All achievements are supported by reliable third-party sources as referenced in the article. Dmytroshestakov (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Academic publications verified through institutional repositories - Media coverage from established outlets - Professional roles confirmed through organizational websites - Awards and recognition documented by awarding institutions This meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability and verifiability. Dmytroshestakov (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
- Delete. Total failure to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC).
More repetitive filibuster |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
More repetitive filibuster |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV. The most robust source here is the Financial Times, but it does not address the subject directly or in detail.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
More repetitive filibuster |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Delete. Single-digit citation counts do not pass WP:PROF#C1. I didn't find any published reviews of his book and even if I did one book isn't enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. That leaves WP:GNG, already adequately addressed by DesiMoore's comment above. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
More repetitive filibuster |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment: Is the subject of the article using ChatGPT to generate these extremely long-winded rebuttals to every "delete" vote? – numbermaniac 13:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- none of the editors' replies suggest a specific breach of the criteria for deleting an article, and yet you pay attention to who prepared the reply and with what help. i would ask you to respond to at least one keep, or at least to consider its appropriateness. after all, if the reply contains fair statements - what does it matter who prepared it, as long as the data is correct? Михайло Зеленко (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why, when I hatted some of these, I left a single keep unhatted. User:Dmytroshestakov should perhaps be warned that it is forbidden to leave more than one bold keep/delete opinion in an AfD. We are not counting votes here, and saying the same thing again and again will not add weight to what you say. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- none of the editors' replies suggest a specific breach of the criteria for deleting an article, and yet you pay attention to who prepared the reply and with what help. i would ask you to respond to at least one keep, or at least to consider its appropriateness. after all, if the reply contains fair statements - what does it matter who prepared it, as long as the data is correct? Михайло Зеленко (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Merely having written and published a book is not enough to meet the notability standards for authors or academics. No other notability standard is met, either. The "Forbes" coverage touted above is a Forbes "contributor" item, i.e., trash. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Eric R. Gilbertson (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 essentially a resume. The person doesn't appear to pass general notability guidelines. A re-direct to the school is possible, but I question if having a redirect to a small school for every one of their past president is necessary. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following for the same reason:
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: I can only find articles about his retirement and public speaking events after that, nothing really showing notability. Primary sourcing is used in the article now, so that's not helping. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep (of ERG article): It seems to me that the central question is whether C6 of WP:NPROF is met by ERG due to their having served as the president of Saginaw Valley State University and of Johnson State College (now part of Vermont State University). Since the former school offers a significant number of master's degrees and three doctorates (DNP; see https://www.svsu.edu/graduateprograms/), it seems to me that that the answer is yes. I qualify this as a weak keep because this is not an R1 university and does not appear to be historically significant. I do agree that WP:GNG is not met, and if the page is to remain it needs significant editing so as to not present as a resume. I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF. The other page (about JMR) should be considered on its own merits; I am unsure whether we are supposed to be discussing both of them here. Qflib (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Qflib What academic accomplishments and citations does he have? that would qualify under NPROF? My position is that he doesn't qualify under "a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc." I believe "significance" or "highly regarded" of this school is subjective and in mine, it's not. Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only one of the 6 criteria of NPROF need to be met in order to establish notability; please read it carefully. I specifically pointed out that I was referring only to C6 of NPROF, so academic citations are immaterial. I also specifically pointed out that "I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF." I stand by my weak keep recommendation; if other senior editors come on here and convince me otherwise, I am open to input. Qflib (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Qflib What academic accomplishments and citations does he have? that would qualify under NPROF? My position is that he doesn't qualify under "a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc." I believe "significance" or "highly regarded" of this school is subjective and in mine, it's not. Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I buy the WP:NPROF C6 rationale, as president of a mid-sized college/university. I additionally note that I found several local newspaper sources: [10][11][12]. He was involved in a minor scandal regarding a football hazing incident [13][14]. It's weak for a GNG case, but it helps support the NPROF case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Patric Elder (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 WP:BLP that was rejected at AfC for a lack of notability. Of additional concern is WP:NPF: half of this article of a BLP is an unsourced "Controversies" section (the only inline source is the IBO academic integrity policy). CMD (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Malaysia. CMD (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom non notable fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I remove the unsourced "Controveries" section per WP:BLPSOURCE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC).
- Delete - Still fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG - I had declined as a draft. Strangely, they had said they understood and again here the issue, but then decided just to move to main and blank the talk page feedback. KylieTastic (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Perceived notability seems to stem from unsourced controversies, now removed. /Julle (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: So he's a drama teacher? Hasn't been convicted of any crimes, so that's not notable. Rather routine career otherwise. I don't see notability. I can't find sourcing about this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete a teacher without any evidence of notability on search engines!!! Sabirkir (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Annmarie Hanlon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. — Moriwen (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 in a high-cited area. Not enough for GNG. It would have been helpful if the nominator had given more results of their WP:Before search. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC).
- Keep. Meets notability criteria #4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
- According to World Cat the digital marketing textbook is available in 197 libraries. Translation into Greek is unusual (and I imagine this requires a lot of effort) which further indicates its impact. Teacher2019 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The author is one of a small group of female authors of business textbooks - see https://www.ft.com/content/beb77be1-f735-45e9-82cb-ec834eb39565 which takes you to https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/joe.karaganis2705/viz/BusinessSchoolTeaching/Dashboard1 Teacher2019 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG. There is an attempt to meet ACADEMIC criterion 7(a) with her quotes in media organizations, but these are relatively few (and multiple of them in deprecated/unreliable outlets per WP:RSP), so I don't see a pass there. Her H-index of 10 is on the low side for someone at her career level and in her field. As for the claim that she meets criterion 4, there's no evidence that having a book in 197 libraries is unusually high or significant (I doubt it is given the literally tens of thousands of higher education institutions there are worldwide), and there's no evidence that translation of a book into another language is notable, particularly in an era of machine-assisted translation. I'm confused by the FT and Tableau sources offered above, neither of which mention Hanlon at all. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting points.
- She joined academia relatively recently, so it's not surprising the H index is 10. The longer you've worked in academia, the higher the index.
- The book was translated into Greek by scholars, not machines.
- The FT and Tableau sources serve to show the volume of female / male authors in this area. Over 90% are male.
- Teacher2019 (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting points.
- Comment I have added two reviews of her books, but am thus far not able to find more. These may help her meet WP:AUTHOR, but more reviews would be needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Shirish Kumar Maurya (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)
Sources are unreliable and consist of passing mentions. The subject fails WP:GNG due to the lack of multiple significant coverages and fails WP:AUTHOR as no multiple reviews of their books have been found. GrabUp - Talk 18:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Maharashtra. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Osvaldo Gutierrez (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 an academic created as part of Wiki Education project, unfortunately with WP:NPROF being ignored. High citation area, so h-factor of 38 is fair but not yet passing #C1. He was recently promoted to full professor, no major awards and only WP:MILL mentions in minor science press -- WP:TOOSOON. (Unis have become quite good at promo for junior faculty.) Perhaps in a year or three it can be revived. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I must have a lower threshold for #C1 notability than the nominator, because I think the case for notability through many triple-digit citation counts is enough. It's interesting that he made it from dreamer to full professor; interestingness isn't a notability criterion but the KCRA video profile and ACS "talented 12" coverage look independent and in-depth (a third source, the NIH career conversation, is not independent because it's just an interview) giving him also a weak case for WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mexico, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with David Eppstein. Qflib (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Gennady Degtyarev (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 an academic created directly in main after being declined once at AfC. Beyond an unsourced statement about creating new naval equipment, the only suggestion of notability is academic participation in D-SELF theory, a very low citation neologism created in 1989. Citations and awards don't pass WP:NPROF and there is nothing for general notability here or via a search. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. We have no evidence of WP:PROF notability, except maybe through #C2 and the "Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation". We have no sourcing for this (nor for most of the article content) so I cannot tell whether this award was handed out indiscriminately to many people or as a high honor to a very limited number of people. Without that information I do not feel confident using it as the only basis for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Martin Eisend (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)
Many publications and extensive promotional content, but likely not notable Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Cinder painter (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep.: with 13,000 citations and an h-index of 59, subject meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep with caveats. It needs a lot of work to cut out the
painpaid contributions, but AfD isn't the place for that. Just an aside: if he paid for it, he was ripped off. Clearly passes the Prof Test as noted above; also full chair at a good university. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Malcolm McDonald (academic) (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)
Extensive promotional content, marketing professor not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Cinder painter (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. "Marketing professor is first to pull marketing stunt" is not really a case for notability. The more likely path would seem to be WP:AUTHOR through reviews of his books. I found 1 1/3 reviews [15] [16] but I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: a badly constructed page which is surprising in some ways for a marketing BLP. I did find a claim that his book was a bestseller plus some other stuff here and here, but it is not quite enough to be convincing. Since this page has been around as a weak stub for many years I think deletion is appropriate. If a new editor wants to write a better version they should submit that to AfC. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ryan S Sultan (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 subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics or professionals. I cannot find independent, reliable coverage about their work or achievements Cinder painter (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. New to this. What is required for independent reliable coverage? I see links to edu and gov websites and NBC news. Please help me understand what our criteria is. I am deeply interested in supporting wiki. Infoseeker89 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Director position at a large institution is not enough for WP:PROF#C6 (head of whole institution) nor #C5 (a step above full professor, such as distinguished professor). Psych is a high-citation field so the double-digit citation counts I found on Google Scholar do not appear to be enough for #C1. No other evidence for notability is apparent. Infoseeker89, you appear to be asking the wrong question, "how can I get this person to appear notable". The correct question for this discussion is "is this person already notable by our standards, or not", and sadly, it looks like the answer is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as expressed clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- Delete: As per the comment of David Eppstein. Taabii (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as per David Eppstein. The subject is an assistant professor, thus he is not tenured. We almost never find that non-tenured professors are notable. We are not an electronic portfolio for tenure review. FWIW, I didn't get tenure. Bearian (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Geoff Tabin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Fairweather Foundation is a small non-notable foundation. Risker (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, England, Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep :I don't see how Fairweather Foundation is relevant to Geoff Tabin's notability. It is just the funding source of his current chair position, which seems relatively minor when compared to other things that make him notable such as him co-founding the Himalayan Cataract Project (the other founder has a page), being the fourth person to reach the top of the seven summits, and helping invent bungee jumping.
- I believe Geoff is very notable based on the guidelines I have read. Beyond what I said above, there is a book about him and Sanduk (second suns), he himself is a published author, and there are articles written about him in magazines such as national geographic (ie https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/restoring-vision-for-south-sudan-dispatches-from-the-duk-lost-boys-clinic). Moreover, he was on the cover for the now defunct National Geographic Adventure magazine, who's Wikipedia page uses his image!
- If there are other ways in which the article fails to pass notability thresholds, please let me know what I am missing, but again, I think the Fairweather Foundation is totally irrelevent. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding on to this, using the news button ont the nominated for deletion box shows articles about Dr. Tabin from CBS, The Economist, and Outside magazine. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I find I cannot agree with the nomination. Subject appears to have a named chair at a major institution, and evidently has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity per [17]. ResonantDistortion 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The case for both WP:PROF#C5 (the named professorship) and WP:GNG (the media coverage of his cataract work) is clear. He doesn't appear to have made an impact in scholarly publications (PROF#C1) but he doesn't need to when notability for his medical outreach work is present. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Geoffrey Tabin has an endowed professorship at Stanford, which required a multi-million dollar donation from a donor. Other than being chair of a department, an endowed chair is arguably the highest honor that one can achieve as an academic physician. Having an endowed chair at a prestigious university (Stanford) is a strong indicator to having achieved the highest level of success an academia.
- As for his accomplishments, Geoff Tabin will go down as one of the most impactful ophthalmologists of all time. Through his NGO, Cure Blindness Project, he has directly financed 1.6 million cataract surgeries (a mind boggling number in Ophthalmology)—and when factoring in the surgeries performed by the trainees that CureBlindness hospitals have trained, that number likely exceeds 10 million. To give a comparison point, there are about 3 million cataracts performed in the entire United States per year. He has established five tertiary teaching hospitals (e.g. built an entire Eye Department in Nepal, Ghana, etc) and funded subspecialty fellowships for hundreds of physicians, ensuring that multiple low- and middle-income countries now have their first retina, glaucoma, cornea, oculoplastics, and pediatric ophthalmologists.
- When considering the cumulative impact of his work, he will likely have more impact than almost any Ophthalmologist in the history of the world. Furthermore, he will be one of the more impactful physicians in Global Health (not just Ophthalmologists) of all time based on the scale that his operations have reached (and continue to grow).
- His other accomplishment (climbing, mountaineering) are also exceptional, but I will not delve into those details as the original concern was just for WP:NPROF. Arthurbrant21 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert Tang (teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NPERSON. Only sources on him are from the school district he works in and an interview. A before search yields no results. I do not believe this educator should qualify for WP:TEACHER, since according to the award's page, it is alloted to 1,500 teachers, making it not a "highly prestigious academic award", since Canada's population is only 40 million. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Coverage of the award is strictly local; the award is only a $5000 prize. While still a nice amount, not a large award on the level of a Nobel. Outside of the one award won, nothing for notability for this teacher. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Award is not sufficiently notable. Subject does not satisfy WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: "Over 1,500 educators have received this award since its inception in 1993" is the definition of WP:MILL. QED. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alan S. Kornacki (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)
BLP shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Science, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Google scholar shows an h-factor of 14 with 940 citations in total. While he has three papers with > 100 cites, that is not enough to pass NPROF#C1. Awards listed are minor. One thing I don't understand is the (unsourced) statement that he is a retired army colonel. Maybe he did not publish because work was classified? Very odd. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment He does appear here as being on the promotion list for lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserves in 1993-1994, but that doesn't indicate notability to me. It just confirms that he was in the Reserves.Intothatdarkness 16:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cristian Ciocan (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)
BLP with no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a very low-cited field. May pass WP:Prof#C8 with a rather recent journal. The nominator has been on a deletion spree today. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC).
- Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #8. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the case for WP:PROF#C8 as founding co-editor-in-chief of a notable journal is clearest, but he also has a weak case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published book reviews [18] [19] [20]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 8 January 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 delete. Snowing.Borderline A7 Star Mississippi 16:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- James McEvoy (teacher) (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 clear why this biography was created. Career as a teacher does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia per WP:BIO Seaweed (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable at all. Probably created by a relative as a WP:MEMORIAL. Article is just a close paraphrasing of his obituary (which was likely based on what his relatives said about him). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Nothing for notability as a military person or an educator. The paraphrasing of the obituary isn't helping. I can't find anything else about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG, created by SPA. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete We have nothing to work off of here... Snowycats (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Could be WP:CSD#G7: article provides no indication of what he did that might have had any significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Garuda Talk! 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - No significant coverage. What tiny little allegations of notability - that he ran a continuing education company - is buried deep in the article. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 6 January 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.
- Soner Baskaya (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 satisfy WP:NPROF. Very low h-index and no indication of WP:SIGCOV (alternative criteria when there's no indication of notability per WP:NPROF). TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. Not my field but there are several fairly highly cited papers in GS[21] (201, 198, 116). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - not my field(s) but he's economics department chair at the university that is named after the guy who invented modern economics, and is well-cited. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Being a department chair is not a criterion for WP:NACADEMIC, and the fact that the school is named after Adam Smith is a red herring. I don't see that he passes any other criterion; his H-index is indeed low for someone of his career level. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Peggy Batchelor (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)
Contested draftification of an article on a non-notable actor. There is no reliable source for the WP:OR claim that she was the oldest-ever actor who had appeared in Doctor Who (not that that is even a claim to notability). The source for this claim appears to be a Doctor Who wiki. She fails WP:NACTOR as her handful of roles appear to be minor parts, and they are sourced to IMDb, an unreliable source. She fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are a couple of articles in a hyper-local village newsletter ([22], [23]), another WP:SPS ([24]), and a self-published as-told-to quasi-autobiography. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, I looked into her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Arts, but it's not a rare honor (there are 31,000 active Fellows) and can be acquired by online application and payment of a fee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: Hello. I understand. However, what I do not understand is how some articles such as this one are accepted but not others. This seems like discrimination. There are people as notable as Peggy Batchelor or less notable than her who have pages. Please explain. Spectritus (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not discrimination in any way. It's about independent, secondary, reliable sources. IMDB isn't a reliable source. Wendover News is not likely an independent source. Peggy Batchelor's as-told-to, self-published autobiography is not a reliable, independent, or secondary sources. Pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make Batchelor any more notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: Doesn't the fact someone wrote a book about her make her notable enough? Also, may I ask how users are supposed to find sources if Wikipedia condemns almost all of them?
- The author wrote a book "as told to" her, which means it's basically Peggy Batchelor talking about herself, and thus not independent. And the biography was published by AuthorHouse, which is a vanity press and thus it's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and not reliable. English Wikipedia does not condemn
almost all
sources; it has specific standards, and the ones you used in this article don't meet them. If you have questions about individual sources or sourcing more generally, please visit WP:RSN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The author wrote a book "as told to" her, which means it's basically Peggy Batchelor talking about herself, and thus not independent. And the biography was published by AuthorHouse, which is a vanity press and thus it's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and not reliable. English Wikipedia does not condemn
- @Dclemens1971: Doesn't the fact someone wrote a book about her make her notable enough? Also, may I ask how users are supposed to find sources if Wikipedia condemns almost all of them?
- Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual, acting roles are minor, would not pass notability for actors. A voice role in Doctor Who isn't the stuff of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete She was featured in only 1-2 episodes of each TV show she was in and played relatively minor roles in films. The article itself seems to be fixated on the (likely original research) trivia of her having once been the oldest person who had been a cast member of Doctor Who, which as we discussed in this AfD, isn't particularly relevant or notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note I agree this would be better in draft space. She also had a stage career, which has not been included in the article yet. I am sourcing and adding references and information, and will then consider whether she meets notability guidelines. If she is, the article needs editing, as it reads more like a eulogy than an encyclopaedic entry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Having found and added sources, I think that she does meet WP:BASIC. There are multiple, independent sources, some substantial, some less so, but they add up. There is coverage across her life in both national newspapers and local papers around the UK (around England, and also Northern Ireland and Scotland). The article could still use some work - I'll work on the lede and info box. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I cannot view the many British Newspaper Archive links you added since I don't subscribe and it's not available through the Wikipedia Library. However, I looked at a few of the other links you added and they don't seem to add up:
- A mention of her name in a radio programme cast
- A single mention in a local newspaper's stage play review:
Outstanding performer in a capable cast was Peggy Batchelor who admirably sustained her role of a fussy specimen of nice womanhood with mothering tendencies towards the male Godfrey Bond turned in a splendid piece of characterisation of tne class beloved to English comedy writers the butler who is incapable of being surprised and is always adequate to meet all emergencies
- A user-generated source on the history of a local theater club
- A single reference in a local news story
- None of these adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Can you better characterize the British Newspaper Archive sources so editors can properly evaluate them? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I wrote, I think that she meets WP:BASIC - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The number of times a source is referenced gives an idea of the amount of detail in the sources - the profiles of her published in newspapers in Tyne and Wear and Cambridgeshire are particularly detailed, while the Belfast source has a bit less. There is more detail in The Stage article about the drama school she founded in Essex that I have not included. There is coverage over many years - 1925, 1938, 1947 all deriving from her appearances at the Wembley Tattoo; 1946-1966 in stage shows; 1970s-1980s as founder of a drama school and as a nationally recognised adjudicator.
- You mention that being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is not a rare honour. Being a Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama is - information online [25] states "The Guildhall School offers the following honorary awards for distinguished services to the School and to the profession: the FGSM (Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded to distinguished professors, examiners and past students and the Hon GSM (Honorary Member of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded for services to music or drama and to the Guildhall School. Limited to 100 holders at any one time." That is an indication of her professional standing, in addition to the news coverage about her.
- I am not suggesting that all the sources contribute to notability - 3 of those you link to provide evidence of facts in the article (her appearances in two radio programmes; the date she left the drama school she founded; the facts that she taught at drama festivals as well as adjudicating, and that she worked at drama festivals in Wales as well as England and N. Ireland). RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I cannot view the many British Newspaper Archive links you added since I don't subscribe and it's not available through the Wikipedia Library. However, I looked at a few of the other links you added and they don't seem to add up:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Info about sources More info about the sources was requested, so here is the text of the main sources I have found from the 1970s-90s. (Numbers are the current reference numbers in the article.) I included quotes in the article from reviews of her appearances in the 1940s and 50s. As I said above, there is coverage across her life (from 1925-2020) in both national publications and local papers around the UK (from the north-east, east, south-east and south-west of England, as well as Northern Ireland).
- 1 Next to results of the Ryton Music Festival in the Gateshead Post (in north-east England), a photo of Peggy Batchelor and the following text: "Woman in the festival hot seat PEGGY BATCHELOR F G S M, L G S M who has been adjudicator in the Drama Sections at Ryton Music Festival has had a lifelong association with the Arts, gaining basic training at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and touring many countries during the war with ENSA companies. She then became a founder member of Arts Council West of England Theatre Company followed by radio cabaret and other theatre engagements. Eventually she returned to the Guildhall to become a Professor of Drama and an Examiner for the school. She opened her own school in Essex which she named after a professor who had been such an influence on her life - the Ridley Arts Educational School and Studios."
- 2 In a Cambridgeshire newspaper (in East Anglia / the east of England), with a photo of Pegggy Batchelor: "To judge the drama THE ADJUDICATOR for this week's Huntingdon Carnival Drama Festival and the “Weekly News" Drama Awards is Peggy Batchelor. Her life has always been associated with the arts - her mother sang at Sadlers Wells and Covent Garden and her father sang semi-professionally. She studied at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and obtained her performer's diploma. This where she first met Dame Sybil Thorndike who remained a friend. During the war Peggy travelled the world with ENSA companies both as a solo artist and in plays appearing with such people as Vera Lynne George Formby Gracie Fields and many others. After the war she became a founder member of an Arts Council company in the West Country, the company that fostered the talents of Joan Plowright, Edgar Wreford, Charles Jarrott, Malcolm Pride and others. She was invited to appear in a "Scrapbrook" programme for the BBC with Charles Cochran who had known her when she was a child actress dancing before visiting VIPs including most of the crowned heads of Europe. This broadcast led her to being cast in the "Gilbert and Sullivan" series and from that to two years with the BBC. Eventually Peggy decided to concentrate on teaching. She returned to the Guildhall School where she gained her Ministry of Education qualification. She was invited to become an examiner and then a professor of drama. In 1956 she founded the Ridley Studios named after a Guildhall professor who had been such an influence on her life and two years later the Ridley Arts Educational School. She was honoured in 1973 by being made a Fellow of the Guildhall. It is as a member of the Guild of Adjudicators that Peggy is taking part in the Huntingdon Festival which opened at the Commemoration Hall in the town yesterday (Wednesday). There are still tickets left for tonight's and tomorrow's performances which start at 730pm. They cost £1.50 and can be bought at the door. Seven groups are taking part in the festival of one act plays all competing for the best one act play shield and best actor and actress trophies."
- 12 In the Bucks Herald (in south-east England), three photos of Peggy Batchelor with the text: "Thrills on and off the stage. The real life of actress Peggy Batchelor has been more eventful than that of the characters portrayed in her theatrical roles. She survived a wartime torpedo strike in the Med and being mauled by a tiger to be reunited with the RAF officer parted from her 40 years earlier by war. She tells ALEC BROWN of her adventures. FOR Peggy Batchelor the thrill of working alongside stars on stage, radio and television could only be surpassed by teaching. But it is her acting career, from entertaining the troops during the war to Shakespeare plays and a television soap opera, that has given her great richness of experience to draw on. Peggy, of Mill Mead, Wendover, has spent more than 20 years teaching drama skills. She set up and ran the Ridley Arts Educational School in Leighon-Sea, Essex, and now teaches at the Arts Educational School, Tring, and privately. She also adjudicates for exams, lectures and gives recitals throughout Britain, Ireland and in Hong Kong. Her career began as a schoolgirl in Leigh-on-Sea when she joined an amateur dramatic society. As a teenager she trained at the Guildhall School of Drama, London, where she is now an examiner. World War Two interrupted her studies and she joined ENSA — the Entertainments National Services Association. It was then she starred alongside big names like Vera Lynn, Gracie Fields, George Formby, and David Nixon, who later became famous as a television magician. “Vera Lynn was fantastic,” said Peggy. She would go off in a jeep and wherever there were a few men, she would just stop and sing to them. “Some of the ENSA artists were just so brave and really great people. You were all the same — nobody was treated as a star, you all worked together.” After touring hospitals in Britain, Peggy went to West Africa and was on her way to Egypt with ENSA when their boat was torpedoed in the Mediterranean Sea. They spent seven hours in a lifeboat before being picked up. “Between all the work and sometimes rather tragic and uncomfortable situations there were also all these great maments of seeing wonderful places and meeting interesting people,” said Peggy. Then she joined a company which toured India, entertaining troops who were stopping the Japanese advance. She got to know the director of the Tatanagor Steelworks and his two pet tigers. She had loved the animals from childhood and often played with the two pets. But one day one of the tigers turned on her and mauled her. in carbolic and a stay in hospital luckily left her just with scars. But she still loves tigers. In hospital she met an RAF officer in the Medical Corps, who comforted her when she was having terrible nightmares. They formed a close bond but were separated by the war. Then, in 1984, Arthur, by then an Air Commodore, traced Peggy after his wife had died. “We knew it was love and we married,” said Peggy. After the war, she had joined a stage company formed from the ranks of the RAF, which included Bob Monkhouse. Peggy left them to join the West of England Theatre Company, whose president was J.B. Priestley. He picked her for the lead in his play She Came to the City. They also performed Shakespeare, Chekov and Noel Coward plays. In the 1950s she worked for BBC Radio in programmes like Dick Barton and Mrs Dale’s Diary, and on stage as part of a comic double act with Benny Hill. There were also parts at the Savoy Theatre, and Victorian variety shows at the Players Theatre alongside budding thespians like Clive Dunn and Hattie Jacques. In the 1960s she trained as a teacher and set up the Ridley School, which she fitted in with theatre tours and television work, including a part in Emergency Ward 10. Her last tour before giving up to concentrate on teaching was with Shelagh Delaney’s A Taste of Honey. Peggy now has an extensive his! of posts, including member of the Guild of Drama Adjudicators, vicechairman of the Society of Teachers of Speech and Drama and vice president of Aylesbury Arts Festival. As a member of the British Federation of Music Festivals, she met the Queen last summer at the federation’s 70th anniversary celebrations. She feels teaching is the most rewarding part of her career. “I feel communicating is so terribly important, and when you can see somebody blossom and gain confidence, it is so satisfying.” But she has not forgotten her past: “It's lovely going on stage and getting applause at the end. Once on stage, you forget yourself completely. I loved it.”
- 13 In the Belfast Telegraph (in Ireland), with a photo of Peggy Batchelor with two of the competitors from the sonnet recital class: "Festival talent is praised by actress. NOEL COWARD, Vera Lynn. George Formby, Gracie Fields are among the greats with whom Peggy Batchelor has worked. And this week the English actress is judging at Belfast Musical Festival. Yesterday she began hearing the "small fry" - the young children's verse-speaking - and was impressed. "The standards here are always high because of the excellent teaching. I've been a regular visitor in the past to the Belfast Festival and never have any besitation in visiting Northern Ireland," she said. Peggy has led an eventful life and one of the famous stories about her concerns Noel Coward. When she acted in India some years ago, she was mauled by a tiger, but soon recovered. Coward heard about it and said to her: "Not during the performance, my dear?" Peggy toured with ENSA during the Second World War, but later she turned to teaching and became a professor of drama at the Guildhall School. She pays tribute to the advice of Dame Sybil Thorndike at the school. Dame Sybil, she said, had remained a lifelong friend ever since. The English actress was honoured in 1973, when she was made a Fellow of Guildhall, a distinction shared with such artists as Andre Previn. Dame Janet Baker and Dame Peggy Ashcroft."
- 26 In The Stage, "'21-Not Out' Southend TWENTY-ONE years ago actress and teacher Peggy Batchelor started Ridley Schools and Studios, now the leading private-enterprise school and dramatic academy in Essex. It was fitting to mark the occasion with a new revue, that genuinely reviewed the problems, like expan sion. and the triumphs, like playing in Berlin, and recording "Oliver" for an American record company. In her brief speech, she forecast the new Ridley Arts Club as the latest addition. The revue, "21 Not Out", at the Cliffs Pavilion, Southend, was cle verly devised by Dennis Boxley and directed by Peggy Batchelor and the faculty, to tell the story, give scope to fifty adults and twenty children, and cover drama, music, mime, opera and choral speaking. Essen tially modern, the direction and choreography were inventive, vibrant and fluent. Among those outstanding were Roland Darvell, Paul Clark and Michael Small. J.K.M."
- 27 is accessible online.
- RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maya Kornberg (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 nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:BASIC even without the political candidacy, with coverage such as the independent review for her book Inside Congressional Committees (Columbia University Press, 2023) in the academic journal Congress & the Presidency and the 2010 article about her environmental activism in the Jerusalem Post. She is also quoted frequently in the national media in the U.S. as an expert on Congress and elections. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Ally Louks (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 like a WP:BLP1E candidate - "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", the individual does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and as such seems to be otherwise low-profile, and going viral on social media is not per se a substantial event. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Literature, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I see that this article borders on WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON (this only started one month ago). But the coverage is from a large variety of sources, and they aren't just paraphrased carbon copies of one article. Multiple articles discuss her at length as the subject of the article, not just a passing mention of "Hey, this person did something newsworthy, thanks for the click." The article is well sourced and is as WP:NPOV as can be when discussing a divisive topic. Angryapathy (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Echoing Angryapathy, there is a large variety of reputable sources (some not even referenced in the Wikipedia article). She even has a fair amount of International coverage; a quick google search shows her being mentioned in Newspapers from Ireland, India, the United States, The U.K., and more. This wasn't the kind of virality that's just a tiktok video of someone saying something salacious that gets big and then dies down - she went viral because of her body of work and research, which has now spun off new discussions and even more coverage of Dr. Louks outside of the initial moment, and into far more mainstream and traditional media sources than one would expect for something that is a mere viral moment. Additionally, I don't believe Dr. Louks will be otherwise low-profile because she's gained over 120,000 followers on twitter, and has already had other tweets about her research and opinions (not directly related to the original viral tweet) go viral in their own right; I think we're just at the beginning of her notability, not that it's already over. I can understand the idea that we may be bordering on 'too soon,' but I think there is enough substantial coverage talking about her as a person and a researcher, not just one moment, to justify keeping the article. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: per Special:Diff/1265752204, the article creator accidentally commented this from her boyfriend's account. Assuming good faith and noting for the record. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- hey @Darth Stabro, I've been staying out of this discussion because of the mistake you noted above. I don't want anything to get any more confusing, or to get in anymore accidental wikipedia trouble. Also, I know I'm reasonably new to wikipedia with really not that many edits. (I clearly may have bitten off more than I can chew signing up purely to be like 'I'm going to get more women on wikipedia!' not understanding all the work that entails, and all the nuances and details of wikipedia articles, which is why I, at least currently, don't plan to be getting in super deep or doing a ton more edits - but that's kind of irrelevant to this particular discussion, so, anyway...)
- All that being said, I have been reading some of these links people have been leaving with wikipedia policies... and I'm wondering if this discussion ends up in delete (which I can't totally tell right now if it will or not), but if it does, is there a world in which - since people seem to keep discussing whether this is about an event or about Dr. Ally Louks herself - is there a world in which instead of deleting, this could become an article about this event i.e. 'the backlash of Ally Louks PhD graduation' or like, I dunno, whatever title made the most sense?
- It seems everyone agrees there was tons of coverage in mainstream, reputable sources. And in Notability - events, it says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." This was covered in numerous articles across many countries in plenty of diverse sources. As far as I can tell, those wikipedia rules also seems to argue events coverage is more notable with "thematic connection or contextual information" and I think many of these sources have themes and contextual information - whether it's positioning this within a larger conversation about sexism in academia, or whether it's bringing in elements of Dr. Louks' thesis itself with talk about olfactory ethics and what that means.
- I know that not every event that gets coverage gets a page. I also recognize I may not fully be understanding the rules and therefore perhaps unable to apply them correctly. But I'm just trying to make sense of all the points of view and see if that's a possible compromise for the group? (Unless the consensus ends up being keep, at which point, you can ignore this idea/question, because I really don't want to make anything more complicated than it need be). MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: per Special:Diff/1265752204, the article creator accidentally commented this from her boyfriend's account. Assuming good faith and noting for the record. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E issues. Arguments that there are "a large variety of sources" or "international coverage" do not counteract the demands of WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:
Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
- true, all independent sources in the article are only about her going viral.The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
- true, the article subject has given a few interviews to news outlets about her viral post, but otherwise remains WP:LOWPROFILE. This Washington Post article makes it clear that she does not seek media attention:Ally Louks could be considered the antithesis of “extremely online.” The low-key literature scholar is generally more focused on her research and supervising undergrads at Cambridge University than on growing her once-small social media following or posting on X more than a few times a year.
The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.
- true, going viral on social media may be a significant event in a person's life, but not significant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
- Delete. Very clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, nor BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Subject does not as of today have the sustained coverage over a lengthy period of time to meet the WP:GNG, and as of now is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I lean towards keep and disagree with the argument that she is unlikely to continue being in the public eye. Academics typically increase their notability over the course of their career through publications etc, even if they're fairly low profile, which I'd argue the subject is not at this point given her continued vitality beyond the initial moment. At most, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. – Starklinson 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- EDIT: Let me re-word as my point is being misunderstood – an earlier post mentioned WP:LOWPROFILE, my point was that even notable academics are often not very high profile, despite this one being unusually high profile for her position as a result of her thesis' vitality. Starklinson (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- What "continued vitality"? All the coverage is from a <1-month period, that's nowhere near the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED. She's also explicitly stated she wishes to be low-profile, that's exactly what BLP1E covers. And we don't even have any evidence that she's staying in academia at this point—simply defending a thesis doesn't mean she will continue to do research or that that research will be impactful. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is WP:CRYSTAL reasoning and there are no sources demonstrating the subject has "continued vitality" beyond her initial viral post. While academics usually become more notable over time, most academics are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and there is no indication she meets any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep When the Washington Post, the Economist, the BBC, the Independent, and even Forbes are writing about or interviewing you about your thesis I’d say you’re a pretty notable academic at that point. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, in the context of WP:BLP1E the number of sources does not matter as they are all covering her for a single event; that is mostly what is at debate here. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I’m saying is, they’ve determined that she is notable in the WP:NACADEMIC realm. I didn’t say the number of sources contributed to it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which of the 8 criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC does she meet? Astaire (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- How have they determined she is notable as an academic....? They are interviewing her strictly because her thesis went mildly viral, which definitely does not meet the standards for NPROF C7. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I’m saying is, they’ve determined that she is notable in the WP:NACADEMIC realm. I didn’t say the number of sources contributed to it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully, in the context of WP:BLP1E the number of sources does not matter as they are all covering her for a single event; that is mostly what is at debate here. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: WP:BLP1E is not applicable here anymore because she is no longer WP:LOWPROFILE given the number of high-profile interviews already given. Her case is very similar to Rachael Gunn. Contributor892z (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Yeah, actually, I think this is a great point. I agree in the similarity to Rachael Gunn. I also agree with the comments about the breadth of coverage and Ally Louks' general level of notability at this point. After reading through these comments, I have been convinced with the keep side.
- Additionally, while I know random tweets can't be included in an article and don't fully make an argument, I searched tweets about her and numerous people are talking about the idea of how her work has opened up a whole new framework for people, and it's added talk of smell into the discourse in a way that people seem to feel hasn't really been done before. With such strong public opinion, it's hard to imagine this is a flash in the pan type of thing that won't continue to get coverage on some level at certain points?
- I also think, to the person who said Ally Louks wants to be low-profile, her actions don't seem to state wanting to shy away completely from the media, public etc. She has a lively twitter presence for over 100,000 followers and consistently comments on many things where media and smell interact. Yeah, maybe she's not going to live directly in the public eye, or give out a lot of personal information, but I think she is still engaging with the public re: her work in a way that does not detract from her (publicly) notability, especially as an academic who wouldn't really be expected to do much in the public eye except engage with the public re: their work.
- Lastly, Ally Louks recently put out a tweet begging people to stop requesting her thesis from her university because she's getting hundreds of emails a day about it. Again, I know we can't rely on social media, but if someone's thesis is being requested that much... she seems like a notable academic to me. (And I know 'notable' doesn't just mean popular, and to wikipedia standards it's more about coverage in secondary sources, but I think she crosses that bar, as she does have the mainstream coverage to back up notability, as far as I can tell.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be deeply misunderstanding what "low-profile" means for BLP1E... All of those arguments are exactly why we do not evaluate notability based on "popularity" in unreliable sources and absolutely do not gauge whether someone is low-profile based on their Twitter followers. WP:SUSTAINED requires sustained coverage for all topics anyway, and this burst of activity does not qualify. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- On WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high profile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator." As we've seen from the links in the Ally Louks article and the links Contributor892z's listed (and other links online), Ally Louks has actively given interviews where I think we could argue she has been a "notable commentator" because she hasn't just talked about the event. She has mentioned areas of her thesis, what it's about, and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia, sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.
- Additionally, in the promotional activities section of WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high-profile individual "and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." I would personally argue that having a twitter account where she tweets (publicly to an audience of over 100,000) a number of tweets making jokes, making valid points, or sometimes even sometimes 'dunking on people', - tweets that nearly all center on smell and her thesis topic of "olfactory ethics" - tweets that she knows keep going viral and getting quote tweeted, all in light of the fact that she's already gone viral off a tweet, so she clearly is aware that's a possibility, especially in the strong opinions she shares, I would think an argument could be made that she does do 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause', especially because she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article. So, it seems to me she is clearly actively seeking a wider audience.
- Do I think either of those arguments of being high-profile are an absolute slam dunk? No. But do I think they're potentially reasonable and something a reasonable person could argue? Yes. I also don't think there are any absolutely slam-dunk arguments that she's low-profile, given the information above.
- Even within the "sustained" section I see on WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." May not (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation. (And Contributor892z's point about Rachael Gunn still seems valid to me.)
- Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). But point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual and I've already argued why I don't think that's true. And point 3 says the event was not significant or the individual's role in the event was not significant. Clearly, Ally Louks' role was significant in the event, as the event revolved around her and her work. And I would argue 'the event,' aka the virality around her thesis, was also significant in that there was TONS of coverage, some fairly in depth, and it has ignited international conversation. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral (from 0 to 100 on google's chart). So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- LOWPROFILE is an essay, it does not carry weight as a definition of "high-profile". Even if it did, merely giving interviews in the context of her thesis going viral is not an exemption to
The person otherwise remains...
orfor some other concern
, because she is not engaging in publicity outside that context.
And finally, being active on Twitter is staggeringly inapt evidence of "seeking publicity". Come on... JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- LOWPROFILE is an essay, it does not carry weight as a definition of "high-profile". Even if it did, merely giving interviews in the context of her thesis going viral is not an exemption to
- You seem to be deeply misunderstanding what "low-profile" means for BLP1E... All of those arguments are exactly why we do not evaluate notability based on "popularity" in unreliable sources and absolutely do not gauge whether someone is low-profile based on their Twitter followers. WP:SUSTAINED requires sustained coverage for all topics anyway, and this burst of activity does not qualify. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interviews are not "high-profile" or "low-profile", people are. And WP:BLP1E already addresses this:
Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event
andThe person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
In other words, giving interviews about the single event for which she is notable does not count toward her status as low-profile or high-profile. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, she would be considered more high-profile if - for example - she gave interviews to media outlets about other topics unrelated to her social media post, where she weighed in as a "politics of smell" expert. Astaire (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)- @Astaire and that’s exactly what she is doing here and here (scroll all the way down). And both outlets are reliable sources. Refer to the note about WP:THECONVERSATION (The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts). Contributor892z (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both of those links involve her explaining her thesis in the context of going viral, and not providing commentary on other events as a subject matter expert, as I said above. Astaire (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The CBC has literally nothing indicating her interview was about anything other than going viral; in fact, it doesn't even have enough secondary independent content to qualify toward GNG. And her article in The Conversation has literally no relevance to notability—giving interviews and writing articles are utterly routine in academia and do not establish someone is high-profile. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Astaire and that’s exactly what she is doing here and here (scroll all the way down). And both outlets are reliable sources. Refer to the note about WP:THECONVERSATION (The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts). Contributor892z (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether BLP1E is met, the subject still must meet WP:SUSTAINED, which she emphatically does not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we have a clear cut definition of sustained coverage? Jim Redmond is an extreme case (from the event in 1992 until his death in 2022, coverage for a single event continued). Do we have an example of what is the shortest acceptable coverage length for it to be deemed sustained? Contributor892z (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep As others have noted, her notoriety has surpassed the original incident and therefore does not meet WP:BLP1E criteria. On twitter she is frequently mentioned as the de facto expert on the interaction of smell and media. Mad Mismagius (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- How has her notoriety surpassed the original incident? Every single article is related to it. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being mentioned on Twitter a lot does not prove notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- I'm still on team keep [I won't bold it since I've already gotten to do that once] for the time being.
- I don't mean to overpower this convo at all. I know I'm a bit loquacious and passionate (and if you feel it is a violation to say similar things more concisely in a less buried spot, feel free to delete. I want to follow the rules of civility/wikipedia, but also don't want my arguments to be lost above, or be too hard to navigate through because of me not being concise enough above (my bad).
- So for anyone interested in a more concise re-cap of my current arguments for the re-listed discussion):
- 1) I think Ally Louks isn't a low-profile individual WP:LOWPROFILE under 2 different spots:
- A) She's given interviews as a 'notable commentator' (mentioning what her thesis is about and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia while sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.)
- B) (even more so this one, I think): Promotional activities. She does do activities in an "attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." Consistently daily tweeting, from the account that went viral in the first place, to over 100,000 followers, with nearly all her tweets expanding on "olfactory ethics" (her topic) in some way does seem like 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause' (of seeing smell in a specific framework and getting more people to think in/engage with that framework), especially as she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article.
- 2) Within "sustained" in WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation.
- 3) Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). And I don't think we can say that all 3 of been met. Here are 2 I question:
- A) point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual (which I argue against above).
- B) Point 3 says the event was not significant. I would argue 'the event' was significant. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral on google trends. So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.)
- Additionally, a new addition to this post that wasn't in the one I just recapped: if it matters at all, I found an article published just 2 days ago in which a paragraph about her is the jumping off point: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/premium/3272832/eric-hoffer-the-true-believer-trouble-with-academia/ So, she hasn't disappeared from the zeitgeist. (I know that mention in and of itself would not be enough to make her notable, but since people seem to be concerned she's a sort of flash in the pan... here she is being mentioned again (technically the following year after going viral ;) that's a little tongue-in-cheek since we just had New Year's, but I think hopefully the rest of my points stand :)).) Wikipedian339 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly a violation of WP:BLP1E. Going viral on Twitter and getting coverage because of it does not make a person notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a WP:BLP1E atm. If this coverage was like in 2014 or 2006, it would be a very obvious BLP1E. I simply think it's too soon for a standalone bio on this individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep due to the large amount of SIGCOV, including international news reporting. However, if it is too soon, I would recommend Redirecting and merging to Sexism in academia, to not only preserve the article history but to retain the information, which is important regarding sexism in academia. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As is, the article doesn't contain the word sexism at all. Not that I'm discounting sexism that occurred, but do any of the reliable sources talk about it? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 05:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. This was linked at Women in Red with a rather non-neutral summary... JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: Notability is supported by a number of reliable sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP1E, the number of reliable sources don't necessarily matter if they are all in the context of a single event. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I think there are two different things here, saving this from BIO1E: her actual research topic (smell and politics) and the way her case brought to light the harassment by the public of women in academia. There's enough media for both for WP:GNG-based notability. She doesn't have enough academic impact yet for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability but those are not necessary when we get notability a different way. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with David Eppstein, the complexity of the response takes it out of simple something-went-viral-on-Twitter territory. There is a good spread of national and international reliable news coverage already in the article, and more on search. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I am not formally a member of Women in Red, and I first became aware of this AfD via the academics & educators delsort. I had been keeping an eye on it but had not made my mind up until rereading the article and some of its sources in the light of David Eppstein's insightful comment above. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The four most recent keeps are all from users from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, which may have been canvassed per JoelleJay's comment. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Darth Stabro: please see WP:AGF. I, for one, became aware of this AfD when it was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators in late December. And I think the WIR notification was neutral enough to not run afoul of WP:CANVASS: it merely asked to "widen the audience of awareness" of the AfD and for assistance in improving the article, neither of which is asking people to !vote in any particular way. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am aware of WP:AGF and already referenced it in another incident at the beginning of the deletion discussion. It's relevant to list the discussion at Women in Red but the notification is not written in a neutral way. It's borderline. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I read this wiki page before posting on Women in Red and it says it's appropriate to post a notification to a WikiProject that may have interest in the topic. Is the issue with how I worded my understanding of why I thought this was re-listed? I didn't ask anyone to specifically vote keep. In fact, someone replied in Women in Red who said they did not add a vote specifically because they were convinced by arguments on both sides. So, it seems like people are forming opinions and not blindly voting keep. I thought it was reasonable to widen the discussion to more Wikipedia editors who may not be aware of it? Yes, obviously, I'm hoping for keep but I tried to stay reasonably neutral in my posting, but I guess not neutral enough? MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did appreciate that you tried to be neutral, but it's also evident that the audience is almost by definition quite partisan, the notice was not brief, and the AfD was not made aware of the notification. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Every WikiProject can be expected to be partisan in some way. Notifying a project devoted to soccer players about the proposed deletion of a soccer player might be expected to provide a certain response, for instance. Nevertheless, notifying relevant projects is specifically allowed, with no cautions against some projects being more partisan than others. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a project dedicated specifically to creating and retaining articles on women is just a little more partisan with respect to whether we retain an article on a woman than the football project is for a footballer article, though I do think the latter also often qualifies for
Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage
. The other big difference is that there is a reasonable expectation that football project members might have access to offline sources or have specialized knowledge that would help interpret sources; that is not the case for the broad topic of "women", and thus the only reason to notify WiR would be to enlist the help of people who we think would want to keep a page. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a project dedicated specifically to creating and retaining articles on women is just a little more partisan with respect to whether we retain an article on a woman than the football project is for a footballer article, though I do think the latter also often qualifies for
- Every WikiProject can be expected to be partisan in some way. Notifying a project devoted to soccer players about the proposed deletion of a soccer player might be expected to provide a certain response, for instance. Nevertheless, notifying relevant projects is specifically allowed, with no cautions against some projects being more partisan than others. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did appreciate that you tried to be neutral, but it's also evident that the audience is almost by definition quite partisan, the notice was not brief, and the AfD was not made aware of the notification. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Darth Stabro: please see WP:AGF. I, for one, became aware of this AfD when it was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators in late December. And I think the WIR notification was neutral enough to not run afoul of WP:CANVASS: it merely asked to "widen the audience of awareness" of the AfD and for assistance in improving the article, neither of which is asking people to !vote in any particular way. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. In agreement with other keepers above, has has enough significant coverage and is beyond a single small event. CaptainAngus (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- keep or merge - it was a pretty significant case, and to me there seems to be sufficient coverage for GNG Lajmmoore (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is not what matters necessarily in a WP:BLP1E case if all of the significant coverage is only about one event, that is, her going viral on Twitter. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're not listening to the comments here arguing that the significant coverage is about two different things, her research on smell and the misogynistic backlash to her going viral? Noted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have yet to see an argument that she sufficiently meets WP:ACADEMIC in any meaningful way outside of the coverage of her going viral. All of the coverage of her research was only done because of her virality. It is simply WP:TOOSOON to see if she has enduring impact on the field. Meeting WP:GNG is a presumption but not a guarantee of notability. WP:BLP1E provides examples of how someone can have significant coverage but not meet notability. I do not think that the arguments trying to say she's not BLP1E are good. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 23:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that the misogyny is not part of her thesis going viral?? These aren't separate events, the backlash was part of what made her go viral. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are separate conceptually, temporally, and in the media coverage. Her research was not about misogyny in science. There would have been no backlash if her research had not already made a splash for people to hear of it and backlash against it. The Washington Post [26] and Independent [27] stories are examples of independent and in-depth coverage primarily about the misogynist backlash. The Times of India story has more focus on her research [28], although all three mention both topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The media coverage has been focused on the public response to her thesis topic, not on her thesis topic; even the ToF article (which is potentially not RS...) only spends a small section basically just quoting her thesis, while the rest of it covers the media response. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are separate conceptually, temporally, and in the media coverage. Her research was not about misogyny in science. There would have been no backlash if her research had not already made a splash for people to hear of it and backlash against it. The Washington Post [26] and Independent [27] stories are examples of independent and in-depth coverage primarily about the misogynist backlash. The Times of India story has more focus on her research [28], although all three mention both topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're not listening to the comments here arguing that the significant coverage is about two different things, her research on smell and the misogynistic backlash to her going viral? Noted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is not what matters necessarily in a WP:BLP1E case if all of the significant coverage is only about one event, that is, her going viral on Twitter. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:BLP1E applies explicitly only in cases in which outside of the coverage of the single event, the 'person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual'. In the context of media coverage, a high-profile individual, in contrast to a low-profile individual, 'Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator'. Louks, I suggest, is clearly high-profile in this sense, given her public-facing writing (New Statesman, Conversation) and media appearances (BBC, CBC). This means that she is not someone notable only for a single event, based on the relevant guidelines. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, it's said here and here that she intends to turn her dissertation into a published monograph/book. Starklinson (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @J Milburn, the subject still needs to meet SUSTAINED, and BLP1E explicitly states
otherwise remains
low-profile: none of her coverage or interviews are outside the context of her going viral. Becoming high-profile also doesn't suddenly exempt the subject from needing to receive coverage beyond brief flashes of news attention, per WP:N and NOTNEWS; it merely means that if the event is notable then a separate bio on the subject isn't discouraged anymore. JoelleJay (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- @JoelleJay: I'm afraid what you're saying is not as clear to me as it is clear to you. BLP1E explicitly applies only to low-profile individuals. As I (and others have) explained, Louks does not appear to me (us) to be a low-profile individual in the sense described at WP:LOWPROFILE. My point was that, on my reading of WP:BLP1E, the argument on which many people are supporting deletion just doesn't hold up. If there are other arguments, then so be it. But, for example, it's not clear to me why you think WP:SUSTAINED is an issue here. For example, the guideline does not say that subjects are notable only if they have received coverage over some set period of time. Instead, it says 'a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it"', which is clearly the case here, and that 'Once established, notability is not temporary'. It also says that 'Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability', but I don't think anyone is disputing that. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- And on the point about 'otherwise remain': No, I don't think that, outside of the context of news stories about backlash to her tweet that she is and is likely to remain low-profile. On the contrary, I think she's high-profile in the sense of being (to quote WP:LOWPROFILE) someone who gives 'scheduled interviews to notable publication[s] ... as a ... self-described "expert"'; i.e., interviews in her context as an expert on her research topic. This is so for lots of academics, of course, and I'm obviously not saying that being high-profile in this sense means that someone is notable; it just means that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The big point is that this is a brief burst of news coverage. She is also not giving interviews as an "expert" (journalists aren't going to seek out a recent grad as an expert, they will get someone like her adviser who has significant publications on the topic); they are all entirely prompted and contextualized by her going viral and additionally are well within the "brief burst" period. On a different note, one of my personal objections is to creating bios on any academic, but especially women and minorities, where the major focus is on something that went viral rather than on their actual work being impactful, and particularly when the viral content is controversial or negative. It's extremely unlikely the subject will ever become notable through NPROF (because such a tiny fraction of scholars ever do!), so her biography will likely forever be a snapshot of this single event in her life even as she moves on to other things. We already get so many requests from professional academics who are actually notable asking to get their pages deleted because they're vandalism magnets or because they can't update their personal info or because their research sections emphasize topics they don't consider relevant... JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- And on the point about 'otherwise remain': No, I don't think that, outside of the context of news stories about backlash to her tweet that she is and is likely to remain low-profile. On the contrary, I think she's high-profile in the sense of being (to quote WP:LOWPROFILE) someone who gives 'scheduled interviews to notable publication[s] ... as a ... self-described "expert"'; i.e., interviews in her context as an expert on her research topic. This is so for lots of academics, of course, and I'm obviously not saying that being high-profile in this sense means that someone is notable; it just means that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay: I'm afraid what you're saying is not as clear to me as it is clear to you. BLP1E explicitly applies only to low-profile individuals. As I (and others have) explained, Louks does not appear to me (us) to be a low-profile individual in the sense described at WP:LOWPROFILE. My point was that, on my reading of WP:BLP1E, the argument on which many people are supporting deletion just doesn't hold up. If there are other arguments, then so be it. But, for example, it's not clear to me why you think WP:SUSTAINED is an issue here. For example, the guideline does not say that subjects are notable only if they have received coverage over some set period of time. Instead, it says 'a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it"', which is clearly the case here, and that 'Once established, notability is not temporary'. It also says that 'Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability', but I don't think anyone is disputing that. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete WP:BLP1E with no sustained coverage. Also fails WP:Prof with zero cites to her work (1000 is usually required). I note that this BLP has been canvassed at WP:Women in Red. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC).
- Or rather, that a relevant project has been notified of the deletion discussion as is explicityly allowed by WP:CANVASS, specicfical WP:APPNOTE:
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion ...
PamD 15:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or rather, that a relevant project has been notified of the deletion discussion as is explicityly allowed by WP:CANVASS, specicfical WP:APPNOTE:
- Keep - fails the PROF test. Not perhaps since Louis de Broglie's has a dissertation been this controversial, however, so I think she passes WP:SIGCOV. We have recently and routinely keep articles about accused criminals, one-hit wonders, and winners of reality shows who slide into next decade's trivia contests, as exceptions to BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposed deletions
edit- Sherman Raskin (via WP:PROD on 8 January 2025)
- John A. Haigh (via WP:PROD on 8 January 2025)
- Arman Sedghi (via WP:PROD on 8 January 2025)
- Alireza Shokoohi (via WP:PROD on 8 January 2025)
Lianne Gonsalves (via WP:PROD on 7 January 2025)- Leonard Seabrooke (via WP:PROD on 2 January 2025)