Jump to content

User:Ruud Koot/Feed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science[edit]

Articles for deletion

  • 30 May 2024 – List of important publications in computer science (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Pppery (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
  • 24 May 2024 – Alma-0 (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated (t · c); see discussion (4 participants; relisted)
  • 01 Jun 2024 – Capybara (software) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by WikiLinuz (t · c) was closed as keep by WikiLinuz (t · c) on 03 Jun 2024; see discussion (2 participants)
  • 28 May 2024 – Judoscript (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by HyperAccelerated (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 04 Jun 2024; see discussion (5 participants)

Proposed deletions

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(29 more...)

AA: Computing[edit]

Shortcut

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(57 more...)

Proposed deletions

(10 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(30 more...)

Articles to be split

(17 more...)

Articles for creation

(51 more...)

AfD: Computing[edit]

Computing[edit]

Leave-one-out error[edit]

Leave-one-out error (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 does not belong in an encyclopedia. It appears that what is described in the article does not correlate one-to-one with the title of the article. The article describes "stability" of leave-one-out error, whereas the title of the article is leave-one-out error. The title could be changed appropriately, to "stability of leave-one-out error", but then it would be even more clear that an article like this does not belong in an encyclopedia. Looking at WP:NOT, Wikipedia is just not supposed to be a textbook or a scientific journal, where this article might belong. It is too technical, it does not sufficiently define the math terms, and is overall unreadable. Even for someone who is relatively familiar with this method, this article just does not convey anything meaningful. A reader who wants to learn about this in such detail will not look in an encyclopedia, they will look in research papers and textbooks on the method. Manyyassin (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Cloudreach[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cloudreach (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)

2A02:6B6B:16C:0:D8BF:FBCC:5819:FF15 proposed deletion with the rationale:

Reads like promotional material or like the About page of the company. Probably conflict of interest. No substance.

However, since Cloudreach was discussed at AfD before, PROD cannot be used. I have converted this to an AfD for them. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: This was previously deleted and for good reasons. Most reliable sources are not about the company but about bigger companies who bought the business, and even those are flimsy and don't justify an article about this. Additionally the company website doesn't even exist anymore which is another reason to think this doesn't pass WP:N. 2A02:6B6B:58:0:F935:2F9:817C:F0F4 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
    Are you the same person who proposed deletion? (The first two segments of the IPv6 addresses are identical.) If so, you need to disclose this fact, to avoid creating an illusion of support (WP:BADSOCK). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Pilgrimage (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Autonomic Network Architecture[edit]

Autonomic Network Architecture (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)

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It's also in such a promotional, unsourced state that it would need TNTing if kept. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Facility information model[edit]

Facility information model (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 as I could not find any coverage in secondary sources at all Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Building information modeling. While there are some sources for facility information model, it is a part of building information modeling as in "divide BIM into four models, Program information model (PIM), Design information model (DIM), construction information model (CIM) and facility information model (FIM)". StarryGrandma (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    @StarryGrandma Thanks for proposing this alternative! I would be ok with it . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect support - plenty of secondary sources come up on a quick Google Books search, but it seems to be a relatively niche technical tool more useful in an article with greater context. Some of the info on related systems/programs could also probably be merged into Facilities management easily as well, if someone so chooses. originalmesstalk 09:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Automated Testing Framework[edit]

Automated Testing Framework (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Question Is this article in no relation to test automation frameworks, to which I would say there is more GNG than what is presented in this? Conyo14 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

EasyMock[edit]

EasyMock (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. Has one ref from a conference paper by author. Passing mentions in conference papers and low-quality publications. --WikiLinuz (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Very Important Party[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

DUnit[edit]

DUnit (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Chris Sullo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Johnny Long[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Subject is not notable and the article is purely written for promotion (it even reads like a personal resume). Also, most of the content is WP:SYNTH. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Phil Agcaoili[edit]

Phil Agcaoili (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)

Almost entirely the work of User:Greyhat, who, based on the deleted edit summaries for File:Phil Agcaoili 2011.jpg, has been in personal contact with the subject. Unclear the subject is notable, and the article is highly promotional. The company he founded is apparently not notable enough to have an article. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Saturne Party[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

List of important publications in computer science[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of important publications in computer science (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)

Inherently original research/synthesis. Previously survived AfD in 2006 when those policies weren't enforced I guess. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, History, Science, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Without clearly defined criteria for what "important" means, this article is as OR as it gets. The three criteria listed are subjective and (more damningly) unsourced. Only reference 11 approaches a treatment of this subject as a whole, and it's based on an informal survey conducted by somebody at Penn who made the results into a personal webpage. That's pretty weak. Other sources are all primary and don't discuss the topic of the list as a group, so this is a failure of WP:NLIST and grossly OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very much a violation of WP:OR to create a topic this way. Even with that aside, you'll often get some listing somewhere (course material, reviews in annals, etc.) describing seminal papers that may be required or important reading for those purusing advanced degrees in a specific field. That generally would not satisfy WP:NLIST and at most would just be a secondary source in the main article (in this case computer science) at best. This isn't a useful redirect either, so this comes across as a pretty unequivocal case for deletion. KoA (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cribl[edit]

Cribl (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)

Doesn't seem like it actually meets NORG. Coverage is all your typical SERIESA stuff. History is also a little suspicious TBH but that's mostly secondary to the routineness of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Scene description language[edit]

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

I can’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ecto (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NSOFT criterion 3: has been reviewed by reliable sources. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. As for the claim these are only user-generated sources, all of the sources I have chosen have articles made by other authors, and are clearly not just blogs. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f. WP:SELFPUB.
Weak delete per HA. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:
  • There seem to be a variety of authors on the first link (AppleMatters) ([5], [6], [7] all have different authors), the coverage is independant, and reliable, plus significant coverage. Clearly a reliable review.
  • Reviewasaurus is a bit harder to discern, but it at least somewhat goes towards GNG or NSOFT. It looks to be independant (both pros and cons are listed), reliable, and significant. It does have the feel of a userblog (with the lack of a font, poor formatting, posted by x message etc.) but it still feels like somewhat reliable coverage.
  • The third link (NewcommReview) is a comparison between different softwares, but it still goes into depth about Ecto (4-5 paragraphs). This is still significant coverage
  • The fourth link (Network World) seems to be good progress towards GNG. This seems to be an actual news article, per the main page.
I would say the only the second link could maybe be classed as a blog. Just because there is an author listed at the bottom, doesn't mean the website is a blog. Also if you have a look at all these websites, everything barring the second link has different authors for different articles. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops. I thought it was the same author because i clicked on 8 links and 4 of them gave me an error. 3 out of the 4 footer links are basically dead. I wouldn't trust this website.
  • WordPress is right in the footer. Just independent isn't enough, see WP:SELFPUB.
  • This is also WordPress. "Theme by Brian Gardner" links to a lot of WordPress stuff.
Network World is probably reliable, sorry. It led me to a story in a magazine on archive.org, which definitely counts! It even says it was used for Boing Boing! Keep. Again, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Alma-0[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alma-0 (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 fails WP: N. This page has a pretty unfortunate history with AfDs, but the issue of sourcing still remains. The papers that discuss the language in depth are primary, and its citations are brief mentions of the language itself. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I don't see what has changed from the last three (!) AfDs, and the sources (of which there are nine) look okay to me. jp×g🗯️ 01:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Did you read the AfD rationale, which points out that the sources are either primary or not in-depth? The previous AfDs discussed citation counts and number of hits on Google, which are not valid rationales for keeping an article. Similarly, the number of sources an article has doesn't have anything to do with whether it should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: Looking at the citations of the most cited paper, there is independent sigcov such as [8] and [9]. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Your "independent sigcov" was authored by the same people who wrote the "most cited paper" that you're referring to. Those sources are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I put a wrong link for [1], apologies. I meant to put [10]. [2] is still independent. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
[2] was written by Brunekreef, who also was an author on the original paper proposing the language. It is a primary source. [3] is a very short paragraph in the related work section of a paper that doesn't actually build on top of Alma-0. It is not significant coverage. None of the sources you provided can be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, weirdly the article lists him as Brunekree while the paper calls him Brunekeef. Interesting how a single letter can create such a large visual difference.
As long as something isn't trivial mention, it's significant coverage. The RAPID paper presents an entire paragraph of details to compare with RAPID built on top of them. You also still have the other results that cited the ALMA paper. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Your claimed threshold for significance is arbitrarily low and self-serving. It needs to discuss the subject directly and in detail, and this source does neither. The "entire paragraph" you claim establishes notability discusses the subject in relation to another language (i.e. not directly) and is only a few sentences in a 13-page paper that discusses something else entirely (i.e. not in detail). You've also done nothing to show that the other results can establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It addresses it directly and in detail. In the context of something else means that it's another topic, not that it's not directly. In fact, SIGCOV directly says that it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Just that it's "a few sentences" does not mean these sentences don't have detail. All normal paragraphs have just a few sentences (in this case, 6). The paragraph details Alma-0's semantics, nature, and statements.
Other sources include [11] which talks about how Alma-0 is "pure dynamic predicate logic". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Right, I understand that it needs not be the primary subject of the article, but I still don't believe this discusses the subject directly. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It says "Alma-0 is... Alma-0 uses dynamics in this way..." instead of "Apt made a language called Alma-0. Apt then got married." or "Dynamic languages include Alpha-G0, Alma-0, Aleph-0...", ergo it is direct.
I also don't think you can dispute [4]. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you add those sources to the article? HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I will have a problem with adding [4] because it has a ton of technical maths language I don't understand. The other one maybe. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
You've brought forth two sources that you failed to realize weren't secondary, a source that only meets your arbitrary standard of notability, and a source that you admitted you don't understand. I don't think there's much more of a discussion to be had here. If these are the best sources you could find, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
How does me not understanding what [4] is saying have any bearing on it counting towards notability or not? We have a ton of technical topics, and they all meet notability. As far as I'm concerned, [3] only fails your arbitrary standard of directness notability. As long as something does not require OR to extract information and addresses the subject directly and in detail, it counts for SIGCOV. Just that a notable thing is niche doesn't mean we should not include it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
You cannot possibly explain why a source establishes notability if you don't understand it, and the onus is on you to show that a source can establish notability. Anything else is a massive waste of time for people who nominate articles for deletion. I've also made clear arguments based on the text of the definition of notability that [3] does not provide significant coverage -- there is no arbitrariness here. Again, what is there that's left to discuss? HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
What's your argument that bringing Alma-0 up for acknowledgement of inspiration isn't direct? Have you responded to #c-Aaron_Liu-20240531174600-HyperAccelerated-20240531171800, which shows how it is not just WP:TRIVIAL? Further, how would it be productive to delete this article? Have you seen the reasons the notability guideline exist? How does any of this impede us from having enough content to write articles if we get someone who understands formal computer science? I understand that the sources address the subject directly and in detail, and that is enough.
@JPxG, would you like to comment? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
We have sourcing guidelines, and this article cannot meet those standards, specifically WP: NSOFT. One paragraph in one paper cannot establish notability and you haven't actually shown that the source that you don't understand establishes notability in any of the eight messages you've written. The sourcing concern still remains, so this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I feel like what HA's asking for here is fairly extreme: the sources can't just talk about the programming language, they have to talk exclusively about the programming language, they have to do so in a way that's accessible to laymen, et cetera. I don't think we need to have whole textbooks written about a programming language for it to pass GNG.
It's worth noting that the original papers specifying the language are published in journals, which is not just some guy's random website -- it's an editorial process where multiple people signed off on this language being worthy of note and constituting a contribution to the field.
Overall, it just doesn't really seem to me like there's a reason to delete the article -- the guidelines are not normally interpreted in such a severe way -- and there's not a compelling reason to go out of our way to interpret them more severely here (there's no BLP issues, for example, and we're not getting paid cash bonuses based on how many AfDs close as delete). jp×g🗯️ 21:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm asking for evidence of significant coverage from multiple sources per WP: NSOFT. That could be a paper discussing extensions of Alma-0 by independent researchers or a book chapter about programming languages. One paragraph in one article does not meet that bar, and neither does an article, regardless of its length, that nobody here understands. The authority of these sources isn't under question. If this protracted discussion results in the improvement of the article, I am more than happy to withdraw this AfD. However, I have yet to see evidence of this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I have yet to see an argument for why us being too unintelligent to understand the paper's maths discounts it from notability. NSOFT does not have any mention of that and I don't think anyone can disagree that it's direct and in detail. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, [12] summarized it as "how dynamic predicate logic provides an adequate semantics for a non-trivial fragment of Alma-0, and how inference tools for dynamic predicate logic become verification tools for the hybrid programming language". Might be helpful in the future. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

XML appliance[edit]

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

Article relies on one singular source to cover the whole article. Fails WP:ONESOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. I put notability because without the citations we can't say for sure if this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia alone. On WP:ONESOURCE, "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns.". Clearly, the article has more issues than the ones I presented here. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - @Shellwood: Please read WP:BEFORE. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [13], [14], [15]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Those aren't in the article; you don't know if they're reliable. I'd recheck the sources because the 2nd one in your message links to a 200+ PDF document that doesn't directly explain what XML appliance is about. GoodHue291 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kvng: You pinged the wrong person. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes I did, sorry. Meant to ping @GoodHue291: ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete I find a half page article in Networked World. Beyond that I find mentions, particularly in IBM publications, as they appear to have purchased the technology and incorporated it into their software. Those publications, however, do not explain what it is or how it works (the proverbial "black box"), only that it provides accelerated processing of XML data. Lamona (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Bit of a weird one. XML was a... bit of a fad back in the day, so there are almost certainly a large volume of sources, complicated by the fact that they would be hard to search, even the online indexed ones, and I would expect a substantial portion to not necessarily be indexed (for example, I don't think Morrison, Scott (2007). "XML appliances simplify SOA". Communications News. Vol. 44, no. 4. Nelson Publishing. p. 24. is). We do have books from the vendors, of course (I think Hines, Bill; Rasmussen, John; Ryan, Jaime; Kapadia, Simon; Brennan, Jim (2008). Hines, Bill (ed.). IBM WebSphere DataPower SOA appliance handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: IBM Press Pearson plc. pp. 6–13. ISBN 978-0-13-714819-6. might be slightly better than the other IBM book at treating the subject more generally) but again, not all of them would be indexed. This Australian Department of Defence report has some coverage, but might be more useful for a list than a prose article: Indrakanti, Sarath (October 2012). Service Oriented Architecture Security Risks and their Mitigation (PDF) (Report). DSTO.. I'd rather have a bit more time before we make a conclusion one way or another. (Also, I found a first-party url to the Network World article above, which might be slightly less annoying than google books: Gaitonde, Sunil (8 December 2003). "XML appliances speed Web services". Network World. Vol. 20, no. 49. IDG Network World. p. 41. ISSN 0887-7661.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Debian Free Software Guidelines (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 precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[16][17]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect: I found some brief mentions in books, but nothing more. Any extensive discussion of the guidelines I could find was authored by people who are intimately involved with the open-source community, bringing their independence into question. My examination wasn't exhaustive, but my search has turned up the same result as the nominator's. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [18], [19], [20]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Those sources aren't independent and can't be used to establish notability. Hertzog and Krafft are both Debian developers, and DiBona spent nearly 20 years at Google on OSS. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    The first one contains no information that is not in my proposed draft for the Open Source Definition article and the last two are written from a transparently non-independent perspective. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd merge to The Open Source Definition or buidhe's draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

SurrealDB[edit]

SurrealDB (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 advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    SurrealDB Github stars demonstrating rapid growth
  • Keep - clearly a notable database as per this "github stars" metric demonstrating developer/popularity growth, putting it amongst the likes of MongoDB. It's company has been also extensively covered by TechCrunch.
    No issue with the article being improved/edited to remove promotional material, but your statement regarding the "technical features" is false, as a developer, I am unaware of many databases offering this level of multi-modality. At worst, this is merely WP:NOTJUSTYET and should be drafted instead of deleted. Mr Vili talk 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    Additionally, currently the company has nothing to gain by "selling" it on Wikipedia, the database is open sourced.
    However, the company does plan to release a cloud offering in the future but until then - I see no issue in having this page as it provides valuable information for developers looking to learn more about SurrealDB. It's likely this topic will continue to increase in notability. Mr Vili talk 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding 'Github stars', see the discussion on Talk:SurrealDB. WP:OR graphics based on 'favourites' amongst random self-selected Github users are in no shape or form of any significance when assessing subject notability, as you have already been told. And as for the company having nothing to gain, I only need point to what you yourself wrote in the article: Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - The quote about the database service industry market potential has been removed as it was taken from an article where Matt Turck announced their investment and could come across as marketing. This article should be kept as it accurately describes their company and maintains a neutral point of view. Briggs 360 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between an article about specific software, which this is supposed to be, and an article about the company. We have specific notability criteria for the latter, WP:CORP, which I don't think would be met - and if it were, we'd have a separate article on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I think usually we'd use CORP for commercial software anyway, by way of WP:PRODUCT, that's where WP:NSOFT links to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'd forgotten that WP:CORP is the relevant notability criteria for software. Which doesn't alter the fact that articles are supposed to be about one subject, not two. If the article is about the software, it has to be demonstrated that the software is notable through significant independent coverage discussing the software, not the company. If it were about the company, we'd need significant coverage of that - and then we'd write an article about the company. The article as it stands consists entirely of poorly-sourced and promotional content regarding the product, with a 'History and development' section tossed into the middle which doesn't discuss the history or development of the product at all. It is a confusing mess, trying to concoct notability for one thing by describing another.
Incidentally, if you intend to edit the article further, as you did yesterday, you really need to read WP:RS first. Citing something like this [21] does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. It is pure and unadulterated promotional fluff: "The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe." That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I... don't think I've edited the page, AndyTheGrump? You may have confused me with someone else. I do have it on my watchlist for some reason though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Oops, apologies. I've clearly confused you with Briggs 360, who posted the 'Keep' above, and then edited the article. I'll strike out the bit about sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I guess since I'm here I may as well do one of these:
ORGCRIT assess table
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Peyton, Antony (2022-07-21). "Tech Startup SurrealDB Goes Live with Serverless Cloud Database". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

Peyton, Antony (2021-09-29). "SurrealDB Keeps it Real with Serverless Cloud Database Launch". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

No Appears to be derrived from quotes and other PR material – Skipped full assessment due to ORGIND and ORGDEPTH fails. Though, leaning no No Launch announcement falling under WP:ORGTRIV No Inherits ORGIND failure
Barron, Jenna (2024-05-10). "SD Times Open-Source Project of the Week: SurrealDB". SD Times. Retrieved 2024-05-17. Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail No First thing I notice here was the about page linking to D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.
Wiggers, Kyle (2023-01-04). "SurrealDB raises $6M for its database-as-a-service offering". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2024-01-19. No No WP:TECHCRUNCH, not one of the few exceptions No Funding announcement
"SurrealDB launch marks monumental milestone in the world of data management". UK Tech News. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2024-01-19. No Literally a press release No Launch announcement
Wood, Anna. "London's tech scene gets a reboot". Startups Magazine. Retrieved 2024-01-19. Leaning no No No
Šelmeci, Roman (6 Nov 2023). "SurrealDB, AWS DynamoDB and AWS Lambda". Sudolabs. Short circuit No Blogs aren't considered RS Yes At first glance
"SurrealDB: Open source scalable graph database has big potential". devmio - Software Know-How. 2022-08-23. Retrieved 2024-01-19. No Seems to be mostly quotes from the announcement No Same as above No
Citations to their own website No
Team, TechRound (2024-04-25). "Meet Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, CEO & Co-Founder Of SurrealDB". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17. No Interview with no secondary content No No No
Vrcic, Tea (2024-03-06). "10 fast growing UK startups to watch in 2024 and beyond!". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2024-05-17. probably not, but not assessed No No, again, this is not a NEWSORG, this is barely even WP:TRADES No No
Maguire, Chris (2023-07-25). "Huckletree to open two new London hubs". BusinessCloud. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

(Essentially the same announcement also at "London's first Web3 Hub opens its doors". Bdaily Business News. 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2024-05-19.)

Dubious No ... Why is this even in here?
Team, TechRound (2023-09-11). "SurrealDB: A Quantum Leap in Database Technology". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17. No This is a press release No No No
"Top 70+ startups in Database as a Service (DBaaS) - Tracxn". tracxn.com. 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-05-17. No No ... No No
On to the BEFORE results not in the article! Starting with: "Cloud, privacy and AI: Trends defining the future of data and databases". Sifted. Retrieved 2024-05-19. No Sponsored Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source No
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-13-739262-9. Yes Yes At least this one is an RS No
Lengweiler, David; Vogt, Marco; Schuldt, Heiko (June 2023). "MMSBench-Net: Scenario-Based Evaluation of Multi-Model Database Systems". Proceedings of the 34th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken). – Technically fails ORGIND but honestly I'd be willing to give a pass here Yes Not entirely convinced of GvDB but I'll give it a tick – Marginal, we'd mostly be looking at 3.2 here Yes 3.2 is fine —
Jara Córcoles, Ángel Manuel (2024-01-08). "SurrealDB-La base de datos del futuro?". No Honestly this would probably be a great source if we considered Bachelor's theses RS, but we don't
Swami, Shubham; Aryal, Santosh; Bhowmick, Sourav S.; Dyreson, Curtis (2023). Almeida, João Paulo A.; Borbinha, José; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Link, Sebastian; Zdravkovic, Jelena (eds.). "Using a Conceptual Model in Plug-and-Play SQL" (PDF). Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland: 145–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_8. ISBN 978-3-031-47262-6. Yes No Passing mention
I can't see anything that clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT as per my evaluation above, so I'm going to have to go with delete (or, sure, draftify). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I've added a new source which appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Could you add it to the table. @Alpha3031 Mr Vili talk 02:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Smells like GenAI CLOP of a press release to me @Mr vili, are you sure you want to submit that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Alpha3031 Could you please add https://dbdb.io/db/surrealdb to your assessment, I will be adding this to the article Mr Vili talk 04:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I am curious, why can't the dozens of courses, docs and high variety of SurrealDB guides that are unaffiliated with SurrealDB be used as independent, reliable, secondary significant sources of coverage? From a quick google, there's at least dozens of sites talking about SurrealDB from a developer/integrations perspective?
Sources like [22] [23] Mr Vili talk 04:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I think our evaluation of such sources are sufficiently divergent that it would not be useful for me to put it in the table. Instead, I think I am going to kick it over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the discussion Mr Vili talk 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • weak Delete for now because the sources don't look reliable enough. Like actual news articles. But I will check tomorrow or the day after to make sure. Freedun (yippity yap) 10:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Given this is leaning on the side of deletion, I would prefer this page to be Draftified, as I expect this article to eventually become notable after the SurrealDB commercial launch, which should generate some more reliable and significant coverage Mr Vili talk 06:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - I concur with Alpha3031's assessment of the sources identified for this subject. That we're even considering this, an "official government organization of the Government of Lumina" ([24]), as a reliable source is a rather damning sign of non-notability. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    lol what a joke Freedun (yippity yap) 03:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

LogFS[edit]

LogFS (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 software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible sources:
Honorable mentions:
Dishonorable mentions:
jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science[edit]

Shortcuts


Science[edit]

George Walker (educator)[edit]

George Walker (educator) (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 subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Axel Hultgren[edit]

Axel Hultgren (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)

He was no doubt a metallurgist, and I see that he wrote about metallurgy, but I do not see a lot of reliable secondary sources that would constitute significant coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

2-Pyridone (data page)[edit]

2-Pyridone (data page) (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 not an article what so ever, why we need such a data page on Wikipedia? Requesting merge to 2-Pyridone or move it to Wikidata if possible. -Lemonaka 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Lemonaka 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge with 2-Pyridone: Most of this would go in an infobox on the chemical, the rest is too specialized for Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to 2-Pyridone as per above. Context-less, but useful, data with no supporting article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I fully agree with the above comments that this information is much more specialized than I would expect to find in Wikipedia. However, I want to note that creation of such a data page is recommended by WP:CHEMBOX.. The proposed contents of such a page in the template Wikipedia:Chemical infobox/Data page appear (to me) more useful than the information on the 2-Pyridone data page, but still rather specialized. I don't know if the editors above are aware of such data pages? Given this, I wanted to clarify whether the issue here was the contents of this specific page, or whether there should be a wider conversation about changing WP:MOSCHEM? Mgp28 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    We don't need every peak on the NM IR or which spectral lines it makes. This is more for the Merck Manual than a general encyclopedia. I'm not adverse to simply !deleting this either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps I was over-thinking it. I wondered if all of these Category:Chemical data pages would need consistent outcomes. I found a few discussions, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 36 § Data pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 50 § Chemical data pages - move to Wikidata?, and the consensus seems to be that they're decided on a case-by-case basis. So I'm happy to !vote delete (or merge) here and not worry about the rest of the data pages. Mgp28 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Mgp28Nearly all Chemical data pages are in different styles, some of them are poorly cited. We may need to discuss them one by one before making a bunch of changes. -Lemonaka 07:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Henyey[edit]

Thomas Henyey (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)

Has been tagged for notability for over a decade. -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Mangrove Institute of Science and Technology[edit]

Mangrove Institute of Science and Technology (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)

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSschool. Most of the references are from the institute’s website. The other link https://theorg.com/org/mangrove-institute-of-science-and-technology is from an internet directory. Wikilover3509 (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Science, Technology, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty underwhelming in terms of WP:NSCHOOL to the point I don't think there's much else to even say here. KoA (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

List of important publications in computer science[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of important publications in computer science (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)

Inherently original research/synthesis. Previously survived AfD in 2006 when those policies weren't enforced I guess. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, History, Science, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Without clearly defined criteria for what "important" means, this article is as OR as it gets. The three criteria listed are subjective and (more damningly) unsourced. Only reference 11 approaches a treatment of this subject as a whole, and it's based on an informal survey conducted by somebody at Penn who made the results into a personal webpage. That's pretty weak. Other sources are all primary and don't discuss the topic of the list as a group, so this is a failure of WP:NLIST and grossly OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very much a violation of WP:OR to create a topic this way. Even with that aside, you'll often get some listing somewhere (course material, reviews in annals, etc.) describing seminal papers that may be required or important reading for those purusing advanced degrees in a specific field. That generally would not satisfy WP:NLIST and at most would just be a secondary source in the main article (in this case computer science) at best. This isn't a useful redirect either, so this comes across as a pretty unequivocal case for deletion. KoA (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30. (edit | history)

I think CS2 should point to either Counter-Strike 2 or CS2 (disambiguation), rather than Carbon disulfide (CS2)

Googling "CS2" overwhelmingly shows Counter-Strike 2, and the names have been used interchangeably by most who are familiar with the game, including the developers.[25]

Out of the articles shown on CS2 (disambiguation) that could arguably go by the name "CS2", carbon disulfide is the lowest-trafficked, and Counter-Strike 2 the highest [26]. BugGhost🪲👻 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Retarget and hatnote to Counter-Strike 2. I highly doubt most people looking for information on carbon disulfide don't also know its full name.
Thanks,NeuropolTalk 15:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Move disambiguation page to the base title. I don't see a clear primary topic and redirecting this to the disambiguation page would result is a WP:MALPLACED page. In addition, the abbreviation has been used for a long time, and redirecting it to Counter-Strike 2 would create WP:RECENTISM problems. - Eureka Lott 17:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Move disambiguation page per EurekaLott. I don't feel that elevating the game to the status of primary topic is justified. Nickps (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Video games. Nickps (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Move disambiguation page to base title. I am not convinced that search hits relying on the internet-based nature of the gaming community are adequate justification for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, any more than the fact that Google Scholar hits overwhelmingly refer to the chemical would be adequate justification for choosing the other topic as primary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Disambig per "Counter-Strike 2 is more likely to be searched, but not fully the primary topic either per WP:RECENTISM" Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate No obvious primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per the above, this game is too new to guarantee that it will be the primary topic forever. Toadspike [Talk] 17:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - My memory from being a teenager 20-odd years ago suggests that CS2 was a common way to refer to Counter-Strike: Source back in the day (despite it technically being the 3rd installment of the series). If this was true, the association with CS2 to Counter-Strike may be much longer lasting and enduring than WP:RECENTISM would suggest. Buuuuut... I'll admit personal anecdotes are not data. Is there anything like google ngrams that can search internet forums from back in the day? Fieari (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    I don't even play CS but I would think the Source version is more known as CS 1.6 which has a redirect. – The Grid (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


Deletion Review[edit]

AfD: Academics[edit]

Academics and educators[edit]

Zack Cooper[edit]

Zack Cooper (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'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

James Sunter[edit]

James Sunter (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)

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Richard N. Holzapfel[edit]

Richard N. Holzapfel (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)

Based on Talk:Richard N. Holzapfel#WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, it appears that the subject of the article is requesting deletion of the article. It doesn't appear from the current article text that he qualifies as a public figure so WP:BIODELETE could apply. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Patricia Sauthoff[edit]

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

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Neal Potter[edit]

Neal Potter (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)

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Arlington County is literally suburbs of Washington DC, so the existence of a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post just suggests the exact same purely local notability that any county executive in any county could always show, and is not in and of itself enough to singlehandedly determine that he's more notable than the norm. So we would need to see a hell of a lot more than just that alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Indeed I thought of that, but the Washington Post is not a local newspaper in the same way that say that Arlington Sun-Gazzette is. It was written by their same obituary staff as their other obituaries. I think that a look at their current obituaries will show that obituaries in the paper are dedicated to people whom they believe have more than local notability. I don't see, for instance, other local officials or former high school sports coaches there, except in the paid death notices section. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Emiliano Bucci[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Emiliano Bucci (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 is apparently some sort of public school teacher/pianist. I could not find any indication of notability. BLP has had no non-circular references since 2006. The result of the previous AfD in 2007 was no consensus. I am unable to apply BLPPROD due to external links. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

K. S. Narayan Reddy[edit]

K. S. Narayan Reddy (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 sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search, so it fails WP:GNG. I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF. However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Axel Hultgren[edit]

Axel Hultgren (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)

He was no doubt a metallurgist, and I see that he wrote about metallurgy, but I do not see a lot of reliable secondary sources that would constitute significant coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

George Walker (educator)[edit]

George Walker (educator) (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 subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Henry Robinson (scientist)[edit]

Henry Robinson (scientist) (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 don't doubt that he was indeed librarian of the Yorkshire Philosphical Society during the dates given but in no world is that a claim to notability. In 1850 he was listed as auditor and council member of the same,[1] and that's all I got from a BEFORE. Seems like a very odd choice for an article to be honest. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Annual Report of the Yorkshire Philsophical Society MDCCCL
  • Delete. Way too little here to justify notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. For a little while, I thought this Henry Robinson might have been the civil engineer who was the author of "River Pollution" and Sewerage and Sewer Disposal (1896). I don't think that Henry Robinson is notable either, but his writing was at least influential in the late 19th century debate in England about whether rivers were inherently "self-cleaning" or whether pollution needed to be managed. However, they're not the same person. This is clearly about the Henry Robinson who is the subject of this "article"; his son Charles Best Norcliffe discusses his "late" father. That was published in 1884, so the author of the 1896 book cannot be the same man. With that in mind, I have absolutely no idea what this article was trying to accomplish. I think I can find references for the claims it makes, but why? There's nothing here or, so far as I can tell, elsewhere to suggest any particular level of notability or importance. Lubal (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough here for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC).
  • delete the only references to him were in the YPS minutes and the York directories. I suspect that he may have been a fine fellow, but not especially notable even during his lifetime — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is this him [27]? Talks a bit about the person, but still not enough for keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Nope, that Henry Robinson wrote in the 17th century, while the article's Henry Robinson was active in the mid-1800s. Lubal (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - no allegation of notability nor any evidence therefor. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad Saleem[edit]

Muhammad Saleem (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 general notability guideline and notability guidelines for people. likely autobiographical. ltbdl (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael D. Aeschliman[edit]

Michael D. Aeschliman (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 another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Italy, Switzerland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, with redirection also being an option if anyone other than a blocked sock is interested in making a stub on the notable book. I see a notable book with reviews (and also respectable citations in a low citation field), but little other evidence of notability. WP:BLP1E at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite the problems of puffery and COI authoring etc before the gutting of the entry ... he seems to me to pass WP:Author as his book has been primary subject of multiple independent reviews and an article on him might therefor be useful. An article on the book would seem to me odd, but a brief article on the author mentioning the books would seems OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC))
    • Had another look (thanks to User:JoelleJay's ping) and think the book's publishers WE & DI and reviews in some marginal journals raise enough fringish worries to make my keep based on the book not so wise. Perhaps he is more known as a journalist in the National Review but notability is not so clear enough to me to justify. Preface by Malcolm Muggeridge to, and praise from Rowan Williams for, the book were the things that I now think mislead me. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC))
  • Delete. This is about a "survey" (as the book is self-described) published in 2019 by "Discovery Institute," a Seattle-based think tank, which was later translated into French. At the risk of stating the obvious, if the guide or the author were notable, sockpuppets and primary sources wouldn't have been necessary for the article creation. The guide reviews aren't found in reliable sources and appear (as is sometimes the case with unknown manuals) to be provided by the author's associates. There don't appear to be any reliable sources for the author either. In addition to failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR, the article reads like a peacock marketing piece that runs into further WP:GNG problems when considering a ten-year or twenty-year test. 174.197.67.208 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, per FRINGE and our notability guidelines. As noted above, this guy is affiliated[28] with the Discovery Institute, a disinformation-spewing intelligent design think tank. The Restoration edition is not reliably published -- it went through Discovery Institute Press,[29] a fact that is strangely absent from the article. Its reviews include several in unreliable sources like Evolution News (DI magazine) and/or do not satisfy WP:FRIND's criterion (bolded) The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book.
    The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @Msrasnw. Also ping @David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. For me, one book (even in multiple editions) is never enough for WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be no evidence of WP:PROF notability. No objection to redirecting to an article on the book, if anyone cares to make an article on the book. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me that the book takes a fringe anti-science position, whether it is reliably published, or whether the reviews are positive or negative; all that matters for AUTHOR or for notability of the book is the number and depth of mainstream (per WP:FRINGE) reliably published reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete One book is not enough to support an author biography, in all but the most exceptional cases (say, if that one book had become the standard text for a mainstream university course). An article on the book itself is possible in principle, if multiple reviews exist that can truly be said to come from outside the fringe bubble. That's a separate discussion, however. XOR'easter (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Conrad Hughes[edit]

Conrad Hughes (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 is a sockpuppet production. After the sock was blocked, I removed all primary sources. I was left with only two, one of which has the subject talking about another topic (his school) in an interview. This subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. Please see history for an extensive record of puffery. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Ah--this is where this came from: a socking case of COI-puffery. JFHJr, in such cases, don't even bother cleaning up the article; not doing so makes the fluff stand out nicely. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
      I try to present each specimen in its most favorable light. And without extraneous reading. Anyone wondering about the application of my edits can see the history. Thank you for your comment. I always appreciate your input. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
      For everyone's consideration and time-sinking availability, this version is what we are talking about. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
      I'm opposed to you wanting to delete this article. Looks like an attempt at illegitimate blanking. Wikiviewer2 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
      I am also opposed, who is crossing out wikipedia user's statements? Jane asia (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      Same question! Why are Wikipedia user statements being crossed out? I'm genuinely curious as to why someone would be so determined to delete an article about a legitimate, leading practitioner in the field of international education. Annabella25 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, South Africa, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Independent coverage seems to be limited. Deb (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    Not really, in the article you took down there were at least 10 independent references and there are many more out there, just look through the web! 213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    Again, I'm left wondering: who is striking through Wikipedia user's statements, and for what reason?? Annabella25 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I was surprised to see the previous article removed. Dr Hughes is well known in international education. Have you googled him? Why should the article be reduced or deleted, according to who? 213.55.220.222 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm about to block a socking account. The nay-sayers here likely have conflicts of interest, but worse than that they lack a proper understanding of what Wikipedia is and what the processes are. Interviews and whatnot do not count towards notability. If there is an "enduring historical record in education", there will be secondary sources that say that. That someone published articles also does not make them notable--unless others have written about those articles. If there's any more socking, this AfD will be semi-protected. Oh, Lefka1, if you make any more comments about "personal vendetta" or whatever, I will happily block you too. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    Hello. I'm intrigued by the controversy surrounding this article. I have no axe to grind about Hughes, one way or another, and I don't necessarily espouse his views, but - whether one likes it or not - he is unquestionably prominent and influential in international education, and increasingly so. Are the editors who propose the deletion of the article familiar with this field?
    International educators throughout the world would be puzzled to hear that quite a small article devoted to Hughes has been earmarked for deletion, on the grounds of insufficient notability. An article providing some basic, sober information, free of "puffery", about who Hughes is and does fulfills Wikipedia's responsibility to inform its vast reading public, in an objective and neutral manner, about noteworthy people and topics, with the support of solid citations. I can't say I care enough about the Hughes article to do extensive research on its behalf, but as far as secondary sources go, you might look at the reputed TES journal (29 May 2020, "Rethinking school: a special issue", by Alistair McConville), the McKay interview with Hughes on World Radio Switzerland (29 February 2024), or the June 2024 "Formation" supplement ("Ces écoles centenaires") of Bilan magazine, page 4). So my advice, as an experienced Wikipedia reader (though not editor) would be DO NOT DELETE. All those in the field of international education understand why there is an article about Hughes in Wikipedia, regardless of whether they share his well-known educational goals.
    By the way, I notice that some previous contributions to this discussion have been crossed out. Why, by whom, and on what authority? Those deleted comments are somewhat assertive, but by no means rude or irresponsible. I hope that this is not how Wikipedia functions, with certain editors censoring the reasonable contributions of others. 83.79.254.53 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I've heard this speaker in conferences, he's well know in international education circles. But when I go to wikipedia I see someone is trying to delete the page. I am opposed to this page being deleted. Jane asia (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • @Drmies, since your comment re page protection, we've gotten 2 new SPAs here, 1 more SPA at this page's talk; a blocked sock trying to vote here as an IP; a second IP that certainly belongs to one of the others; and more talk about a personal bias motivation (vendetta). If you have time today, could you please SPP this discussion? Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
      • JFHJr, just let it roll. Don't respond. Tag them as SPAs if you like, and straighten out their indenting. I ran CU on a couple and they're all roughly in the same area, but not enough for me to block them on technical grounds. I bet this will all be over soon. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seeing no evidence that article's subject is sufficiently notable re: WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR.The article itself is quite poor.Boredintheevening (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Hughes is a widely known figure in international education. To anybody who is knowledgeable about this field, that's obvious. I'm surprised that this can be such a controversial issue. Basic research about Hughes will confirm his notability. 77.59.138.101 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • The deletion proposal is not controversial. It does not require controversy to happen. Just a crappy article and crappy sources. The only controversy here is all the WP:SOCKs, who are apparently determined to edit logged-out after blocks (editing logged-out is much like editing naked, leaves very little in doubt). You're making it much easier to tie a single sock to multiple IPs, so thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Dr. Hughes is a prominent figure in international education, widely respected for his significant contributions. He has authored two important books and numerous articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and he leads one of the oldest and most esteemed international schools in the world. His direct involvement with UNESCO and other international organizations, as well as his frequent invitations as a keynote speaker to global events, further underscore his expertise and influence in the field. Moreover, he holds two PhDs! Any attempt to delete his Wikipedia article may be motivated by personal bias rather than factual grounds. It's deeply troubling and shameful to witness someone of such high regard being placed in such a situation. Annabella25 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete – WP:ANYBIO is clearly not met, and I can't see how he meets WP:NACADEMIC either. As pointed out (repeatedly) above, secondary sources are required, and they simply aren't there. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The best case for notability is via NAUTHOR, but this would require multiple reviews of multiple works in reliable sources. Reviews are not evident, and I did not find them on my search; noting that searching is complicated by the subject's common name. The history of sockpuppetry and promotionalism here is indeed concerning. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Falls short of WP:GNG (the one Tribune de Genève article) and of WP:AUTHOR (I could only find two reviews of one book [30] [31]). Weak because he's partway there on both criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Two interviews are not enough. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
P.S. I have been taught at schools with IB and other independent ("private" or "prep") school for 5 years. I have never heard of him. He is not known world-wide, or at least not in New York City. 15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Craig_Considine_(academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Craig_Considine_(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)

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [32], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [33]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
  • Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Miskin Abdal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | Who, me? 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:[34][35][36][37][38] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else. HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    There are 5 links, 2 being sources solely about him. I doubt you checked any of them. Your comment and vote below basically disregards what AfD is meant to be for. On top of this, we can all see you created your account 6 minutes before commenting here. Welcome back, I guess! Aintabli (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    I have checked all your citations from 1 to 5. None of them has any references to the claims made in them and in this Wikipedia article. If you think that I missed them, then you are welcome to present any documentations. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    That's not the point of those links. Aintabli (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    I took a look to this page https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal. There are a lot of absurd statements, like Safavid King Sultan Hossain visited some village in nowadays republic of Armenia. Safavid King Ismail gave an order to M. Abdal and etc. They are absurd, because kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery or diwan. There is no record of King Sultan Hossain visiting some village in that region. It seems articles about this person are hoaxes. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    The Azerbaijani-language version has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [39], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I found the citation 6 at https://ia801605.us.archive.org/26/items/huseyn-ismayilov-miskin-abdal-2001/H%C3%BCseyn%20%C4%B0smay%C4%B1lov%20-%20Miskin%20Abdal%20%20-%202001.pdf. It is the same as citation 5 in previous log. There is no references to any documents. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have investigated this article in depth and found out that this is a hoax for the following reasons.
1. All citation for this article do not reference any well known Safavid literature, although in its first paragraph, it is stated that "many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524)." Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them was an ashugh or had nickname Miskin Abdal or was from nowadays territory of Armenia as stated in this article

2. At page 38 of the first citation "https://www.academia.edu/40616613" there is a picture supposedly of an order given to M. Abdal by Safavid King Ismail. However, it is fake. Because non of the Safavids Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom. Also, kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery.

3. In the first paragraph of this article it is stated "He was the founder of the ashugh school" and again referred to this book "https://www.academia.edu/40616613, where there is no references proving this statement.

4. The second paragraph states "One of the brightest figures in the history of Azerbaijan, he played an important role in the development of science and art." and refers to a book, where I did not find any proof to this statement. Only statement by its author.

5. The third paragraph states "Under the name of Miskin, Abdal (Architect of the soul) was the creator of the literature of Azerbaijani minstrels - ashugh folk singers." to which there is no reference.

6. The fourth paragraph states "After many years of service at the court of Shah Ismail I Khatai, in 1524 he returned home. He opened the first school in Sariyagub ... " and refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal#cite_ref-3 However, the referred content does not have anything related to the above statement. So, the fourth paragraph is a completely false statement.

7. The rest of the article until the last sentence does not have any citations, so I accepted it as statement of users who created this article. Btw those users were identified as sockpuppets

Due to the above reasons, I recommend this article be deleted immediately. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Juan Astorga Junquera[edit]

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

Subject has a stable article at Spanish Wikipedia but notability according to English Wikipedia guidelines for either WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST isn't evident. I'd like to hear what others think. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable Any biography: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field- His recognized contribution to Digital Art Curation. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Recognized by whom? The term "digital art curation" does not even appear in the article. Geschichte (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete - I am not finding reliable sources to show notability. There are huge swaths of unreferenced material in the article about his career. IMDB and Facebook citations are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am also having difficulty finding significant coverage in reliable sources. This is mostly due to translation issues and there seems to be some mixing of info on this subject and their father, mixing information on Juan Astorga Junquera, and Juan Astorga, Juan Astorga Anta, etc. This subject's father, Juan Astorga Anta was the first director of the Museum of Modern Art in Merida and it is named after him ("Museo de Arte Moderno Juan Astorga Anta").[40]) There might some salvageable article here, but leaning towards delete at this time Elspea756 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Omid Mehrpour[edit]

Omid Mehrpour (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)

Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The current sources do not provide the required coverage about the subject, as they are either passing mentions, profiles, or not reliable. GSS 💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As per the criteria, a subject is considered notable if it fulfills one of the listed criteria. In this case the subject fulfills 1 or more of the WP:Academics criteria as following.
Criteria 1a: Highly Cited publications
•The subject is among top 2% of highly cited scientists according to the Stanford/Elsevier database. 1
•The subject has also high citation metrics on Google scholar. 2 Here below is the list of some scholars with equal status having Wikipedia page and lesser citations on google scholar than this subject for comparison:
1. Ahmad Reza Djali, his Google Scholar Metrics 3
2. Saba Valadkhan, her google scholar Metrics 4
3. Neda Alijani, his google scholar Metrics 5
Criteria 1d: The subject has served as editorial board member of known scientific journals. 6 7 8 9 10
Criteria 1e. The subject had been selected in competitive fellowships 11 12
Criteria 2: The subject has been awarded academic awards. 13
As per the criteria for academic peoples, the subject is notable enough for having separate Wikipedia page. Joidfybvc (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Joidfybvc (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Sorry, but I think you are trying to hard:
  • 1a: None of those mentioned qualify just on h-factor. However, Djali is notable politically, Valadkhan has major awards as does Alijani.
  • 1d: No evidence in article. In any case just being on an editorial board does not qualify as notable.
  • 1e: All his fellowships are minor, none meet the criteria.
  • 2: Minor awards which also don't meet notability criteria.
Ldm1954 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: I'm not sure the academic awards are notable; his publication records seems ok. Just passing academic notability. Lots of fluff now in the article, but we can edit that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: An article that weakly meets WP:SIGCOV. I am also certain of meeting WP:NAUTHOR from researches and publications. I'm considering this for a second chance though. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. First off, nobody deserves an article on Wikipedia. We are a private charity, not a government agency, and in 2024, everyone knows, or should know that, so free speech protections don't apply. Secondly, I don't see any evidence that he passes the WP:PROF test, either by citations in an index, or reaching a distinguished or full professorship. Finally, the burden is now on the defenders of an article that a living person has gotten significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which I do not see here. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The claims made earlier that his publication record is strong are inappropriate -- his h-factor is moderate but not notable. None of his awards are major. He definitely does not pass WP:NPROF; it is not a close call, he is far below the bar. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete We have many researchers around the globe who are working in different fields. Only those who get coverage in reliable and secondary sources get to have an article here. I agree with both of the users above that he does not pass the threshold for notability. Keivan.fTalk 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Gianni Mammolotti[edit]

Gianni Mammolotti (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clearfrienda 💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions[edit]

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