User:Ruud Koot/Feed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science[edit]

Did you know

Proposed deletions

  • 20 May 2024 – Judoscript (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by HyperAccelerated (t · c): Fails WP: N. I can't find any secondary coverage for this language outside of a couple brief mentions on articles from Google Scholar.
  • 10 May 2024 – Python for S60 (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by HyperAccelerated (t · c) was deproded by Kvng (t · c) on 15 May 2024

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(21 more...)

AA: Computing[edit]

Shortcut

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(22 more...)

Proposed deletions

(9 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(7 more...)

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(28 more...)

Articles to be split

(18 more...)

Articles for creation

(49 more...)

AfD: Computing[edit]

Computing[edit]

Iligan Computer Institute[edit]

Iligan Computer Institute (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)

Private school that may not be notable due to lack of reliable sources online. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Endocentric environment[edit]

Endocentric environment (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 refs on the page for many years. No finding sources to show that this term meets the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete I was not able to find any sources that are not simply mirrors of this article. Even if there is demand for information on the term, we obviously need sources to back up the claim of what this term means. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

CombinedX[edit]

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

fails WP:NCORP, the sources are only routine announcements with no deep or direct coverage of the company Assirian cat (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Electronic Reference Library[edit]

Electronic Reference Library (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 refs on the page for many years. Seems to be an obsolete service from SilverPlatter described by generic words. Redirecting to SilverPlatter would appear to potentially cause confusion as the words Electronic Reference Library could be used in other contexts. Not convinced there is a need to redirect or merge, not finding sources to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 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[1][2]. (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)

Data-driven astronomy[edit]

Data-driven astronomy (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 appears to be either or both a PhD project proposal, for a MA or Part II. It describes what will be done as part of an apparently funded proposal. Since there already is a more general page on the wider topic at Astroinformatics, I see no rationale for this page. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Computing. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: the two topics appear to be similar sub-fields of data science, so perhaps a merge of Data-driven astronomy and Astroinformatics is in order? It appears notable. Praemonitus (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The article seems to be a mix of general discussion about a field of research and a description of a specific project. A merge with astroinformatics as Praemonitus suggests could be reasonable, as could a merge with Galaxy Zoo. As the article is only a couple of weeks old, I think the best approach would be to draftify and allow the author to refocus this article so it is more clearly about a specific notable subject, or to move relevant parts into existing articles. Mgp28 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Astroinformatics per my original proposal. No deadline, as usual. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

VINAStech[edit]

VINAStech (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 seems like a WP:PROMO, most of the sources are not in depth like confirming their clients. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 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 [3] 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)

HDIV[edit]

HDIV (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)

Procedual nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was proposed for deletion, then blanked and redirected by 0xDeadbeef in September 2022. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

PackCC[edit]

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

page does not seem to meet the nobility criteria and most content is copied from the GitHub page; the author of the page is also the creator of the software Howrued (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I think the page content is encyclopedic enough even if it was derived from GitHub. Whether to be copied or not is irrelevant to the argument unless it violates copyrights. Next, the page has been supported at least by several editors, even if it might have been problematic that it was created by the software developer. Arithy (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
the support of the page from other people has mostly been adding links. i think that it being entirely derived and created by the developer (you) stands as a violation of WP:FORUM and/or WP:PROMO. imo, having it in the Comparison of parser generators is sufficient. Howrued (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
also, i think it's a bit dishonest that you didn't mention that you are both the developer of the software and the creator of the page in your reply. Howrued (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The points I'd like to say are:
  • The improvement of the page by others is a very important fact that proves the page interests several users.
  • Since there are several voluntary editors, there should be much more viewers.
  • This page should attract users because the editors wanted to improve the page content even if the changes were quite small.
  • There have been slight changes because the page content has almost no critical defect.
The facts and rational inferences above justify the existence of the page. Arithy (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
"i think it's a bit dishonest": it's irrelevant to this argument. I expect you to argue more logically. [ I'm honest because I use the identical user name between GitHub and Wikipedia ;-) ] Arithy (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The additional point I'd like to say is:
  • We should see the current status, not the origin.
Arithy (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
as i mentioned before, articles being created by the person who made the thing in question is enshrined in policy as being bad. even if there was minor housekeeping, it doesn't change the fact that there is a clear conflict of interest in the article and it otherwise doesn't really establish any notability. Howrued (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
the first paragraph lists features, but i don't think having those features simply grants it notability. if that were true, anyone could make a parser generator with those features and then immediately make a wikipedia page for it. Howrued (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It's just your sentiments regarding software.
According to your criterion, no one can create any pages. Is it really what Wikipedia should be? Arithy (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
i don't really understand what you mean by this. my criterion (and wikipedia's)?isn't that nobody should create pages—it's that people shouldn't create pages for their own personal projects that lack any verifiable sources nor any claims for notability. Howrued (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The policy does not say prohibition, just say difficulty to guarantee the content objectivity. I think it is already guaranteed by other users.
By the way, I cannot understand that you continue to insist on attacking the page using account suddenly created few days before. I cannot help wondering if you have other intention. Arithy (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
i understand your concern, and i will not be dishonest and say that the primary reason i created this account wasn't to make this afd. i do not, however, have anything against you personally. i just think that the article violates the aforementioned policies, which are grounds for deletion: see WP:DEL-REASON. Howrued (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
the article contains a single reference, which makes no mention of packcc and only says that packrat parsers in general can support left-recursion. Howrued (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: The article's creator wrote a lengthy argument in favor of keeping the article that concluded with "I expect [the nominator] to argue more logically". Ironically, nothing they wrote logicially addresses the question of notability. Like StreetcarEnjoyer, I couldn't find any significant coverage.
HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 21 May 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)

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing[edit]

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

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
     Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Comparison of BitTorrent clients[edit]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients (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 is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
[4] [5] [6] and [7] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [8], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [9], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).
HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Meets NLIST [10], [11], [12], [13]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article.  // Timothy :: talk  16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 20 May 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 no consensus‎. Editors remain divided between keep, delete, and two different merge options after two relists and extensive discussion. It is possible that further discussion on a talk page may consolidate a case for a merge, but at this time I do not see any consensus emerging from this AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Computer network naming scheme[edit]

Computer network naming scheme (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's self-evident that people who have a bunch of computers and want to assign them names according to some sort of system do so, and that the systems are completely arbitrary, and that they are often inconsistently followed, and that people who aren't into naming systems either don't give them names or pick an arbitrary name each time if they have to. It's just not a subject, period, much less encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article is poorly written as is, and shouldn't focus so much on personal naming schemes, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. The Domain Name System is the most prominent naming scheme, and there are other minor examples, such as the GNU Name System, and naming systems for Content centric networking (e.g. [14]). There needs to be an article on the general topic. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there even a name for this class of things? If I search for this exact phrase, I get six GHits, which either make no sense or still seem to depend on this WP article. Also, it seems to me that GNU Name System is simply a GNUish implementation of DNS, and that CCN doesn't even align with the notion of naming at all. Even ignoring the need for WP:TNT, I'm not convinced that this article name is the proper stating point, or even that thee is a thing to write an article about. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"Naming system" or "Network naming" might be a better title. I trimmed out most of the unsourced content and added a bit more content with a source that discusses network naming systems in general. There are definitely other sources that could be used (e.g. [15]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per [16] and [17], or at the very least merge to Computer networks. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
    I can see how those sources count toward verifiability, but not really towards notability. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources (RFCs etc.). Also Computer name, another clearly notable topic, redirects to this article. Coverage definitely could be improved in this area but deleting this is an unproductive WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    I tend to think that there is a subject here, and that this could be demonstrated from text books (although maybe the subject is actually hierarchical naming schemes). But WP:DEMOLISH surely can't apply to a 20 year old article. And RFCs are a primary source, and RFC 2100 is actually a joke - one of a series of 1 April RFCs. I considered whether the subject is really DNS, but no - naming schemes exist in other spaces and domains too. LDAP, for instance. But what makes the scheme notable is likely the addition of structure. Ad hoc naming is not an independently notable subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    Totally agree that DEMOLISH does not apply here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep the article needs to be improved, but it definetly can be and is notable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge I just don't see any evidence that this is a sufficiently notable subject for a stand-alone article. Mangoe's nomination puts it very well, the smattering of coverage that has been brought up here doesn't seem to me to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not seeing how this is distinctly and coherently notable. It seems all of this info is better covered within its particular context at namespace? JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    I would be fine with a redirect to directory service, per Sirfurboy. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Directory service. This one is tricky, but one thing I do believe is that the page should not be kept as it is. It has been around 20 years and it has not really settled on any independently notable subject. But a redirect to namespace, which seems like a good idea, is perhaps not the best as the namespaces that page primarily talks about are concerned with coding. Network naming gets talked about in various texts, but usually with respect to naming services and distributed systems. For instance Forouzan's Data Communication and Networking [18], page 910 in the fifth edition, discusses naming but in the context of the discussion of the DNS. The notable subject is the directory service, and the directory service page also links to namespace. Naming a computer is no more notable than naming anything else as a concept in itself, but naming computers in a manner that allows for distributed systems to uniquely identify nodes is indeed a notable subject, and there are plenty of papers and discussions of this. Indeed, whole books about it. So I think a redirect to Directory Service is suitable. There is, perhaps, a spinout page from Directory Services that is possible - an analysis of naming schemes (LDAP has a lot of literature on that) but I don't think this title is quite right for that, and as a result the content of this page is trying to be one thing and also another. If this were kept, I would want it kept on the basis it would be renamed and appropriately focussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't see the directory service article when looking for existing articles. A redirect seems like a good idea. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion about the merge/redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  • comment So I think we have a consensus on what the thing is that people in the discussion are thinking of, but there's still the problem that the name we have here is patently something someone made up one day. GBook hits are zero; JSTOR hits are zero; GHits, as I said above, are very few and seem likely to be the product of page scraping. Is there any reason not to delete a term that nobody is actually using? Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    If the name is the only problem, it would be preferable to rename instead of deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Merge into Computer network isn't a bad idea, but I think merging into Hostname would be better. The idea being discussed in this (very short) page is how to come up with names for devices on a network, and Hostname already has some discussion of what kinds of names people use. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    This is a better merge target suggestion than Directory service suggested by Sirfurboy above. ~Kvng (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. Hostname isn't a bad suggestion, and we could redirect there, and, indeed, if anyone wanted to merge content to there that makes sense for what the page currently contains, but I think Directory service is the better location for the redirect because the title has scheme in it, and that scheme is specifically a scheme of naming applied to computer networks. That, to me, is clearly "naming and directory services", a textbook subject that would refer to LDAP, DNS, X.500 etc. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 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.

AfD: Science[edit]

Shortcuts


Science[edit]

Suzanne Pierre[edit]

Suzanne Pierre (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:NACADEMIC criteria; for example, publication output with 46 citations in total from 4 documents doesn't suggest significant impact in the field. The 'selected publications' seems to be all publications. There is evidence of grants (one in the form of the award), but none seem to sufficient to meet the prize criteria of WP:NBIO. Klbrain (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Science, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think that it's far WP:TOOSOON for NPROF for this 2018 PhD, although the citation record is a reasonable start. The scholarships and grants do not carry much weight for notability, although they may help the subject eventually become notable. Little sign of GNG; I thought there might be some coverage of the national geographic connection, but it looks like this is mostly (only?) another early career award/grant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Quantum weirdness[edit]

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

PRODded with the following statement:

Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
— User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024

Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:

deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
— User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024

The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty. Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept. Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics? No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics? Probably also no. Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics? I do not know. Remsense诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
A good example is the article Bare particle, which in its current form is not much more than a definition (and unsourced at that), but this is no reason to seek its deletion.  --Lambiam 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description. The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles.  --Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic has coverage by a number of sources. The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion. Cortador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please note that the following sentence was removed (twice) from the article:
Many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.
While perhaps not that important, since the same information can be found in the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics listed in the See also section, it should be clear from this (now missing) sentence that this stub covers more than just a dictionary definition.  --Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Wishy-washy long neutral comment. This article does not say anything that is not already covered in a range of other existing WP articles on physics. It mostly appears to be some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As to quantum being weird, yes, even physicists say this. Anecdote: When I was a young student, my prof pulled me into his office, closed the door, and made me swear a secret oath: I must not talk about quantum to anyone who does not have a formal education in physics. Why? Because quantum is weirder than Hollywood or anything scifi authors could ever imagine, and people's heads would explode, and cranks and snake-oil salesmen would come out of the woodwork. I got the impression this was a standard oath administered to anyone studying physics, dating back to the WWII Manhattan project. Now, if this article was actually about that oath, and/or some sociological study of physicists, I'd be thrilled to vote "keep". But we don't need a compendium of weird stuff. Also p.s. excuse me: most of QM is weird for one reason: because weak convergence (Hilbert space) is fugnuts weird. So this is just math being weird, and not physics. And once you tune in, lots of math is really deranged and weird. Like way more weird than what QM has come up with. (I changed my tag to wishy-washy. I dunno, since everyone is talking about it, anyway, what the heck. Article could mention the U. Columbia prof who dropped his pants for Physics 101 to show how weird QM is. See youtube videos. My ex is a Dean of Students there, we chatted about this. CNN (2013) Columbia professor strips down for lecture) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete: same vote, different explanation. The original article that was AfD'd was just a dictionary definition. It has since been edited adding some highly dubious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It makes claims about what scientists think which are just not true; most scientists who have worked in the area have no "weirdness" issues. It's math. Slightly different reason to delete, same vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    How is it even relevant to the discussion that "most scientists who have worked in the area" have no issues? Some of the most notable ones clearly did have their issues, like Einstein with several aspects of QM, as expressed in his qualification spukhafte Fernwirkungen, and his statement, Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt. Scientists working in the area are not immune to the limitations of human intuition as shaped by evolution and everyday experience; if they have no issues, it is because they set their intuition aside when doing science. While true and probably sourceable, this is, however, not of direct relevance to the topic of the article.
    The intended article (now still a stub) is not about alternative mathematical formalisms (which are, by the way, not always fully equivalent with vanilla Copenhagen), but about the clash between human intuition and the best available fundamental physical theory. This is an entirely different topic than covered by our "Interpretations" article.
    There are, nevertheless, some connections with the "interpretations" that are worth documenting, since some interpretations of QM were obviously inspired by the desire to interpret some of the weirdness away. In the pilot wave theory there are no cats that are both alive and dead. But it does not imply and cannot explain the Born rule, so it is not mathematically equivalent. The mathematical formulation developed by Hugh Everett III in his PhD thesis is mathematically equivalent. Not so for its popularization as the many-worlds interpretation, which again does away with cats that are simultaneously alive and dead but likewise cannot explain the Born rule. Everett himself considered this transmogrification of his formal mathematical theory "bullshit".[19]  --Lambiam 07:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics which already discusses the non-definition aspects of the article in more detail. Any content that is missing from the redirect target could be merged, but I don't see any. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    Please note that this is still a stub, not a fully developed article.  --Lambiam 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    Other than a definition, what content would be here that would not be appropriate at Interpretations of quantum mechanics? There are many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics largely because it is "weird". Walsh90210 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati[edit]

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (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)

Tried to improve the article but I failed to improve it per WP:SNG as well as others. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. -AjayDas (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.
Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page has poor sources and it does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 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! 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences to which it is affiliated. Founded in 1948 it is 75 years atleast clearly a search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

List of explorations[edit]

List of explorations (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)

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]

AfD: Academics[edit]

Academics and educators[edit]

Amélie Chekroun[edit]

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

Academic biography that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Their articles and books are not widely cited and there is no available significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, History, Islam, Africa, Ethiopia, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly fails NACADEMIC (it seems she is not a professor, let alone one of the special types that is presumed notable), and a web search found no significant coverage, independent or otherwise. Toadspike [Talk] 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Her citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF, I don't see any books that could pass WP:AUTHOR, and her position (chargée de recherche au CNRS) is still pretty junior. Directrice de recherche (the next level up) would be more likely to be notable, although still not something that leads to automatic notability. (A note, though, re the previous comment "not a professor": the French system separates academic researchers from academic teachers more than the US or UK ones do, and she is on the research track. "Professor", in the French system, is the top teaching-track position. But our notability criteria favor research over teaching. So it is entirely possible that she may become notable in a few years despite not being so now.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Lutz Heinemann[edit]

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

Despite the wealth of sources about this subject, I could not find one that is independent (i.e. not published by an institution or company he's affiliated with). There are one or two interviews, but these also do not count towards notability. The WP:GNG is not met, and I do not think any criteria from WP:NPROF apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep >30,000 citations according to Google Scholar suggests that criterion 1 of WP:PROF has been met.Uhooep (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: per Uhooep, although I could be convinced either way. Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Looking at the most cited papers on GS, they are also highly coauthored. Middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper does not convince me of so much. However, I am seeing enough highly cited papers as first or last author that I think this is a pass of NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Week keep, for the same reasons as Russ. Like experimental physics, clinical medicine is extremely highly-cited and flooded with consortium findings and recommendations with hundreds of coauthors, which really should not count at all towards any author's citation record. Even so, within Heinemann's top 10 articles on Scopus I count 5 research pieces that have fewer than 15 coauthors (including two as first-author), totaling over 2200 citations. My !vote is "weak" only because it is hard to tell whether that is typical among diabetes clinical researchers and I'm not particularly inclined to write a script analyzing the low-author-number scholarly output of his 1000+ coauthors. JoelleJay (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Abhijit Mukherjee (earth scientist)[edit]

Abhijit Mukherjee (earth 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)

Not notable Akeosnhaoe (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Suzanne Pierre[edit]

Suzanne Pierre (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:NACADEMIC criteria; for example, publication output with 46 citations in total from 4 documents doesn't suggest significant impact in the field. The 'selected publications' seems to be all publications. There is evidence of grants (one in the form of the award), but none seem to sufficient to meet the prize criteria of WP:NBIO. Klbrain (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Science, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think that it's far WP:TOOSOON for NPROF for this 2018 PhD, although the citation record is a reasonable start. The scholarships and grants do not carry much weight for notability, although they may help the subject eventually become notable. Little sign of GNG; I thought there might be some coverage of the national geographic connection, but it looks like this is mostly (only?) another early career award/grant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Sankar Natesan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG and also, being a registrar doesn't inherently make one notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only possibility of a pass is WP:Prof#C1, but GS cites of less than 900 in this very highly cited field are not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete. Registrar is generally a more senior post at Indian universities compared to the west, basically the chief administrative officer reporting directly to the president/vice chancellor, so it's possible that being a registrar might lead to more coverage. That said, I don't see sufficient sourcing for GNG and I don't see him clearly passing any of the NACADEMIC criteria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, Singapore, Tamil Nadu, Illinois, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Kamales Lardi[edit]

Kamales Lardi (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)

Questionable notability and clearly WP:PROMO Amigao (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth Salmón[edit]

Elizabeth Salmón (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 because she enjoys in-depth coverage mainly by primary sources (the UN -- I also found university coverage of her as its associate but did not add it). In-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources appears not to exist. Separately, she remains far from passing special criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN as well. JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Pretty sure her position would meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, but regardless, there's been coverage of her since the appointment of both her and her activities (and North Korea being angry at her findings from her work). For example:
I think there's enough here to meet the WP:GNG. SilverserenC 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, Law, and Peru. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: The UN special rapporteur post seems to satisfay WP:ACADEMIC #7: having an impact outside academia in her academic capacity, in this case being appointed by the UN as a legal expert on human rights. PamD 07:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I disagree that she meets NPOL, but being a UN rapporteur and having regular media coverage meets NACADEMIC #7. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Likely passes GNG with the JoonAng and other newspaper articles listed above. I'm unsure about satisfying academic notability, but there is ample coverage in RS for general notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Robert P. Watson[edit]

Robert P. Watson (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 only real claim to fame in the article is a "former candidate for the United States House of Representatives" and an academic. The information for the candidate for the House of Representatives specifically states he was considering running and formed an exploratory committee. This does not meet the requirements for notability. The article was created in 2005 so there has been plenty of opportunities to add reliable sourced content if it existed, but from what I can see it doesn't exist. This individual does not meet the requirements for notability to have a stand alone Wikipedia article. VVikingTalkEdits 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Academic notability in the subject's field would probably be established via reviews of his books. Checking JSTOR finds at least one for The Ghost Ship of Brooklyn [20], Affairs of State [21], George Washington's Final Battle [22][23], The Presidents' Wives [24][25], The Nazi Titanic [26], and America's First Crisis [27]. So, there may be a WP:PROF/WP:AUTHOR pass here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published reviews I found for his many books. He also has a distinguished professorship but the case for WP:PROF#C5 hinges on whether one counts Lynn University as "a major institution of higher education and research". He's not notable as a politician but that's irrelevant; he's also not notable as an astronomical body nor as a species of insect. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    • PS I removed the political campaign from the article altogether, refocusing it on his academic career, as I could not find good enough sourcing. The best I found was this dubiously-reliable interview (also potentially WP:CIRCULAR) which mentions the campaign without any specifics in response to which Watson states "I plead temporary insanity." I don't think that's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Zurab Gurielidze[edit]

Zurab Gurielidze (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)

Can't find any passable source for WP:ANYBIO. Subject also doesn't pass WP:NPROF inherently. It's also lacking in terms of WP:GNG. Also, can't find good figures in directories like Google Scholar. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Jolly Mazimhaka[edit]

Jolly Mazimhaka (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)

Only links to one article being her husband. Searching in google news, google scholar and JSTOR yields very little. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Rwanda. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC).
  • Delete Subject not notable neither does it passes WP:GNG.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article lists authorship of two books. If it is possible to find reliably published reviews of these (not pay-for-play newspaper placements), then WP:AUTHOR might be in play. I did not find any reviews in academic sources but there might be other types of source that my searches didn't cover.

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)

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Henrik Karlsson (musicologist)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCREATIVE. Clearfrienda 💬 22:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably meets WP:AUTHOR, I easily found several reviews of his 2013 book. Quickly added them, though several are paywalled. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd like to see more than one book for WP:AUTHOR but Royal Swedish Academy of Music might be a pass of WP:PROF#C3. It depends on whether it is for music scholarship (likely in his case) or performance (also prestigious but not really academic notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep -- my sense is that the membership in Royal Swedish Academy of Music would be a WP:PROF#C3 qualification (membership in a very rigorously chosen and prestigious academic society). There are four academics (or five if the society director is included) in the list of 177 current members, among 800ish since the founding in the 1770s, suggesting that at least one society considers him among the top handful of music academics in Sweden. I don't personally know his work, but I haven't really studied Swedish music history, which is his specialty. But he is the author of the plurality(? majority?) of the articles on Swedish music in the New Grove 2001 encyclopedia, meaning he had enough reputation by then to be a significant authority. I think that to the extent that the Academy does appoint researchers as members, it is in that capacity an academic institution; the American Academy of Arts and Sciences appoints some non-academic musicians and screen actors as well, but its appointments of academics are considered as WP:PROF#C3. (I was convinced of a Keep before I looked at WP's coverage of Swedish academics in music. A delete here would be 20% of the living people in the category). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
(And thanks for the Ping David Eppstein!) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep it certainly seems that NACADEMIC is met. Niafied (talk) 04:53, 21 May 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.

Peter Wuteh Vakunta[edit]

Peter Wuteh Vakunta (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 professor. I can't find a Google Scholar for him; ResearchGate indicates he's only been cited 22 times (which seems too low to meet WP:NPROF). A search for sources only turns up profiles for him and sites hawking his books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment.Although he does not seem to satisfy WP:NPROF, subject may possibly satisfy WP:AUTHOR (C3). I do see a few reviews of published works; not sure if there is enough, though. Qflib (talk) 00:16, 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! 22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. (non-admin closure) AviCapt (talk to me!) 14:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Guy St. Clair[edit]

Guy St. Clair (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 have made mistakes with AfD regarding academics before, and I do apologise if I'm wrong for this. After searching Google though, this article is the first thing to come up, and other sources that may be about him (not the Australian one, for which there are a few obituaries) are personal blogs or thing by him. -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:43, 13 May 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.

Jon Forshee[edit]

Jon Forshee (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)

Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show WP:SIGCOV; WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    These are mostly fair points. Not sure what the "TOOSOON" means--too soon to have a wiki article? Regarding academic appointment, a Google search shows that Forshee was a visiting professor and now instructor. As to the ensembles performing Forshee's compositions, the Callithumpian Consort and Trio Kobayashi are, according to their own websites, not dedicated to performing student works (they list Elliott Carter, Schuittke, Huber, Scelsi, Cage, Lachenmann, Richard Barrett, Jürg Frey, Larry Polansky, James Tenney, basically all widely known composers on the international scene). The articles by Forshee don't appear to be book reviews or CD reviews, but neither do they appear to be rigorous scholarly research articles; they seem to be somewhere in between: interpretive analytical essays? The one in Computer Music Journal is an early review of software by the pioneering computer music composer Trevor Wishart. Part of the motivation for this article is that Forshee is one of the few notable (or borderline notable) students of composer Anthony Davis, who just had his Met Opera premiere of his Malcolm X this season. Dolemites (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    Notability cannot WP:INHERITED from Anthony Davis or anyone else; for each subject it must be established independently according to the criteria. No articles by Forshee can be used establish his notability, only what independent and reliable sources have to say about him with "significant coverage." Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Amna Malik[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amna Malik (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)

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Looking at her last few roles in shows with articles, none are significant (not starring or lead support) so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. Sources are interviews, do not mention her and many are not reliable such as The Brown Identity, Something Haute, FUCHSIA Magazine, Masala.com, Dispatch News Desk, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I find convincing BeauSuzanne's explanation; some of her roles do seem significant enough and she seems to meet WP:NACTOR indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Lya Stern[edit]

Lya Stern (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 mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired TarantulaBurrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions[edit]

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