Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

User:Ruud Koot/Feed

AA: Computer science

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(30 more...)

AA: Computing

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(53 more...)

Proposed deletions

(22 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(14 more...)

Articles to be split

(21 more...)

Articles for creation

(49 more...)

AfD: Computing

Computing

XB Machine

AfDs for this article:
XB Machine (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 Clenpr (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete Not much coverage about the machine itself. Redirect xB browser is an ok alternative too.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

VHDL-VITAL

VHDL-VITAL (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 Clenpr (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

RTP payload formats

RTP payload formats (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 nothing more than a list of citations to Requests for Comments. This is inappropriate since Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Microsoft InterConnect

Microsoft InterConnect (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

JOSSO

JOSSO (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - I have added 2 refs. One is a journal article and the other is a book chapter however the book is published by IGI Global which has a poor reputation. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

CryptLoad

CryptLoad (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete - my own search didn't turn up anything. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: couldn't find anything for this to meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)


CrossCrypt

CrossCrypt (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete - my own search turned up only passing mentions. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

SIS (file format)

SIS (file format) (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - notable. I just added 4 references found using the Google Scholar and Google Books link on this page above. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Symbian, without prejudice of re-creation with proper sources and references. In its current form, this is an article that should have gone through WP:BLAR easily. MarioGom (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Command verb

Command verb (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Integrated Project Support Environment

Integrated Project Support 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)

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - see the original ref plus 2 more added just now. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Virtual Soldier Research Program

Virtual Soldier Research Program (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)

Promotional, entirely self published sources, poor quality article, should be moved to draftspace or deleted. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - The sources are definitely not self published (WP:ABOUTSELF). Any source that begins with ISBN, ISSN or DOI is not self published. I don't see anything promotional here. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    Strictly speaking, that's not correct. Anyone can get an ISBN for a self-published book. Also preprint platforms allow you to get a DOI on any submission. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep - I do not see any self-published sources, I do see some issues with promo/NPOV and general MOS issues. The paragraphs The Santos simulation platform was developed from the ground up. Using the 215 DOF and based on the use of optimization based methods that enable cost functions to drive the motion, the numerical algorithm drives the motion to predict joint variables across time (also called joint profiles) and subject to a number of constraints. For example, predicting gait of any body type is now possible. Similarly, any task can be modeled and simulated using this approach. Xiang, Yujiang, Jasbir S. Arora, and Karim Abdel-Malek. "Hybrid predictive dynamics: a new approach to simulate human motion." Multibody System Dynamics 28.3 (2012): 199-224. and Over time, the Santos family has grown to incorporate a variety of different body scans to provide a range of models that include our female version, Sophia, and a broad array of different body shapes, types, and sizes. Our research is currently being extended to allow multiple digital human models to interact with each other to complete tasks cooperatively. … Santos was built using state-of-the-art technologies adapted from robotics, Hollywood, and the game industry. VSR research continues to grow in its dynamic capabilities, physiology, and intelligent behaviors through integration of Artificial Intelligence, design optimization, physics-based modeling, and advanced, multi-scale physiological models. stick out to me as being inappropriate. However, the actual subject (VSRP and related inventions) do appear to pass GNG. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Elissa_Shevinsky

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

Notability has not been established for this person. Page was previously nominated for deletion Barrettsprivateers (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Computing, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - the previous AfD discussion was closed in 2013, so that was a while back. There is news coverage on Shevinsky that post-dates the previous discussion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - Voting for delete due to lack of notability. Research indicates that the subject does not have a reputation amongst her peers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrettsprivateers (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    Your nomination is already a vote. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I have done a bit of tidying up and removed the poorly-cited, resume-like items to focus on news coverage of Shevinsky. The best three sources (all in the article) are a 2014 New York Times article [4], and 2015 CNN article [5], and her coverage in a 2014 book by Dan Shapiro [6]. In addition, she has been widely quoted in the news talking about sexism in the tech industry (see examples in the article). DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete The article is a bit better written after that clean up, but she is still not notable by WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Pixhawk

Pixhawk (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)

currently, there are zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's lots of results in Google Books and Google Scholar. None of is enough? I could not get access to many of them, so I couldn't fully assess. MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

James A. D. W. Anderson

AfDs for this article:
James A. D. W. Anderson (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)

Mathematical crackpot with no meaningful impact on the field per WP:ACADEMIC, and no coverage in popular press since initial 2006 spotlight. Academic discourse on "transreal arithmetic" is mostly WP:SELFPUB, barring a couple of papers published in non-mathematical journals. Fishsicles (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Yes, he does appear to be a crackpot. That might not be sufficient reason for deletion if he had a significant influence on mathematics, but as far as I can see he doesn't. Athel cb (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Compared to other fields, mathematics is much more tolerant of what would normally be labelled "crackpots" - rejecting an established axiom or theory usually means building a contrasting theory, which can be mathematically interesting in its own right. (WP:CRACKPOT's term for this would be "alternative theoretical formulation".) That said, "transreal arithmetic" has absolutely not developed into a theory of any interest to mathematicians, which means I'm more than comfortable applying the label.
I think a particularly useful point of contrast is inter-universal Teichmüller theory, which also makes dramatic claims that are (in the opinion of many number theorists) not properly substantiated, but remains of significant academic interest for its potential applications. "Transreal arithmetic" has attracted no such attention, and the only one to claim applications is Anderson himself. Fishsicles (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worth a page and it is more about Transreal arithmetic than anything else. It is a transreal page, in a sense. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment: My concern is more basic than the issues raised above: there are whole paragraphs in a BLP that are unsourced. I'd be willing to cut down the article to a stub, but that would disrupt the discussion. Not sure how to proceed. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended reality

Extended reality (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)

Taking to AFD as a courtesy for further consensus. Whether this topic is genuinely distinct from virtual reality, mixed reality, and augmented reality has been disputed by an editor. The editor has attempted to make WP:BOLD mergers of this page into augmented reality, under an argument that the topic of "extended reality" is only synonymous with augmented reality, and that "pages should represent real things, rather than concepts that only exist in academia". ViperSnake151  Talk  01:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete clear original research. --Altenmann >talk 06:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a high amount of coverage in academic sources (papers and books), a dedicated academic conference (International Conference on Extended Reality), IEEE participation, coverage in publications in journals from various fields (Computer Science, medical practice, geo-information). MarioGom (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Waleed A. Alrodhan

Waleed A. Alrodhan (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 which has had several problems including prior COI/UPE editor, and a PROD supported by two editors. Prior promo has been removed, with the argument "as the person is not significantly less notable compared to other Saudi academics whose pages exist without question". That is not a valid criterion. Page fails WP:NPROF with an h-factor of 7, plus nothing to prove WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Reality–virtuality continuum

Reality–virtuality continuum (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 concept was published in one single paper, and does not have wide acceptance among media, researchers, or any present papers. If anything, it should be listed at each of the authors' pages on Wikipedia if they have pages, however this concept is biased and incomplete, and should not have its own Wikipedia page. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep The given rationale for deletion does not make sense to me. A quick google scholar search for the term turns up numerous papers. The original paper has 5000+ citations according to google scholar and searching for "reality virtuality continuum" for articles since 2024 results in over 1000 hits. Seems to be a widely discussed concept/seminal paper among researchers and is a topic of recent interest. If other reasons for deletion cannot be given, then this article should be kept and improved. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep A single paper? According to Google Scholar, Milgram 1995 has 5,569 citations, Skarbez 2021 has 502 citations. Just to name the top papers. There's probably hundreds of papers discussing the concept. MarioGom (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I just meant keeping one key paper as a reference, but you’re right—there’s a whole body of research on this. Thanks for highlighting the scope agree with above vote!Sigma World (talk)

Wubuntu

Wubuntu (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 independent in-depth coverage to pass WP:NCORP. UPE history as well (see User:Tristancr). Gheus (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

DeepSource

DeepSource (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 company does not meet the notability guideline for corporations. The only coverage of this corporation is from trade publications. The existing sources are either unreliable (Forbes) or routine coverage (TechCrunch). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Computing, India, and California. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - sources listed do not appear to assert notability, with one (Fortune India) using some questionable language ("revolutionary", "uber-cool"). The other two that appear to have some depth (Devops and TheNewStack) seem to be centered on their product "globstar" and not the company itself. As usual, I ignored the sources we already have flagged as potentially unreliable (which were already mentioned by the nom) I haven't found any better sources in my search.ASUKITE 21:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Forbes India article is a company profile. The Fortune India piece appears under the Fortune India Exchange, which is likely a sponsored feature. Other available articles mostly follow a promotional, SEO-driven format. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete in addition to above mentions, finding a handful of the citations are just passing mentions. or even primary sources.Villkomoses (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above; corposlop. jp×g🗯️ 03:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources do not really support notability and a lot of them are self published sources. We cannot have every single company on Earth have their own page if they are not notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Grace College of Business and Computer Science

Grace College of Business and 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)

Fails WP:NORG tagged for notability for 5 years, created by a sock. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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

HackMiami

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.
large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

AfD: Science

Shortcuts


Science

Redsenol

Redsenol (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 seems to be a brochure of an alternative medicine product of both questionable notability and questionable efficacy. The lack of medical citations, and lack of results on Google Scholar is very uninspiring, even less so the company's own website (I won't link it here, but Google "Redsenol" and it's the first result). Reading the article Ginsenoside suggests that there actually aren't very many studies regarding the effect of ginsenosides on humans, but I'm no pharmacologist and that could be wrong. In any case, unless medical sources can be found, this should be deleted. MediaKyle (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree with the nominator. There is a lack of reliable, independent resources covering this compound. Lacking a structure it's hard to do more research. Seems to be one clinical trial for the compound, so maybe in a few years this article can be rewritten but for now it's just another natural product someone is trying to commercialize. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Quantum coherence in photosynthesis

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

A long essay, full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH with many irrelevant sections plus some dubious interpretation of quantum mechanics and inelastic scattering. Major sections are unsourced, and while on their own they are valid science, many are padding. I see no way a return to draft would help, it needs WP:TNT. At most a two or three paragraph description that the initial excitation may be coherent over a finite spatial range (Fermi's golden rule), which is the physics here (as against incoherent at the single site level). PROD was contested, so we go to AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Virtual Soldier Research Program

Virtual Soldier Research Program (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)

Promotional, entirely self published sources, poor quality article, should be moved to draftspace or deleted. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - The sources are definitely not self published (WP:ABOUTSELF). Any source that begins with ISBN, ISSN or DOI is not self published. I don't see anything promotional here. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    Strictly speaking, that's not correct. Anyone can get an ISBN for a self-published book. Also preprint platforms allow you to get a DOI on any submission. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep - I do not see any self-published sources, I do see some issues with promo/NPOV and general MOS issues. The paragraphs The Santos simulation platform was developed from the ground up. Using the 215 DOF and based on the use of optimization based methods that enable cost functions to drive the motion, the numerical algorithm drives the motion to predict joint variables across time (also called joint profiles) and subject to a number of constraints. For example, predicting gait of any body type is now possible. Similarly, any task can be modeled and simulated using this approach. Xiang, Yujiang, Jasbir S. Arora, and Karim Abdel-Malek. "Hybrid predictive dynamics: a new approach to simulate human motion." Multibody System Dynamics 28.3 (2012): 199-224. and Over time, the Santos family has grown to incorporate a variety of different body scans to provide a range of models that include our female version, Sophia, and a broad array of different body shapes, types, and sizes. Our research is currently being extended to allow multiple digital human models to interact with each other to complete tasks cooperatively. … Santos was built using state-of-the-art technologies adapted from robotics, Hollywood, and the game industry. VSR research continues to grow in its dynamic capabilities, physiology, and intelligent behaviors through integration of Artificial Intelligence, design optimization, physics-based modeling, and advanced, multi-scale physiological models. stick out to me as being inappropriate. However, the actual subject (VSRP and related inventions) do appear to pass GNG. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hazel Assender

Hazel Assender (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 has no proven notability outside of bios JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. hroest 04:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak keep tenured professor at Oxford, with an h-index of 30 and 6 publications with 100+ citations, she is close to the bar for WP:NPROF#1 and with some good will passes that bar. --hroest 04:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak delete per hroest's evidence that she's close to the bar, and the article makes zero claims of notability but instead sounds like trying to pump up the standard sorts of things every prof everywhere does. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep. I feel like she does meet WP:GNG. I won't say that this article is firmly in notable territory, but I wouldn't say this fails GNG either. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:Prof. Is the nominator aware of this SNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC).
  • Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. I think someone at this level in the US would very likely be an ASME Fellow and also pass #C3 but I don't see anything like that for her. On the other hand, full professor in England and in particular at Oxford is somewhat stricter than at US universities, maybe not enough for #C5 but a step towards it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. My first thought was that weak keep was the right choice, but her publication record is reasonable, and, perhaps more important, her publications are well cited, with many cited more than 50 times, several more than 100, and at least two more than 300. Athel cb (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Per the other keep voters I agree that the article has questions when it comes to how necessary the article is but the sources provided does have the article pass gng Scooby453w (talk)
  • Keep, not only well-cited, but a full professorship in Oxford definitely meets #C5 (older UK universities have few explicitly-named professorships, and we never call ourselves distinguished, it just feels wrong...). Elemimele (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell she's actually an Associate Professor holding the title of Full Professor under the Recognition of Distinction exercise. But I see she was also joint Head of Department [9] so this is at least a Weak Keep and possibly better. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. As others say above, an h-factor of 30 is not high. This is definitely the case in Material Science where I look for > 45. As mentioned above Full Professor at Oxford is no longer notable by itself, it used to be; they were good with fund raising, but that is off topic. At Oxford it is the same as a US Full Professor and definitely does not meet #C5. If she had a senior named chair such as the Wolfson Chair that would pass #C5. I also disagree with the statement about ASME Fellow. (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Meets the notability requirements for academia. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
? What does this vote mean? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC).

Marsha Moses

AfDs for this article:
Marsha Moses (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 of this article has requested deletion as was suggested at the previous AfD. Those editors with VRT access can reference ticket:2025041610018915. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Biology, and Medicine. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • comment I see two articles with 1000+ citations and dozens of articles with 100+ citations which means she passes WP:NPROF#1. Secondly she holds a named chair at Harvard University which is another indication of notability per NPROF#5 and she has multiple elected fellowships (NPROF#3). Furthermore she received a prestigious award which would be relevant under NPROF#2. According to our standards, I would argue she is highly notable (although not a public persona) but not at all a case that is somewhere in the gray area. --hroest 15:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - Both the subject and the creator of the article have requested deletion. According to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE: Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests.. Note it doesn't say GNG or NPROF. The subject may be a clear pass of NPROF, but GNG is less clear. I don't know why deletion was requested (multiple times now), but I also don't see a problem with honoring it in this case. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I am in agreement here with Rhododendrites. We don't know why this person has requested deletion, and they are not obligated to tell us about any conflicting personal or professional issues are behind the request. Could be very private personal issues behind this request. Could be nothing, or could be reaction to the article is taking up a lot of their time. They don't owe us an explanation. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • comment we are here to provide information about publicly-relevant people, for the benefit of our readers, not for the subjects of our article. Just as we don't allow vanity-publishing of those who'd like more publicity than they get, we have to be careful of modesty-deletion of those who shun publicity but about whom the public still have legitimate interest. We also need to be cautious of the occasional "my way or no way" deletion request from someone who wants an article written on their own terms, and those shunning publicity because there's some scandal looming (I'm not implying that either of these is the case here). My interpretation of request-delete is that the subject's wishes tip the balance if the balance is delicate. In this case she looks like a pretty solid pass, not a delicate balance. Do we actually know why she wishes to have the article deleted? I'm not sure AfD works for cases like this: you can't ask the jury to decide something, but tell them they're not allowed to see the evidence or know why they're being asked. Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you @Elemimele, you just saved me having to say pretty much exactly the same. :)
    I'd also add that given how self-evidently notable this person is, even if we delete this version, what's to stop someone next month recreating it? Or are we meant to salt the title (and if so, on what grounds?), or to go through AfD Groundhog Day on this subject ad infinitum? Then again, given that this is already the 2nd deletion-request-AfD, even if we don't delete this time, we may be stuck with AfD Groundhog Day... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Moses seems happy to maintain a public profile on sites like the American Academy of Arts and Sciences [10] so there can be little question of privacy here, only of control. I think that's not an adequate reason for deletion for someone so prominent. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    • To put it another way: if the President of Harvard University asked us to delete their article, should we agree? The president of the US? We have none of the factors that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says we should take into consideration: problematic editing, real-world harm identified by the subject, nor a subject that is only minimally notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
      The subject is not the President of Harvard University, and the article had numerous inaccuracies at the time of the VRT request. Biographies of actual public figures receive a lot more attention from editors than those that cover relatively unknown people, such as this one. Having a Wikipedia biography is certainly a burden to many subjects that do not have marketing teams, assistants, or public relations professionals at their disposal. This is the reason that the page you reference only invites us to consider the general notability guideline, per Rhododendrites, which is a better measure of a subject's exposure to public life than NPROF. Finally, minimal notability is one of the additional factors that we are invited to consider, and this is obviously the case when apply GNG. Nothing of serious value is being lost here. Let's have some compassion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
      We have here a fellow of major societies (especially the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) for whom we should aim for biographies of all members. Deleting this article would leave a permanent hole in our coverage. And it's difficult to have compassion for a bare request to delete when there is no information given on the cause for requesting deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Still as notable as they were last time at AfD, and there's several notable positions and fellowships listed. I suspect this is about not being able to control the information in the article, as being the reason for wanting it deleted. This person is a rather public figure with several profiles on public websites, the right to privacy seems to have been waived in this case. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: and deleting this would only contribute to gender bias, which is a real issue on Wikipedia. We should be advocating for articles about notable females in STEM fields. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: inherently a professor is a public figure to a degree, usually part of their job is to lecture in front of students and colleagues at conferences as well as be available for journalist/government inquiries. This is doubly true at major R1 research universities. It is unreasonable to have an expectation of total privacy where their name is not mentioned anywhere in the press or on the internet. The potential for inaccuracies in the article is not a reason to delete, we can correct or remove inaccurate statements. --hroest 12:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although a clear pass of WP:Prof, delete at subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC).

Belenso T. Yimchunger ISRO Certificate Controversy

Belenso T. Yimchunger ISRO Certificate Controversy (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:BLPCRIME. The prod was removed because "WP:BLPCRIME only applies when the editor has a serious conflict of interest with the subject of the article. " which is completely incorrect. This is a WP:BLP1E known for only issue, a minor accusation of fabricating a certificate. Fram (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. This does not seem WP:LASTING enough to be worthy of an article. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nagaland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:NEVENT, and although framed as an article about an event and not about the person, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BIO1E also feel very relevant. This is a low profile individual involved in a minor "scandal". Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MILL. Tabloid newspapers in India report on an issue. The said tabloids boost the issue's popularity, and TV stations jump on the bandwagon. One brave outlet discovers and reports on the mistake. Indian media then turns on the subject, who did something stupid but not criminal. Rinse, repeat, and move onto the next overhyped story, much beloved by the Indian media. Maybe cause a war with a neighboring country. Then they sue us. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a WP:BLP issue, as the article discusses a public event, not an ongoing biography. WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E don't apply when reliable coverage exists beyond a single trivial mention. If multiple independent, reliable sources covered the incident in depth, it may meet WP:Notability (events). Not every article must have long-term significance WP:LASTING if there's verifiable, sustained coverage now. Here all sources are independent. Deletion per WP:MILL is speculative - that's about avoiding rumor, not documented reporting. If it’s sourced, neutral, and factual, it should stay. Per WP:NOTABILITY, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article... when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Deleting sourced, verifiable content because it feels “minor” is not policy-based. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Four-hundred-year solar minimum of the 21st century

Four-hundred-year solar minimum of the 21st century (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:OR, cherrypicked sources. Title seems to be an invention by the article creator (or a translation from somewhere?) Article claims e.g. that the minimum will go from 2020 to 2053, and "it is expected to reduce the average global temperature by up to 1.0–1.5°C.", but the current second source[11] gives "They named the most likely scenario as a decrease in solar activity in the period up to 2100, but this will lead to only a small decrease in global temperature of about 0.08 ° C"? Url for third source is same as for second source, and first source is an editorial, not a peer-reviewed paper. I draftified the article to give a chance to correct these issues and let others have a look, but it was put back into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The plausibility and impacts of a grand solar minimum occurring in the 21st century have been discussed in the academic literature (e.g., [12], 2010; [13], 2013; [14], 2013; [15], 2015; [16], 2015), but I do not think that the coverage is WP:SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant its own dedicated article. Furthermore, more recent data from solar cycle 25 suggests that this scenario is unlikely. I think mentioning a hypothesized future minimum and its impacts in Solar minimum#Grand solar minima and maxima would be sufficient. I do not think a merge would be appropriate because the current content and refs are not suitable as mentioned by Fram. A relevant quote from [17] (2025):
"While earlier studies hypothesized that solar activity could decline to levels similar to those of the Maunder Minimum (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2011; Anet et al., 2013), more recent solar observations suggest a different trajectory. In particular, sunspot number (SSN) records for Solar Cycle 25 already exceed those of Cycle 24, indicating that solar activity is currently increasing (SIDC – Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, 2024). As such, a Dalton-like or Gleissberg-type minimum is considered more plausible in the near future."
As a side note, the first reference in the article is from Valentina Zharkova who seems to be the main source in popular media claiming that there is an upcoming grand solar minimum. Some of their work also appears to be very climate-change-denial adjacent. There is a Live Science article rebutting Zharkova's grand solar minimum: [18]. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Additional comment: Zharkova had a paper on this grand solar minimum retracted [19] (PubPeer link: [20]), and her past work has been highlighted not so positively in Science Alert [21] and [22], Slate [23], and Ars Technica [24]. From what I gather, this modern grand minimum is a climate change denial talking point. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge whatever is salvageable into Solar cycle 25 which already has a "Predictions" section where this will belong in case there are any peer-reviewed studies that still make such predictions. --hroest 15:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The Sol Foundation

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

More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [25] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [26], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [27], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [28]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Paranormal, Politics, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Guideline for establishing notability in this instance is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). 5Q5|✉ 11:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose deletion. Regardless of individual beliefs about UAPs, the topic is widely covered by mainstream media, government sources, and academic commentary. Wikipedia’s role is to document verifiable information, not to judge its validity. Deleting well-sourced content undermines neutrality and public access to information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep this article. To describe Dr. Nolan as an 'enthusiast' is a deliberately biasing term meant to diminish. Such derogatory language should not be used in a delete argument per rules. Dr. Nolan is a noted research scientist. Of one wants to describe a noted scientist with nearly 400 peer reviewed papers as an enthusiast, then one might also say Chetsford, the person proposing this deletion, is an enthusiast for anti-science propaganda. The Sol Foundation has now published several pure research papers on the subject of NHI (which by the way is mentioned in the UAP Disclosure act as put forward by Senators Schumer and Rounds) multiple times as a global definition of not just the idea of "aliens" but also any other non-human intelligence that might have originated on Earth prior to humanity. The pogrom driven by Chetsford, LuckyLouie and others is a malicious attempt against freedom of information and should be resisted. TruthBeGood (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC) — TruthBeGood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Very Strong Keep I have edited my keep and refactored the prior discussion below. The article has substantially changed since this was nominated. This was the Reference section when The Sol Foundation was sent nominated to delete:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288083567#References
I have now added sources including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford Courant, Catholic News Service, Aleteia, Rice University, Newsweek, Daily Express, PopMatters, Society of Catholic Scientists, la Repubblica, Focus (German magazine), Niconico, La Razón (Madrid), Sunday World, Futurism, the International Social Science Journal, and more, and still have more yet to go through when I have time. This is the References section now after 39 edits by me:
* Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733#References
* Live: The Sol Foundation#References
Here is all current sources sorted against WP:SIGCOV: Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
That is coverage from seven (7) nations: the United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and Japan. I think this is now a trivial keep and the AfD should be withdrawn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [29] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [30] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Readers: Please pay attention to this.
Your La Razon remark is completely made up of whole cloth and your imagination. Why would you do that? Did you think no one read the content? The La Razon article says, "Inspirados en proyectos científicos y divulgativos, como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nollan con la Fundación SOL, o en Francia UAP Check, los miembros de UAP Digital y UAP Spain prevén la próxima creación de un Panel de expertos multidisciplinar que impulse el debate y el estudio científico sobre los Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados en territorio europeo." That translates to, "Inspired by scientific and educational projects, such as the one launched by Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation, or by UAP Check in France, the members of UAP Digital and UAP Spain plan to create a multidisciplinary panel of experts to promote debate and scientific study on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena in Europe." Which is the citation for, "La Razón credited the Sol Foundation with having inspired similar research ventures in Spain."
How is that a "a title quote attribution to its founder"? La Razón explicitly credits the SOL Foundation itself, not just Garry Nolan or its title, as an inspiration for UAP Digital and UAP Spain’s planned expert panel. The sentence structure in Spanish--"como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nolan con la Fundación SOL"--clearly attributes the project’s inspiration to both Nolan and the SOL Foundation as entities, not merely using the Foundation’s name as a descriptor. There is no valid counterargument because the conjunction "con" ("with") grammatically links Nolan’s action to the SOL Foundation as an active collaborator or source of the project, making it impossible to interpret the Foundation as a passive or incidental mention.
The nominator has substantially misdiscribed everything. Did you notice how many of the sources are notable enough to have deeply complex Wikipedia articles themselves? The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is a bad source for the topic of a foundation studying UFOs? Some of the sources are thorough and entire pieces on the SOL Foundation. Some are brief but relevant mentions, and all of them were picked because they were relevant and contributed to Wikipedia:Notability. Look at my user page. I don't mess around with sourcing; this was something I did rapid fire because we simply needed to demonstrate notability, not build a complex 80k+ article... yet.
Remain Very Strong Keep. Parse all of nominator's remarks carefully for accuracy at this time. I don't know what is going on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage in a debate as to whether the six word phrase "Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation" constitutes WP:SIGCOV. But I acknowledge and appreciate your obvious passion for this subject. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Everyone knows that not every article source needs to be WP:SIGCOV. The point today is I have demonstrated breadth and scope of Wikipedia:Notability, with articles from global scales, from long to short pieces, to some that are significant and some that are minor. That's still notable. You can't minimize major international publications. You have not demonstrated in any way that The Sol Foundation lacks notability. There are still more sources, and more content (multiple citations for some) to pull out of the sourcing I've already added. There is no such thing as an AfD qualification or requirement that the article has to be in any sort of advanced state of development. Please be honest with our peers and fair. Very Strong Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [31] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
What version of the site are you even looking at? Hartford Courant, Focus, Sunday World, the Catholic ones, AIAA, and so on? I challenge you, here and now, to show me exactly where Substack is used as a source, or else withdraw the AfD and recuse yourself from this article going forward, in perpeuity, with no option to undo that, and it will be enforced by other Admins? Do you agree?
Here, the current version right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733
Show me exactly where the text string "substack" shows up anywhere in that article. Do you agree to my terms? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [32].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
No, this is what you are compelled to judge against:
I have been exceptionally clear that I am arguing against the live, production sources. You arguing against what I previously linked here and did not use in the article is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the live article now, and what is in the article now trivially meets Wikipedia:Notability and particularly, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not, again, what I linked and withdrew on the AfD. What is now live. This article passes AfD now trivially. If you are unwilling to address all the sources, you are not arguing per policy, and 'good faith' becomes questionable, as you are then arguing against non-acceptable criteria which is not policy. We are all slaves here to outcomes. That includes the nominator. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Updated my remarks with newly found evidence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Strong Keep -- Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort:
EDIT 1: Upgrading to strong keep. I'm already integrating these. The PopMatters article (link) is literally an entire piece devoted to the Foundation and their Symposium just by itself.
EDIT 2: I'm still finding more sources. Google Sol Foundation without quotes, add various flags like +Nolan, +UAP, +research, +UFO, +military, and so on--there's plenty. I again stand by this being an easy keep. I'm already adding sources to the live article, and there's plenty more I can add in the next few days. Have at it, all. It is unclear how OP missed all these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
EDIT 3, again reaffirm my Strong Keep; I've added yet more sources, and here is the current references section: The Sol Foundation#References. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
https://www.popmatters.com/sol-foundation-symposium-ufos-uap
https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1348
https://mitechnews.com/guest-columns/sol-foundation-releases-17-videos-from-ufo-conference/
https://substack.com/home/post/p-142904928
https://www.courant.com/2023/11/22/how-a-stanford-professor-aims-to-organize-the-hunt-for-alien-life/
https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/serious-physicists-are-talking-about-ufos-what-changed
https://exopolitik.org/hochrangige-insider-beraten-ueber-die-zukunft-der-ufo-offenlegung/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/issj.12484
https://nowcreations.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/10-Reasons-to-Consider-the-Possibility-of-_Beyond-human-Intelligence-No-11-Sept-2024.pdf

I see more mentions yet on Google News and Google Scholar that are required to be considered. Premature nomination. Just because an article is a stub that no one has had the time or energy or will to build from available data doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted based on not being "done".

I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[33]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable.

It's also obvious "not just The Debrief" as sourcing, which is not a disallowed source in any event under any rational or widely accepted rules nor precedent or RfD or discussions anywhere. Keep for The Sol Foundation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  • The Oxford reference doesn't mention this at all, "exopolitik.com" is clearly not RS, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers is not RS, a PDF on the website of a guy in Ohio named Vince who works on "raising the consciousness of the planet as part of the Universal Life Force" [sic] is not RS, etc., etc., etc.
    "I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it?" Based on the sources you attached to your Keep !vote here, I'm very tempted to look at it. Chetsford (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:ASPERSIONS are out of place at AfD. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Remain Keep. Hartford Courant, Poptech, Mitechnews, First Principles, the social science journal, what's already in the article and I stopped on sources after a few pages. A topic doesn't require sourcing to be WP:GNG that means it can grow beyond a stub. A stub-level topic can be perfectly notable, and no rule says or ever will say otherwise. Keep. Also, you need to change your needlessly aggressive tone and stance, along with the routine WP:Civility boundary-pushing threats you have been applying to your recent spree of UAP-related AfDs after the Harald Malmgren AfD debacle you initiated that led to Jimmy Wales getting involved due to your actions. From an Administrator, it is grossly inappropriate. You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
    Strong Keep: Chetsford's consistent use of biased terms reveals a strange anti-knowledge bias. Further, Chetsford's characterization of Nolan running a "UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan" dismisses the fact that SOL is an accredited 501-c3 which has garnered several million dollars in funding, ran 2 symposia, been the focus of dozens of news articles (as noted by others), etc. is further indication that Chetsford is running a non-scientific and biased agenda not based on Wiki rules but on his personal belief system. Professor Nolan is a world-renowned immunologist, founder of several successful companies, has dozens of US patents to his name, etc. so the purposeful use of derogatory language is reason alone for ignoring his arguments. Frankly, at this point given his past actions against Malmgren it is a surprise he does not lose his editor status and be banned. TruthBeGood (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
    Hello, have you had the opportunity to review the rewritten article?
    It's almost completely redone since the AfD and youre !vote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Re-stating my delete !vote for the record. If it's required, as it seems to be á la mode, call it a Very Strong Delete. The article has been expanded in byteage, but the sources are of no better quality, unfourtunately, so WP:HEY doesn't apply (as an example of WP:HEY in an AfD, see for example at Becky Sharp, for Nations of 1984 or in Concordat of Worms, et al.). As has been established by the nom's thorough analysis of the new sources, few of them are both independent or indepth. None support the claims made to WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG, while support !votes themselves seem to rely on non-policy based arguments (e.g. BUTITEXISTS, an argument to avoid, using WP:OR to analyse sources' claims, and suggesting that all opinions given equal weight). And that's ignoring the continued questioning of other editors' motives. The keep !votes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, greater in number; they are, equally unsurprisingly however, weaker in policy. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Repeated aspersions from now-indefinitely blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Per rules please point out exactly the aspersion cast. Don't claim you want sources while not providing any specifics. Chetsford and others have already been chastised for their behavior. Pointing this out is not an aspersion, just a fact. Now-- to policy...
    Arguing policy: Under WP:GNG an article is retained when independent, reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage—coverage that is neither trivial nor purely routine. The Sol Foundation article meets that threshold: a feature story in the Hartford Courant profiles the group’s formation and scientific aims, offering far more depth than a press notice; Newsweek devotes several paragraphs to the Foundation’s inaugural symposium and quotes its mission statement in the context of national UAP-policy debates; the Daily Express, Sunday World, and Germany’s Focus supply further analysis of its policy recommendations. Because these outlets have no editorial connection to the Foundation, each instance satisfies WP:RS and demonstrates the independence required by WP:V. Taken together, the sources show sustained, serious reportage—not fleeting mentions—so the article clears GNG without difficulty.
    WP:ORG presumes notability when multiple reliable publications discuss an organization in detail, and the Foundation easily qualifies. A culture-journalism treatment in PopMatters chronicles its November 2024 symposium and describes the think-tank’s research agenda; a peer-reviewed paper in Wiley’s International Social Science Journal cites the Foundation’s role in advancing UAP scholarship, establishing academic relevance; trade coverage in Aerospace America and mainstream religious press such as Catholic News Service document its participation in government-civic forums. That range—from metropolitan newspaper to peer-reviewed journal—confirms breadth of interest across sectors and disciplines, negating any claim that the topic relies on press releases or fringe blogs. Because Wikipedia evaluates notability by what independent authors have written, not by the subject’s fame, the clustering of these independent, substantive sources fulfills both the letter and the spirit of WP:ORG; deletion would therefore contradict core inclusion policy.
    Under WP:NPOV the encyclopedia must represent all significant, verifiable perspectives without editorial prejudice. The existing Sol Foundation article does exactly that: it reports the group’s origins, research aims, and public activities strictly as described in independent secondary sources, while attributing any evaluative language—positive or skeptical—to those sources. There is no advocacy or promotional tone; where reliable outlets raise doubts the article can and should include them in proportion, preserving balance. By contrast, deletion proposals that dismiss the foundation as a mere “UFO club” or label its founder an “enthusiast” introduce pejorative framing not supported by the cited coverage and thus clash with NPOV’s prohibition on subjective language.
    Removing a well-sourced article because some editors question the topic’s legitimacy would itself create a neutrality problem: it would excise documented information from mainstream newspapers, journals, and trade magazines, leaving Wikipedia’s treatment of UAP research incomplete and skewed by omission. NPOV requires that content be judged on the reliability and independence of its sources, not on individual editors’ attitudes toward unconventional subjects. Keeping the article therefore upholds neutrality by presenting verifiable facts for readers to evaluate, whereas deletion would substitute editorial bias for documented evidence—contradicting both NPOV and the broader principle that Wikipedia “does not censor topics that are reliably sourced, even if controversial or fringe.”
    Opponents claim the article “fails GNG” because its citations are routine or incidental, yet the record shows multiple feature-length, independent pieces—Hartford Courant profile, PopMatters symposium report, Newsweek analysis, Wiley journal article—that exceed the “significant coverage” threshold in WP:GNG and satisfy WP:ORG’s requirement for reliable, third-party sourcing. Those who invoked WP:BEFORE overlooked or dismissed these sources; the assertion that such material “obviously won’t appear in any journal or book” is disproven by the peer-reviewed ISSJ paper. In short, the corpus is more than adequate, and routine mentions are supplementary, not foundational. Labeling Hartford Courant, Newsweek, or Wiley as “none of any quality” misstates WP:RS; these outlets are plainly reliable under policy, and their presence confirms notability.
    Other objections collapse on closer inspection. The article does not “lean on” The Debrief; even if that site were excluded entirely, mainstream and academic coverage remains plentiful. Claims of promotionalism ignore that the text is fully attributed, neutral in tone, and free of puffery, whereas the deletion rationale itself applies pejorative language (“UFO club,” “enthusiast”) that violates WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:ILIKE/IDONTLIKE dictates that editorial sentiment is irrelevant; Wikipedia retains topics documented in reliable, independent sources regardless of their perceived seriousness or controversy. Because those sources exist in abundance and the article can be readily refined to reflect them, deletion would contradict core inclusion policy rather than enforce it.
    Applying the consistency principle embedded in WP:N, Wikipedia should judge the Sol Foundation by the same sourcing threshold that has long sustained analogous entries. Earlier UAP bodies such as NICAP and CUFOS were retained once magazines like Time and major newspapers profiled them; the Sol Foundation already matches or exceeds that level of coverage, with features in Newsweek, Hartford Courant, PopMatters, and a peer-reviewed Wiley journal. Comparable new ventures—Harvard’s 2021 Galileo Project, assorted think tanks, and niche NGOs—have been kept on the strength of a handful of reliable articles in mainstream or specialist press; the Foundation’s two well-reported symposia, plus national and international reportage, clearly meet that same bar. To impose a higher standard merely because the topic involves UAPs would contradict WP:ORG’s call for uniform treatment across subject areas.
    Wikipedia also favors improvement over excision. During the AfD one editor added additional mainstream and academic citations, after which the article unambiguously satisfied WP:GNG; policy dictates that once independent coverage is shown, remaining disputes—e.g., over one Debrief citation—are resolved by normal editing, not deletion. Finally, WP:V reminds us that inclusion rests on what reliable sources publish, irrespective of whether the work is speculative or controversial. The encyclopedia already hosts entries on paranormal institutes, alternative-medicine centers, and To The Stars Academy precisely because significant independent coverage exists. The Sol Foundation now enjoys a comparable evidentiary record; deleting it would depart from established precedent and apply an inconsistent, topic-specific gate that policy expressly rejects.
    Strong keep. The Sol Foundation unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG: mainstream and academic outlets—Hartford Courant, Newsweek, PopMatters, Wiley’s International Social Science Journal, among others—provide non-trivial, independent, and reliable coverage. All statements in the article are verifiable (WP:V) from these high-quality sources (WP:RS), and the text is written in an even-handed, fact-based style that satisfies WP:NPOV.
    Objections centered on alleged source weakness or routine mention collapse once the full reference set is examined; a handful of marginal citations cannot override the weight of substantial reporting. Policy favors improvement over deletion, and the article has already been fortified with additional reliable citations during the AfD. Removing it would excise well-sourced information and create a gap in Wikipedia’s treatment of contemporary UAP research, contrary to the project’s mandate to document notable topics neutrally and comprehensively. TruthBeGood (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [34], etc.) and on X (e.g. [35], [36], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
    May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.
    Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Among the newly added sources like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, etc., which do you think are the best examples that prove SIGCOV here? Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
I've assembled this here for users to review. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments made by LWG and 5Q5. The article's improved substantially since nomination and good RSes have been identified. An an aside, remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs. National Catholic Reporter and The Debrief aren't RSes for the existence of God or UFOs, but they're fine to verify specific groups of notable people have joined together to promote a shared belief. Noting that someone believes in Sasquatch isn't actually a argument for deletion: Ghosts, Ghost rockets, and the Holy Ghost are all 100% encyclopedic topics. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
"remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs" I'm not familiar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Well it was just an aside. GNG is met per LWG and 5Q5. More abstract discussion is for some other page.Feoffer (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The sorted list in Talk:The Sol Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV captures enough of the primary criteria in WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria to justify keeping the article. WP:HEY and WP:ATD also appear to have helped the quality of the article improve in the past week. Tschieggm (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)— Tschieggm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. The article passes WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:N, and WP:SIGCOV. This has been evidenced by the above posts of Very Polite Person, Feoffer, and LWG. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Source Evaluation. The article has changed considerably since the nomination with the carpet bombing of a dozen new sources into it. As nominator, I'm obligated to evaluate them to determine if the nomination should now be withdrawn. Based on my evaluation (below), I affirm the this article fails WP:ORGCRITE. We would need at least three sources that are across-the-board green (reliable, independent, and significant in coverage) as per WP:SIRS. As per SIRS, several sources that meet 2 of 3 criteria don't add together to create a single quality source. After one year of efforts, we still can only scrape together one.
Source WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS WP:SIGCOV Notes
The Central Minnesota Catholic Yes Maybe No One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation
Marin Independent Journal Yes Yes No Article is about organization's founder Garry Nolan; contains one sentence mention of Sol Foundation
Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" conference website No Maybe Maybe Two sentence mention of the Sol Foundation in the speaker bio for Garry Nolan at a conference at which he was speaking
Newsweek Yes No No Consensus-determined unreliable source per WP:NEWSWEEK
International Social Science Journal Yes Yes No One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation in this 33-page article
popmatters.com Yes No Yes WP:USERGENERATED entertainment website
. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
Society of Catholic Scientists Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
la Repubblica Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
Focus Magazine Yes Yes Yes Report on the club's conference
Niconico Unknown No Unknown WP:USERGENERATED video sharing site a la YouTube
La Razón Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
arXiv Unknown No Unknown Community-determined unreliable per WP:ARXIV (preprint hosting service)
The Debrief Yes No Yes The Debrief is the new website landing page for the podcast of ghosts/cryptozoology/ESP/flying saucer blogger Micah Hanks. While presented with an attractive new skin and under the headline "science and tech", it's the same pseudoscientific entertainment fanzine. Recent podcast episodes have uncritically discussed remote viewing [37], Atlantis / Lemuria [38], Thunderbirds [39], "The Deep State" [40], and Ancient Aliens-style cruft [41].
Sunday World Yes No No The Sunday World is a tabloid news outlet a la WP:DAILYEXPRESS and regularly peddles a variety of 'weird news' type articles. There's just a one sentence mention, in any case.
Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
In your source evaluation, you left out Aleteia (2 mentions), Hartford Courant (3 mentions), The_Byte (3 mentions). WP:NEWSWEEK says: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." WP:ARXIV says: "generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts." The arXiv paper was written by subject matter expert Matthew Szydagis, a university physics professor who is also a member of UAP orgs. This is a lot of media coverage for a foundation less than two years old. Even if the article were to be deleted, it will surely be republished. Just tag it at top with {{more citations needed}}. 5Q5|✉ 12:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [42] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
On this narrow point, I gotta side with Chetsford. If we let everyone with a Phd and ARXIV qualify as a SME expert, we'd be lost. It's not "scientifically important", that's a red herring. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
As mentioned above, The Debrief is reliable in the very limited context of profiling a like-minded organization. No one questions that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
No one questions that the group exists. Indeed, no one does. But see WP:BUTITEXISTS. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll reword. Not to put too fine a point on it: no one questions The Debrief's reporting that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Existence ≠ Notability Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
No one here has suggested otherwise. At issue is whether Debrief functions as an RS in the very limited context of profiling an association of notable people with admittedly fringe beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [43]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I get it, it's a complex source, but look just at the matter at hand. Is there any reason their 'reporting' is mistaken or erroneous about who is in the organization and what they've said in the direct quotes? Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Unknown. We can't undertake the WP:OR needed to analyze the veracity of specific claims. The only thing we can say for certain is it doesn't meet our standards of reliability. Chetsford (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
NOTE: User's assessment of Popmatters is factually completely wrong; it's like saying the "New Yorker" is USERGENERATED because they take open submissions. They clearly have editorial control as seen here. From our own sourced article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters#Staff:
PopMatters publishes content from worldwide contributors. Its staff includes writers from backgrounds ranging from academics and professional journalists to career professionals and first time writers. Many of its writers are published authorities in various fields of study.[2][7] Notable former contributors include David Weigel, political reporter for Slate,[8] Steven Hyden, staff writer for Grantland and author of Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?,[9] and Rob Horning, executive editor of The New Inquiry.[10] Karen Zarker is the senior editor.
As I said above, assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles in direct opposition to sourcing guidelines. DO NOT take either of us at our word. Take the articles and facts at their word, and remember we are compelled to live and die by Wikipedia rules alone here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I'll be adding them later:
Please evaluate these too and attempt to be accurate. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
This is not tenable. It's the third time you've apparently Google searched "Sol Foundation" and blasted every responsive link into this thread as purported proof of SIGCOV then demanded we prove each one isn't. The San Francisco Standard is addressed in the OP. Word on Fire Catholic Ministries is obviously not RS. Your approach is not conducive to a coherent discussion.
"assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles" This is the third time you've pivoted from discussion into attacking the motivations of individual editors. I would again strongly encourage you to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I'm not personally offended by your ongoing aspersions, they're just derailing to the AfD. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Word on Fire is patently WP:RS to discuss a topic of 'Would Extraterrestrial Intelligence Disprove Christianity?'. Again, as I demonstrated to all above with the La Razon example that you utterly mischaracterized--and that finding is incontrovertible--you're doing something here that is problematic. The article passes notability for the small scale of the article that we have. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, as you seem to be tilting at increasingly tall windmills. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Note to AfD closer: nominator has NOT rebutted my revealing they misrepresented Popmatters in their table, because that alone with the rest pushes this into basic trivial Notability compliance. That's why it's such a problem to them getting a successful deletion here; at that point the article subject will always be notable going forward. Diff here; there is no possible policy-based counter-argument to diminuize the Popmatters piece or present the site as not fine for WP:RS. This alone resolves the AFD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
You have, thus far in this discussion, scattered more than two dozen different sources into the wind including unambiguously non-RS ones like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, and a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers. It's easier for you to take a pass through Google Search and shotgun any URL you find into the discussion than it is for me to offer rebuttal after surrebuttal for why each of these random links don't pass any realistic threshold of sourcing. So, if I stop responding to any particular item, assume it's for no other reason than I simply can't keep up. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for compiling this table. I'm not sure I agree that a source is unreliable for information about the existence and nature of a pseudoscientific UAP organization simply because the source also publishes similar pseudoscience. If anything it would be reason to scrutinize whether the source is truly WP:INDEPENDENT. But I haven't seen any reason to think that The Debrief is unreliable on the question of whether The Sol Foundation exists and is notable in the realm of UAP-related orgs. Also, as 5Q5 pointed out, you seem to have omitted the Hartford Courant and Aleteia citations, both of which seem to pass all three criteria. By my count the Focus, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIRS, and the citations to The Debrief, arXiv, and the organization's own website pass the lower bar of being appropriate for inclusion, if not necessarily for establishing notability. The reason my keep vote is weak is that all the significant coverage about this org seems to relate to a single symposium they hosted in 2023, while the repetition of that event in 2024 doesn't seem to have gotten much if any coverage. There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct". But I'm not there yet. -- LWG talk 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
"There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct"" WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Either it's notable or it isn't. It's not going to become non-notable in two years. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
That's fair, but my weak keep vote isn't because I think it's notability might change, it's because I think it's notability is borderline and further information might convince me that it never was notable. -- LWG talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment even though I voted keep, the article was a mess. I took a buzz saw to it to clear out the distracting material that will have to go anyway if this closes with keep. -- LWG talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Just notification on a relevant matter: Chetsford put in an RfC on the reliability of The Debrief. In the Discussion, they say: "A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS." I would imagine the referenced AfD is this one, (Personal attack removed). Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ben.Gowar: How many times do you have to be warned not to cast aspersions? I am sick and tired of your underhand, snide and generally all-round bad faith questioning of Chetsford's motives. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I get the sense that my talk page is a better place for those descriptors. In the case of this AfD, I'm mostly trying to keep interested parties informed of consequential RfCs. Especially if the AfD "turns" on it. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
No, you are persistently failing to assume good faith, peristently castining aspersions and then persistently sealioning when called on it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [44] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Either this AfD is "presently turning on whether or not this is RS," or it is not. You have stated that it is. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Because it obviously is; read the above comments -- its name has been invoked 21 times. But that's an entirely separate matter from the RSN listing. Once again, the RSN discussion will run 30 days. This AfD will close somewhere in the next 5-14 days. Nothing that happens at RSN will have any impact here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem convinced there are these far-reaching plots converging on certain subject matter. I'm at a loss as to what I can do to convince you that's not the case. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
In both cases (AfD and the RfC), the reliability of The Debrief is in question. Interested editors should know. As far as the RSN discussion having no "impact here," that seems improbable given that AfD readers interested in the reliability of The Debrief may indeed look at the RfC (regardless of whether the discussion has run 30 days or not). I suppose there's the possibility of no immediate impact, if no one looks or no one references it (but the transparent nature of Wikipedia seems to render that improbable).
In any case, if the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, then the RfC will probably have an impact on the article later (especially if The Debrief citation remains). So, editors interested in this article should know. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cakelot1's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I hadn't intended to study this article, but all the vituperative, handwaving ad hominem shouting by Keep enthusiasts convinced me that I should. Having done so, I am satisfied that there are no serious reasons for keeping it, and that Chetsford is correct. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep Pretty much agree with what LWG, 5Q5, and Feoffer have said. The article's definitely gotten better since it was nominated (WP:HEY), and sources like Focus Magazine, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia look like they give us enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS for WP:NORG. Notability might be on the edge, but it seems good enough for now, and anything else that needs fixing looks WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some regular editing. Deleting it now feels a bit much with the sourcing we've got and the chance to improve it more. Omegamilky (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Of the sources that I find reliable and more coverage than one sentence (Hartford Courant, Aleteia, Focus), the first covers the founding; the second and third cover the organization's conferences in 2023 and 2024, and give a short mention of the organization. This feels WP:TOOSOON for an article, where the subject has not reached the threshold of notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    I'm very sympathetic to this argument, we don't need to be covering every RECENT update about the UFO world. But where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together? That's the primary information I'd want readers to be able to reference: who is in which UFO "Supergroup". I know I certainly can't keep it straight without a reference. Feoffer (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    Is it Wikipedia's job to track membership in different UFO organizations? How does this work with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:NOTDATABASE)? For reference, I don't think Wikipedia tracks membership on boards of different corporations and nonprofits, even if that information could be interesting. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
    If the members weren't notable and their association not covered in RSes, it'd be an easy delete. But it's a group of eight notable individuals who have biographical articles and RSes do report on the collaboration between them. Feoffer (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Austral Launch Vehicle

Austral Launch Vehicle (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)

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk)
WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [45], [46], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. A merge into Australian Space Agency would retain this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. As AnonymousScholar49 notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.
I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review

AfD: Academics

Academics and educators

Stephen Cole (headmaster)

Stephen Cole (headmaster) (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 carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a headteacher, and added one reference, but not to an independent source. I cannot find significant coverage to add, and do not think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2015. Tacyarg (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree that Stephen Cole does not appear to meet GNG or ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. The best in-depth, independent source is the local news article about his retirement. Beyond that, mentions are trivial or not independent. Seems like a well-liked local figure, but ultimately that does not mean he is notable enough for a page here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Marcus O. Shivers

Marcus O. Shivers (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 president of the American Thyroid Association for 1 year (standard term) but I can't find any policy or discussion suggesting this would confer notability viaWP:NPROF. There doesn't seem to be much out there besides mentions confirming that he gave a presentation or went to a conference, and I can't find anything about notable publications / major contributions to the field / prestigious associations or the like. I don't think he meets WP:ANYBIO either - very sparse independent sourcing and he has no entry on the US national biographical directory. Zzz plant (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Niels ten Oever

Niels ten Oever (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 think subject passes WP:NPROF - he is asst. prof, h-index of 12 and no named chair or prestigious professional memberships I can locate. Although he is briefly quoted in a few news articles due to his association with digital rights group Article 19, I don't see anything that would qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO. He co-authored a book w/ over a dozen other people but I can only find one possibly independent review in a reliable source. WP:BEFORE was done in google news/books/scholar, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and PressReader (looking for Dutch and English sources). I don't see a clear merge/redirect target, and ultimately I think this might be WP:TOOSOON - as subject is still in relatively early days of his career (first publication was in 2017). Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Internet, and Netherlands. Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed on WP:NPROF. But this might qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO ? The work he has done with Mallory Knodel on oppressive language in the IETF got coverage in the New York Times [1], and the work he has done internet sanctions got covered in different places [2][3]. He also gets more widely cited about internet infrastructure governance issues, most notably outages in Wired [4] and The Face [5], on internet history and Web3 in the New Scientist [6], and on history of e-mail in Vox [7]. Seems to have more coverage in Dutch media. Detlevore (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Conger, Kate (2021-04-13). "'Master,' 'Slave' and the Fight Over Offensive Terms in Computing". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
  2. ^ Comment, Sebastian Moss (2022-03-03). "Ukraine invasion brings Internet governance neutrality question into focus". www.datacenterdynamics.com. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
  3. ^ "Ukraine invasion: We should consider internet sanctions, says ICANN ex-CEO". Archived from the original on 2025-02-07. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
  4. ^ Stokel-Walker, Chris. "What really went down when the internet went down". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
  5. ^ "Who owns the internet?". The Face. 2021-06-11. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
  6. ^ #author.fullName}. "What is Web3 and how will it change the way we use the internet?". New Scientist. Retrieved 2025-05-09. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  7. ^ Morrison, Sara (2021-09-06). "How a simple email address makes things complicated". Vox. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
    • Reply from nom - my rationale was that in most of the coverage linked above he is just quoted (i.e. if you ctrl+f his (first/sur)name you find basically 1-2 results). As it doesn't really go in-depth about him specifically, I didn't consider it sigcov. It's very impressive to have your work mentioned in prestigious publications so early in career, I'm just not sure it confers notability. Zzz plant (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. No pass of WP:Prof Assistant professors are almost never notable for WP:Prof and this is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC).
  • Delete - It's too soon for this emerging academic. The low h-index score indicates that they are not notable per WP criteria WP:PROF nor do they meet WP:GNG at this time. Perhaps in a few years after there is more attention to his work and research. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks - that makes sense! Detlevore (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see how he would be notable at present. gidonb (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Monserrate Román

Monserrate Román (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)

Retired mid-level program manager at NASA. Just as a university Dean is not automatically notable, I don't see how her prior position by itself passes notability. Google Scholar (MC Roman) yields only 1-3 cites for her publications, so she does not pass WP:NPROF#C1. All awards are internal, so I don't see them as proof. No WP:SIGCOV, just a few routine mentions. Page was a long unsourced essay, and current version (trimmed by nom) has little that is notable. While I am sure she played a role in developing the space station, I don't see enough. (I am willing to be proved wrong.) Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep She is notable. She helped ensure safe recycling of air and water in space. She later led NASA's Centennial Challenges Program. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Albert Piette

Albert Piette (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 page is pretty much a list of the man's works with no other analysis of the subject matter. There's no section on his personal life, views, etc. Would be OK revoking this RFD if these concerns were addressed but with the article as is, I don't know if this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Religion. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to easily pass WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I disagree with the idea that "analysis of the subject matter" requires us to have sections on his personal life or views. For an article about an influential academic/author, a list of notable works and an explanation of their contribution to their field of scholarship is exactly what an article should contain. In terms of notability, I found at least two journal articles directly addressing his body of work: Albert Piette and lived (non-)religion: Conceptual and methodological considerations and The Minor Mode: Albert Piette and the Reshaping of Anthropology. I expect that there is much more to be found in French. An extremely cursory search also turned up a large number of reviews of his books [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54], giving him a pass of NAUTHOR criteria 3. MCE89 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    Understood. But that begs the question, why were those sources not added in the first place? Surely the person who created the article should have done their research and added them if they're as reliable as you say they are. Or perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 14:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    I mean, the article was created in 2009. The standards for article quality and for notability were very different back then, and none of the sources I linked above had even been written yet at that point. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you say "perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there". Are you suggesting that I'm somehow misrepresenting the sources? MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    No I am not. And the sources not existing at the time is a good reason for them not to have been cited in the article, thanks for bringing that up! Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Book reviews in the comment above are enough to pass AUTHOR and likely scholarly/academic notability. This person is indexed in 8 national libraries, also hinting at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep and to the nom, WP:SOFIXIT (or at least conduct a good WP:BEFORE) prior to attempting to delete an article that clearly plausibly asserts notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Notability as an academic is low, h-index is low [55]. Number of books doesn't qualify for being a monumental amount of work. Not widely cited by peers. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr.

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr. (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)

Have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and unable to find any real evidence of notability. Almost exclusively WP:SPS or unreliable. The only source worth anything is Flynn (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief), but it's a very brief mention (about 40 words). Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Kat Milligan-McClellan

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

Assistant professor (microbiology) with an h-factor of 10 (GScholar), 930 total citations and no awards. She has made a good start, but she is 5-10 years from reaching any of the criteria for academics. WP:TOOSOON by a long way. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Musfiq Mannan Choudhury

Musfiq Mannan Choudhury (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)

Mostly passing mentions in sources and he isn't a highly-cited researcher ([56]). It does note he is a vice-chancellor of a university, but this institution doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or reputable (although perhaps someone who knows more about the regulation of higher ed. in Bangladesh can correct me) Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Mehzeb Chowdhury

Mehzeb Chowdhury (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)

Other than the sheer obnoxiousness of this article (which is just one long advert about why the subject is the most awesome and interesting man in the world), I'm not totally convinced it meets the notability criteria. Reasons below:

  • Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
  • A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
  • The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [57]
  • As a researcher he has a low h-index [58]
  • An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do agree it needs some touch, and I'm willing to do them once able, but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
    Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
    There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article has enough RS about the subject (Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost, The Times) to pass WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment There are more features that are not cited in the article as well, such as this from Ice Today. There's coverage in Bengali too, with TV appearances, features in reputed mags such as The Diplomat and Newsweek where he is introduced as an expert. Overall, why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage throughout the years from big pubs. X (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Xoak is right. Somajyoti ✉ 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Jaafar Jotheri

Jaafar Jotheri (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 looks like a case of TOO SOON to me. Contrary to the article, he is now a full professor, but doesn't hold a distinguished chair and h-factor looks too low right now. Also an absence of any major awards.

He was awarded a 'Mesopotamian Fellowship' by the American Society of Overseas Research, which may be an encouraging sign of future notability potential, but at this moment I'm not convinced he meets the threshold. Leonstojka (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

delete I agree, this is WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF and doesnt pass #1 or any of the other criteria. 500 citations in total, h-index of 11 is a long way from notability. --hroest 18:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Atzori

Daniel Atzori (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)

Former scholar (he appears to now be working in private sector) with low research impact. Has never held a senior academic post, and his books were not widely reviewed either.

The article was created in 2010, before the subject had even earned his PhD, and was presumably made in order to promote his first book. Leonstojka (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR, I could only find 5 entries in JSTOR and no review of his book at all. I found no indication of notability. --hroest 15:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

James A. D. W. Anderson

AfDs for this article:
James A. D. W. Anderson (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)

Mathematical crackpot with no meaningful impact on the field per WP:ACADEMIC, and no coverage in popular press since initial 2006 spotlight. Academic discourse on "transreal arithmetic" is mostly WP:SELFPUB, barring a couple of papers published in non-mathematical journals. Fishsicles (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Yes, he does appear to be a crackpot. That might not be sufficient reason for deletion if he had a significant influence on mathematics, but as far as I can see he doesn't. Athel cb (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Compared to other fields, mathematics is much more tolerant of what would normally be labelled "crackpots" - rejecting an established axiom or theory usually means building a contrasting theory, which can be mathematically interesting in its own right. (WP:CRACKPOT's term for this would be "alternative theoretical formulation".) That said, "transreal arithmetic" has absolutely not developed into a theory of any interest to mathematicians, which means I'm more than comfortable applying the label.
I think a particularly useful point of contrast is inter-universal Teichmüller theory, which also makes dramatic claims that are (in the opinion of many number theorists) not properly substantiated, but remains of significant academic interest for its potential applications. "Transreal arithmetic" has attracted no such attention, and the only one to claim applications is Anderson himself. Fishsicles (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worth a page and it is more about Transreal arithmetic than anything else. It is a transreal page, in a sense. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment: My concern is more basic than the issues raised above: there are whole paragraphs in a BLP that are unsourced. I'd be willing to cut down the article to a stub, but that would disrupt the discussion. Not sure how to proceed. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hazel Assender

Hazel Assender (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 has no proven notability outside of bios JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. hroest 04:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak keep tenured professor at Oxford, with an h-index of 30 and 6 publications with 100+ citations, she is close to the bar for WP:NPROF#1 and with some good will passes that bar. --hroest 04:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak delete per hroest's evidence that she's close to the bar, and the article makes zero claims of notability but instead sounds like trying to pump up the standard sorts of things every prof everywhere does. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep. I feel like she does meet WP:GNG. I won't say that this article is firmly in notable territory, but I wouldn't say this fails GNG either. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:Prof. Is the nominator aware of this SNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC).
  • Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. I think someone at this level in the US would very likely be an ASME Fellow and also pass #C3 but I don't see anything like that for her. On the other hand, full professor in England and in particular at Oxford is somewhat stricter than at US universities, maybe not enough for #C5 but a step towards it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. My first thought was that weak keep was the right choice, but her publication record is reasonable, and, perhaps more important, her publications are well cited, with many cited more than 50 times, several more than 100, and at least two more than 300. Athel cb (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Per the other keep voters I agree that the article has questions when it comes to how necessary the article is but the sources provided does have the article pass gng Scooby453w (talk)
  • Keep, not only well-cited, but a full professorship in Oxford definitely meets #C5 (older UK universities have few explicitly-named professorships, and we never call ourselves distinguished, it just feels wrong...). Elemimele (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell she's actually an Associate Professor holding the title of Full Professor under the Recognition of Distinction exercise. But I see she was also joint Head of Department [59] so this is at least a Weak Keep and possibly better. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. As others say above, an h-factor of 30 is not high. This is definitely the case in Material Science where I look for > 45. As mentioned above Full Professor at Oxford is no longer notable by itself, it used to be; they were good with fund raising, but that is off topic. At Oxford it is the same as a US Full Professor and definitely does not meet #C5. If she had a senior named chair such as the Wolfson Chair that would pass #C5. I also disagree with the statement about ASME Fellow. (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Meets the notability requirements for academia. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
? What does this vote mean? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC).

Robert Lufkin

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

Does not appear to meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep WP:HEY the article just got accepted from afc a week and a half ago Scooby453w (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

AFC is not a notability guarantee. It means the accepter thinks the article has a 50% chance. Also that isn't what WP:HEY is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Scooby453w, please explain how this would meet the Heyman Standard if there have not been any improvements to the article since it was nominated for deletion? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep where was the WP:BEFORE ? he is a full prof at a R1 University, he has a substantial number of high impact publications with 100+ citations (I count 21) which is usually passing the bar for a research-only professor, even more so for a physician-scientist. On top he has invented a useful tool (the needle). --hroest 01:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    They're all multi-author publications, no? And WP:NACADEMIC says distinguished professor, not every professor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    he passes WP:NPROF#1 without much question, most contemporary research is multi-author and this is not exception. A subject only has to pass one of the 8 criteria, not all of them (are you referring to NPROF#5 with your comment?). --hroest 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    Criteria 1 says As demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Can you point to any? (and yes). PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    @PARAKANYAA: I have no particular opinion on Lufkin, but in the case of academics, publications in peer-reviewed journals are in themselves regarded as independent reliable sources because the peer reviewers are independent of the author. The citation count is an indicator that the research has made significant impact. Almost all scientific papers are multi-author, and Lufkin's place as last author on some of these indicates that he was the senior academic running the project (except in those disciplines that use alphabetical order, first and last authors are the priority spots, corresponding to the one who did the work, and the one who conceived, planned and scientifically-directed the work). Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Leaning weak keep It does seem to be over the line of notability on the strength of his book e.g. [60], plus this [61], would seem to be >1 event, a pass on GNG even without considering in-depth the academic publications such as [62] and whether his standing is significant in his field. Assuming he is RB Lufkin, he has quite a lot of Google Scholar hits.Andre🚐 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think we can include the information in the second source because he is a BLP. The first one is an interview. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    He would be a PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of his notability if we are saying he is a notable public intellectual and for purposes of his career. I agree the first one is an interview slash promotion for his book, but it's good enough for me when taken as a whole with everything else. There is an essay WP:INTERVIEW and I agree this one is a little on the fluffy side, but he has a bestselling book. I also did find at least one mention of the "Lufkin needle" he is credited with inventing. [63] Andre🚐 03:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, California, Rhode Island, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Week keep : Some sources are reliable tho this article needs some clean up, improvement should be done Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has been improved and he’s notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Waleed A. Alrodhan

Waleed A. Alrodhan (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 which has had several problems including prior COI/UPE editor, and a PROD supported by two editors. Prior promo has been removed, with the argument "as the person is not significantly less notable compared to other Saudi academics whose pages exist without question". That is not a valid criterion. Page fails WP:NPROF with an h-factor of 7, plus nothing to prove WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Paul H Elovitz

Paul H Elovitz (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 or WP:GNG. An article referenced entirely by Elovitz's own publications. Did reach associate professor level at Temple University; a long publication history, but Scopus shows limited impact (H-index=3), although that seems to be missing his pre-1996 work. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  • comment I could only find 2 academic reviews of a book that he co-edited: [65] [66] which is not enough for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. However, he was the founder and editor in chief of Clio's Psyche which could contribute to WP:NPROF#8 but I dont know how "well established" that journal is. --hroest 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
That journal is open access and publishes three to four issues per year; it's not listed by Journal Citation Reports so doesn't have an impact factor - that doesn't count as a well-established journal in my view. Klbrain (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Joel Lobenthal

Joel Lobenthal (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 art historian/author. WP:ROTM 'cultural' critic. No RS establish notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Clifford R. Kettemborough

Clifford R. Kettemborough (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 looks like the sources are WP:PRIMARY or passing mentions. WP:Whoswho isn't reliable and doesn't count towards notability. It doesn't seem like this page meets any of the WP:NPROF. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nom. Also h-index and i10-index extremely low. Some listed sources only mention him or are unreliable. Published papers were he's cited are not RS. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Evidence of non-notability: zero Scholar hits and only one Book hit, compared to 8 book hits for me, not including 2 book reviews, and I'm not a notable scholar (yet). Bearian (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - like the above users, I see no evidence of research impact or prominence in general. Leonstojka (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Benedetta Bonichi

Benedetta Bonichi (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 artist does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST, as a teacher they do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The sources consist of blogs (Weird Fiction, and Trend Hunter), press releases or primary sources with a simple name check. None of these are reliable sources that provide significant coverage. An online BEFORE did not find anything of value, just social media posts and eBay. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

delete I dont see any indication of notability, the claim that her work is in multiple permanent exhibitions is not supported by the source attached. If it were, this would change the picture. --hroest 13:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's one good source, about a 2006 exhibition, but it's a primary source, and does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Marsha Moses

AfDs for this article:
Marsha Moses (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 of this article has requested deletion as was suggested at the previous AfD. Those editors with VRT access can reference ticket:2025041610018915. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Biology, and Medicine. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • comment I see two articles with 1000+ citations and dozens of articles with 100+ citations which means she passes WP:NPROF#1. Secondly she holds a named chair at Harvard University which is another indication of notability per NPROF#5 and she has multiple elected fellowships (NPROF#3). Furthermore she received a prestigious award which would be relevant under NPROF#2. According to our standards, I would argue she is highly notable (although not a public persona) but not at all a case that is somewhere in the gray area. --hroest 15:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - Both the subject and the creator of the article have requested deletion. According to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE: Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests.. Note it doesn't say GNG or NPROF. The subject may be a clear pass of NPROF, but GNG is less clear. I don't know why deletion was requested (multiple times now), but I also don't see a problem with honoring it in this case. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I am in agreement here with Rhododendrites. We don't know why this person has requested deletion, and they are not obligated to tell us about any conflicting personal or professional issues are behind the request. Could be very private personal issues behind this request. Could be nothing, or could be reaction to the article is taking up a lot of their time. They don't owe us an explanation. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • comment we are here to provide information about publicly-relevant people, for the benefit of our readers, not for the subjects of our article. Just as we don't allow vanity-publishing of those who'd like more publicity than they get, we have to be careful of modesty-deletion of those who shun publicity but about whom the public still have legitimate interest. We also need to be cautious of the occasional "my way or no way" deletion request from someone who wants an article written on their own terms, and those shunning publicity because there's some scandal looming (I'm not implying that either of these is the case here). My interpretation of request-delete is that the subject's wishes tip the balance if the balance is delicate. In this case she looks like a pretty solid pass, not a delicate balance. Do we actually know why she wishes to have the article deleted? I'm not sure AfD works for cases like this: you can't ask the jury to decide something, but tell them they're not allowed to see the evidence or know why they're being asked. Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you @Elemimele, you just saved me having to say pretty much exactly the same. :)
    I'd also add that given how self-evidently notable this person is, even if we delete this version, what's to stop someone next month recreating it? Or are we meant to salt the title (and if so, on what grounds?), or to go through AfD Groundhog Day on this subject ad infinitum? Then again, given that this is already the 2nd deletion-request-AfD, even if we don't delete this time, we may be stuck with AfD Groundhog Day... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Moses seems happy to maintain a public profile on sites like the American Academy of Arts and Sciences [67] so there can be little question of privacy here, only of control. I think that's not an adequate reason for deletion for someone so prominent. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    • To put it another way: if the President of Harvard University asked us to delete their article, should we agree? The president of the US? We have none of the factors that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says we should take into consideration: problematic editing, real-world harm identified by the subject, nor a subject that is only minimally notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
      The subject is not the President of Harvard University, and the article had numerous inaccuracies at the time of the VRT request. Biographies of actual public figures receive a lot more attention from editors than those that cover relatively unknown people, such as this one. Having a Wikipedia biography is certainly a burden to many subjects that do not have marketing teams, assistants, or public relations professionals at their disposal. This is the reason that the page you reference only invites us to consider the general notability guideline, per Rhododendrites, which is a better measure of a subject's exposure to public life than NPROF. Finally, minimal notability is one of the additional factors that we are invited to consider, and this is obviously the case when apply GNG. Nothing of serious value is being lost here. Let's have some compassion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
      We have here a fellow of major societies (especially the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) for whom we should aim for biographies of all members. Deleting this article would leave a permanent hole in our coverage. And it's difficult to have compassion for a bare request to delete when there is no information given on the cause for requesting deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Still as notable as they were last time at AfD, and there's several notable positions and fellowships listed. I suspect this is about not being able to control the information in the article, as being the reason for wanting it deleted. This person is a rather public figure with several profiles on public websites, the right to privacy seems to have been waived in this case. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: and deleting this would only contribute to gender bias, which is a real issue on Wikipedia. We should be advocating for articles about notable females in STEM fields. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: inherently a professor is a public figure to a degree, usually part of their job is to lecture in front of students and colleagues at conferences as well as be available for journalist/government inquiries. This is doubly true at major R1 research universities. It is unreasonable to have an expectation of total privacy where their name is not mentioned anywhere in the press or on the internet. The potential for inaccuracies in the article is not a reason to delete, we can correct or remove inaccurate statements. --hroest 12:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although a clear pass of WP:Prof, delete at subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC).

Del Thiessen

Del Thiessen (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. While the page has significant structural problems, a Fellow of American Psychological Association (see the orbit at the journal of the International Society for Comparative Psychology) passes WP:NPROF#C3 independent of whether his citations also pass C1 (Scopus h-factor 28). This was previously noted when the nominator's PROD was contested. No justification provided by nominator with the PROD, and nothing here beyond the statement "Lack of notability".
Comment the GScholar topic of comparative psychology is not a high citation area, so an h-factor of 28 might pass C1.
  • Keep. Passes NPROF C3. nf utvol (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. He passes NPROF #1 and #3. --hroest 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Moein Jalali

Moein Jalali (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:ARCHITECT. Can't find any sources giving him significant coverage. The main claim I see is winning the 2A Continental Architectural Awards, though as far as I can tell, it was second place. Unfortunately I was unable search in Persian, so if sources are found, please ping me. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • delete the awards [68] may indicate notability since he / his team seems to have come in first but these awards only exist since 2016 so I doubt that they are relevant for WP:ARCHITECT. Also he is listed as one of multiple people on a design team for the award, so overall I dont think winning a non-notable award as part of a team can count towards notability. Also, the page reads like a CV and needs some WP:TNT. --hroest 13:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    Awards and recognition
    Moein Jalali has received individual recognition in international architecture awards:
    2A Continental Architectural Awards
    • 2016 - Won for Parsin Dental Clinic [1]
    • 2018 - Won for Palemos Villa 2[2]
    Organizer listings confirm these were individual awards, not team achievements. Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the 2A Asia Architectural Awards' significance:
The 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:
  1. ^ "Parsin Dental Clinic - 2016 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2016. Awarded to Moein Jalali for innovative dental space design {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)
  2. ^ "Palemos Villa 2 - 2018 Winner". 2A Magazine. 2018. Recognizing Jalali's residential design integrating traditional Persian elements {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)
[1]
Françoise Fromonot, Nasrin Seraji, Wolfgang Tschapeller, Murat Tabanlıoğlu, Hiromi Hosoya
Also the 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:[2]
Carme Pinós, Yoko Okuyama, Willy Müller, Ali Basbous.
Moein Jalali has been selected as a jury member for several prestigious international architecture awards, reflecting his standing in the architectural community:
Jury appointments
  • Inspireli Awards (2024) - Considered the world's largest student architecture competition[3]
  • FRAME Awards (June 2024) - International interior design awards[4]
Selection for such judging panels typically requires:[5]
  • Recognized professional achievements
  • Specialized expertise
  • International perspective
Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "A Report of 2A Asia Architecture Award 2016". 2A Magazine. 2016. Archived from the original on 2024-06-01.
  2. ^ "Overview of 2A Continental Architectural Awards 2018". 2A Magazine. 2018. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: flag (help)
  3. ^ "Inspireli Awards 2024 Jury Members". Inspireli Awards. 2024. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: save command (help)
  4. ^ "June's FRAME Awards Jury Is Here: Meet the 20 Design Professionals". FRAME Magazine. 2024-06-01.
  5. ^ Jean-Pierre Chupin (2020). The Culture of Architectural Competitions. Potential Architecture Books. ISBN 978-1-988923-15-7. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

Maksim Sonin

Maksim Sonin (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)

Promotional page for non-notable engineer. I couldn't find any WP:RSs in the references that meet WP:N; and couldn't find any in Google. Subject appears WP:ROTM. Page seems created by suspicious (possibly paid), sole-purpose unregistered account. Cabrils (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - page background is suspicious enough, fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. I found this through the academics deletion-sorting list but he also has no WP:PROF-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – From a detailed research I carried out, Dr. Maksim Sonin clearly satisfies the notability requirements under WP:NACADEMIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.
Under WP:NACADEMIC, Dr. Sonin is an elected Fellow (FEI) of the Energy Institute (UK)—a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society. This recognition is publicly listed on his official Stanford profile.
He is also a Sloan Fellow, and recipient of the 2024 High Flyers 50 Global Icon Award, a notable international honor—fulfilling another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC related to prestigious academic recognition.
A Google News search reveals significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable, non-promotional sources that demonstrate his real-world impact and scholarly influence. These include:
  1. IBM Think – Quoted on AI and nuclear energy
  2. USA Today – On disrupting industry status quos
  3. Power Magazine – On coal plant operations in relation to AI demand
  4. Business Insider Africa – Profiled for financial and career insight
  5. Engineer Live – Discussed Kazakhstan’s GSU project
These independent, reliable sources offer substantial, non-trivial coverage, fulfilling the criteria under WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.
Moreover, Dr. Sonin has held executive roles and served on the boards of UCC, Silleno, and KMG Petrochem, among other organizations focused on global energy and humanitarian concerns. He has also worked in consortium ventures with Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil, which is documented in several of the above sources.
All these facts are clearly featured in reliable third-party publications, not self-published or promotional content.
Therefore, Dr. Maksim Sonin meets the demands of WP:NACADEMIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG, and this article should be retained.Maltuguom (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nurida Kurbanova

Nurida Kurbanova (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)

Life description has no credible claims to notability. Yousiphh (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Scott A. Hoffinger

Scott A. Hoffinger (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 reach WP:NACADEMIC (no chair; insufficient reasearch contribution, with H-index of 11), nor WP:GNG - the 2009 reality series appearance seems fleeting (no sustained coverage). Klbrain (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Klbrain/others:
Strongly, strongly disagree this article should be deleted. Based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (WP:PROF and WP:GNG), Hoffinger clearly meets the standards due to his significant and documented contributions to orthopedic medicine, particularly pediatric orthopedics, leg length inequality and other procedures, and his documented, extensive aid work in the middle east.
First, Hoffinger has significantly advanced orthopedic techniques, specifically developing magnet-powered telescoping internal rods for limb-lengthening. This method reduces complications seen with older external fixation methods and has been covered independently, including by the Stanford Medicine News Center. This clearly satisfies WP:PROF criterion 1 "significant scholarly impact". (There are many sources/ DOIs I can cite. See one here: https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/abstract/2000/07000/intramedullary_nailing_of_femoral_shaft_fractures.16.aspx)
Next, he has held key positions at respected institutions, including Stanford Children's Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and OrthoPediatrics. He also served as Director of Pediatric Orthopedics at Children’s Hospital Oakland. Additionally, he served as the Medical Staff President at Children's Hospital Oakland in 2006, effectively an academic chair position, directly addressing the criterion cited by Klbrain. These positions reflect substantial professional recognition and meet WP:PROF criterion 6 "holding distinguished positions".
Lastly, Hoffinger has participated actively in international medical outreach, notably being featured twice on television, including a documented medical mission to Iraq featured on "Little People, Big World." Such appearances indicate ongoing relevance and satisfy the WP:GNG criterion for media coverage. It wasn't a "fleeting" reality series appearance. He appeared three times, and went to the middle east with the Matt Roloff twice.
As an ancilary note, I feel that focusing solely on an H-index of 11 fails to appreciate the practical medical innovations he introduced, which have received recognition beyond citation counts. His research contributions are substantial, and many of his peer-reviewed articles can be found here: PubMed and Google scholar
Look- I understand that people make articles all the time here that aren't up to the Wiki standards. I genuinely feel this article should not be deleted. Happy to work closely with klbrain or others to edit it up to that standard, but no one can say this guy isn't notable. Hoffy600 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable doctor. Military news story [69] and a press release [70] are about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are clear indications that he is a good medical doctor, and has had useful administrative roles. However, those do not qualify him for a Wikipedia page, for that he needs large-scale national or internation recognition and/or positions or awards. Counting by hand his citations I get an h-factor of 12 which does not qualify for WP:NPROF. Almost all the various pages cited are all mini-CV of him at medical sites, not general pages of independent coverage. Sorry, but he falls far short of what we look for. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak delete GS finds 3 studies with 100+ citations which is not extraordinary in biomedicine especially over the course of 20+ years and does not rise to the bar of WP:NPROF. I agree that GS cannot capture the complexity of academic research and it is only a proxy we use, if there are other reputable sources that attest to his impact in the field (Festschrift or similar) we can take that into account. I dont see NPROF#6 as this usually relates to the president/dean of a whole major University, not a single department as in this case. --hroest 13:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    Don't Delete
    Hi everyone: Some thoughts to counter what you've put here (more succinct this time, ha ha):
    Klbrain:
    No named chair, but served as Director of Orthopedics, Stanford Clinical Professor, and president of a national society—roles that meet the intent of WP:NPROF #6. I quote the standard as follows: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Children's Hospital Oakland is associated with UCSF Benioff, and therefore constitutes a highest level role when he was medical staff president.
    He also is a member of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, a selective group. I quote the WP:ACADEMICS standard #3 "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." AAOS qualifies as such.
    TV appearances were neither trivial nor fleeting—Hoffinger was a recurring expert and on-screen surgeon. By your logic, we'd have to remove Matt Roloff's page too.
    Ldm1954:
    Independent coverage exists in multiple forms: academic news (Stanford Medicine News), the DVIDs article you mentioned, trade media Becker's, and television (TLC). This is "independent coverage."
    Serving as AACPDM president is national academic leadership. Combined with multiple other media appearances, this satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I quote the GNG standard as follows: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected".
    Hroest:
    Citation counts, while not astronomical, are strong for pediatric surgery. The medical field isn't uniform, and pediatric orthopedics is a field where citation count isn't valued as highly as other specialties. Three studies exceed 100 citations, which is significant in this field.
    Society presidency and division leadership clearly qualify under WP:NPROF #6 as "top-tier" positions within a respected academic medical society and major hospital system. Hoffy600 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    Comment the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has 39k members drawn from just within orthopedic surgery. That's not highly selective. WP:NPROF #6 is for something like the National Academy of Medicine, which has fewer than 3k members despite drawing from all medical specialties and 10% foreign members. Jahaza (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ldm1954's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Madhav Bhattarai

Madhav Bhattarai (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)

Unexpanded after a decade and a half, likely due to lack of reliable sources. I have found nothing in depth. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Nepal. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. This astrologer operates in a fringe area but has not made enough impact to be notable for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC).
  • Delete: At least in English, the subject is quoted in some articles like this one for the calculation of dates of religious observances. However, I couldn't find significant coverage of the subject. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete One source does not a notable Wikipedia article make. Definitely needs more RSes to support notability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. One RS doesn't establish its notability.Probably needs more reliable sources with significant coverage. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Roshdi Khalil

Roshdi Khalil (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)

Potentially notable mathematician but there has been some discussion on whether he is notable on talk and that has not been resolved. Looking for a wider discussion. A note tag has been placed on the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 11:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Jordan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - According to Google Scholar, and his work has been cited 6291 by others; he has an h-index of 23, and an i10-index of 46. He is a tenured Full Professor. I don't know enough about these scores in relation to his specific field of mathematics to be able to interpret them, but it seems he may be notable. Apparently he is also a poet. Netherzone (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I wrote on the article talk some time ago, "Heavy citations in mathematics, centered on dubious journals, can be less a sign of notability and more a sign that something suspicious is going on." See Science: Citation cartels help some mathematicians—and their universities—climb the rankings: Widespread citation manipulation has led entire field of math to be excluded from influential list of top researchers. The subject is exactly the sort of person this was targeted at: someone high on the lists of heavily cited mathematicians but whose name would be unfamiliar to most mainstream mathematicians. For this reason I think we need to base notability on something else other than WP:PROF#C1. I don't see any evidence of that something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - based on the information that David Eppstein has shared. It's good to be aware of the fact that this sort of gaming of the system occurs in the mathematics field. A BEFORE search had revealed nothing else, and the awards are not notable, they are run-of-the-mill teaching awards. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - based on the analysis above. However it does raise the question of how NPROF#1 should be assessed in mathematics going forward, probably going by awards and recognitions? --hroest 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, probably. Major mathematics societies have issued statements telling mathematicians not to rely solely on citation counts in evaluation: IMU (IMU summary), AMS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Christoph Glauser

Christoph Glauser (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 associate professor with a rather light career output (18 works on ORCID; 5 on Scopus); doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC and doesn't seem to have sufficient media engagement to meet WP:GNG. It also looks like an unacknowledged translation from the German article (also suggesting that we're not missing anything). Notability tagged for 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  • weak delete as he doesnt meet WP:NPROF, but seems to have some sort of public profile. However, I dont see many news articles about him (or at least dont have access in Canada) but lets see whether Toadspike can find anything more. --hroest 15:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep:
  • [71] A part-interview piece that has enough info about him to count towards the GNG. [72] [73] Plus two more with probably sigcov about him predicting the 2016 US election
  • It seems his doctoral thesis was edited down and published as a book, titled "Einfach blitzsauber: Die Geschichte des Staubsaugers". Yes, it is about the history of the vacuum cleaner. It was reviewed by: NZZ, 16 March 2002, "Der Staubsauger, das unbekannte Wesen" by Aiolfi S.; Berner Zeitung, later reprinted in the Neue Luzerner Zeitung, 27.10.2001, "Eine verstaubte Geschichte entstaubt", Franziska Egli; Tages-Anzeiger, "Staub als Thema", 16.10.2001, Walter Jäggi; Die Weltwoche, "Hauptsache, sauber", 11.10.2001, Benini Sandro; Le Temps, "Le grand nettoyage par le vide ou les cent ans de l'aspirateur", 29.08.2001, Isabelle Cerboneschi; and short reviews in the Solothurner Zeitung and Blick. This book is, apparently, notable.
  • Non-independent coverage of ArgYou [74] and a related interview [75], which has a bio of him too.
  • Glauser was quoted as an expert on brand image in an article in Le Temps titled "Les petits nouveaux et le storytelling", 17 June 2022, by Matthias Niklowitz – this article also appeared in the Handelszeitung in German, but I can't find either version online. Similar expert quotes of Glauser alongside sigcov of ArgYou here [76]. I've found quite a few other instances where he is quoted as an expert in a variety of papers, but I won't list them all here to save time and space.
  • ArgYou seems to be regularly cited as a source of data, with articles often mentioning Glauser's name as well. One example is this newswire piece from Keystone-SDA, reprinted in a bunch of papers [77].
Sorry for spamming all these links here. I haven't quite gone through all the newspaper database results (I got distracted by other stuff) but I think there's enough to keep here. Toadspike [Talk] 19:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Klbrain@Hannes Röst Would you like to take a look at the above? I think the first three sources, linked in the first bullet point, should be enough. Toadspike [Talk] 19:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Had a look, and still not impressed, although understand if others disagree. That an internet marketing expert can get some fireside chats published in some blog-like website covered in adds doesn't seem sufficient to me for WP:GNG. The research claims made in those articles are likely to be factually true, but don't demonstrate that WP:NACADEMIC is reached. Klbrain (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure which website you are referring to, but all of the sources I cited are reliable Swiss newspapers (except maybe Blick, which is a tabloid, but one with a decent reputation regardless). The level of advertising is not a measure of reliability, though if you like I can email you the print versions of nearly all of the sources I cited, which have far fewer ads. Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Tanya Alderete

Tanya Alderete (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)

In my WP:BEFORE, I found only one reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject to count towards WP:BIO [78], which I added to the article. The other two sources cited in the article are not independent. I checked WP:NPROF and I think the only criteria that might apply is #1, for citations. Her Google Scholar profile [79] gives an h-index of around 30, which I suggest is borderline; I do note that the article had explicitly been undraftified with this comment respectable h-index, may meet WP:NPROF. I submit that it doesn't, and therefore than an article now is too soon. As an alternative to deletion, I would be happy for the article to be draftified again for future expansion and resubmisssion when notability is clearer. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete I would argue the one article the nom cites as potentially meeting WP:BIO is not in-depth enough count towards significance --- it's largely interview responses. From a public health perspective, the potential link between pollution and allergies/asthma/diabetes was established well before Aderelte's career began (e.g. [80]), so much of her research isn't groundbreaking in the field. I wouldn't even draftify this as academics usually take a while to become notable and it's likely to languish there for years. If Alderete becomes notable in the future someone can rewrite based on newer and better information. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
@Anonrfjwhuikdzz if she passes WP:NPROF then she does not need to pass WP:BIO as well. Based on her GS profile and similar cases in the past, she probably passes the bar for NPROF. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I understand that, and I admit I am also generally skeptical of WP:NPROF as setting too low a bar for notability among academics. I'm not a fan of h-index or other citation metrics for establishing notability since I think such metrics skew incentives for scientific investigation. Raw citation counts are also difficult to use since some fields can be much more citation-happy than others.

I took a brief look at three of Alderete's publications based on the weak keep votes, and I'm not impressed by the quality of the science in two so I am still sticking with my delete vote (the third was too specialized for me to understand well enough).

As an aside, the first paper I have concerns with are [81] which throws out measured infant masses in the methods section instead of using averages/standard deviations. I'd expect to get fired if I used such a method. Including standard deviations in mass would likely make the correlations appear much weaker than stated in the paper. The second is this one which does not include income as a potential confounding factor (incomes are generally lower near sources of pollution, and lower incomes mean healthier foods can be unaffordable, so could that be a more reasonable explanation for the observed correlation?). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I dont disagree with you, I also feel this is a case just at the edge. However, the reason we are lenient for articles of professors / scientists is the Strickland case and the fact that its often fiendishly difficult for Wikipedians to judge academic research quality (and takes up a lot of time). Therefore peer assessment is what we go for and everything else borders on WP:OR. Personally, I am not familiar with the standard methodology for infant weight/length measurements, in some cases outlier removal is a valid method and treating outliers as if they come from a normally distributed set of values is also a mistake by itself. Maybe its just nontrivial to get a baby to hold still in a scale :-) ? I also agree that income could be a confounding factor for the other study, however they do mention they use parental education as a proxy for socioeconomic status so there is an attempt to control for it but there is no evidence to support this choice. Either way, it would be good if the discussion of the results would have included this limitation but it does not necessarily invalidate the whole study. --hroest 13:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak Keep this person (just) passes WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 33 and 13 of her publications cited 100+ times. This indicates an impact in her academic field as per guidelines. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and repair. There were some very strange statements such as her currently being a postdoctoral scholar (at the same time as an associate professor), I removed that one as I don't believe it. Her h-index is borderline, as others have said, but her citation trend is very strongly increasing so I am OK to give her the benefit of the doubt. Someone badly needs to repair the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Naseem Ameer Ali

Naseem Ameer Ali (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)

Promo bio for a non-notable individual with no evidence of passing WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. His h-index of 5 (from the Scopus page linked in the footnotes) is what might be expected from a postdoc or graduate student, not an associate professor, and signals the opposite of significantly impacted...academia, to quote the peacocking language used here. He meets none of the other NACADEMIC criteria. The sourcing (here and in a BEFORE search) does not support GNG either. It's limited to non-independent pages: his faculty profile, primary source bios ([82], [83], his own writings [84], [85] and a LinkedIn page. One source turns up a blank page and another is a random search box. The final tenuous claim of notability is an award as a lifetime member of the NZ Institute of Quantity Surveying, but this is unlikely to be a notable award since NZIQS appears non-notable, and it fails WP:V, since the only source is the aforementioned WP:USERGENERATED LinkedIn page and search queries on the NZIQS website turn up no results for life/lifetime members or for Ali's name. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete A long way from passing WP:Prof and, on the basis of the thorough nomination, I don't see enough for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC).
  • Delete fails WP:NPROF clearly, as seen in GS and there is no evidence that he "has significantly impacted both academia and the construction industry". --hroest 15:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to be a academic doing his job and took a chance at getting an article. scope_creepTalk 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete This has very few RSes to speak of and it not notable. It seems like this person just wants to be able to use Wikipedia as an advertisement. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Robert Siy

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

Sources do not indicate sufficient notability. References to the subject of the article are fairly minor, mostly press releases and the like. Noleander (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Won't contest this one. I just came across the article and expanded it as I happened to know his work to a degree, but even I would agree that there is a lack of sources that ascertains the subject as notable for WP. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Jon Hartley

AfDs for this article:
Jon Hartley (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 think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).
  • Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
    Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."
Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field
1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/
2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity
3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/
4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics
5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/
6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley
I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.
Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...
1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf
2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312
3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf
4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf
Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article seems to have been deleted previously due to a lacking of sources that were acceptable by our standards at the time of its prior publication on Wikipedia. However, as of 2025 there seems to be more than enough reliable and independent sources covering the subject of the article. In the two plus years since the prior AfD, sources for the subject appear to be better and more relevant and independent. The subject is pretty clearly active and well established in academia. WP:SIGCOV easily passes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - winning a made up in one day Forbes award for an up and coming but run of the mill academic. WP:NOTFB. I'm willing to change my mind about this if evidence of full tenure or high citation numbers is added. Right now, he's a fellow at a think tank that has long ago become subject to donor pressure. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Jon Hartley meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, and concerns about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTFB do not seem to be applicable in this case. His research appears to have been published in reliable journals such as the Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, and Economics Letters. A Google search reveals Hartley to have been featured in sources including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and National Post. The sources demonstrate significant coverage and in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. His recognition by Forbes in their 30 Under 30 list for Law & Policy in 2017 further demonstrates notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    Publishing papers is what every academic does - it definitely does not confer notability. Similarly, the articles in reliable sources are written by him, not about him and that is a crucial difference - the coverage is not about him. SmartSE (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).
  • Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Paul Alan Levy

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Internet, and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: No RS that discuss this person are used for sourcing. Source 15 is a RS but doesn't mention this person. I don't see any either, some primary sourcing only. The was at AfD over a decade ago, and still no RS have turned up. I don't think this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The current article is in need of a clean-up and better sourcing, but I think some alternatives to deletion per Wikipedia:ATD are appropriate and I think this nomination is premature. This profile in the Washingtonian demonstrates, at least to me, there is a chance that the subject can meet WP:GNG based on a 40-year legal career at a large public advocacy group that includes arguing in front of SCOTUS. A search on Google Scholar indicates he is published in legal journals at least more than a regular attorney. Google Scholar is the floor, not the ceiling based on his writing in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. In addition, he is mentioned in a number of books at the Internet Archive including books independent of him and Public Citizen. I would also recommend, should we not keep, to !redirect to Public Citizen where the guy has worked for over 40 years. The preface of "weak" is that I am in a space of quantity vs quality at this point with Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. I am very open to the possibility he is not the subject in enough of these or that the work is not so atypical as to warrant an individual article as a non-attorney.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
There is not coverage. That short article are the real thing that mention him in any detail. There is no other WP:SECONDARY coverage that I can find that is specifically about him. And its nothing like enough. scope_creepTalk 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I will go through the reference and look at them in detail in the next couple of days to see what is what. scope_creepTalk 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, I have seen a few articles about him from reliable sources that prove notability. One of them in my quick look was the Washingtonian February 3 article "Paul Levy, the Web Bully’s Worst Enemy", which also made me laugh out loud. Collectively regular coverage in Reason and New York Times, it satisfies me. He sounds like an interesting man. He's also got my interest too. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep inclined to say that he is on this side of GNG. Andre🚐 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Evidence free !voting there I see. scope_creepTalk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Lets look at the references:
  • Ref 1 [86] That is self-written profile. Not independent.
  • Ref 2 [87] Secondary source.
  • Ref 3 [88] Not about him. Its a passing mention.
  • Ref 4 [89] CV. Not independent.
  • Ref 5 Non-rs
  • Ref 6 [90] That is a spam and will need to be removed.
  • Ref 7 [91] Another passing mention.
  • Ref 8 [92] Passing mention.
  • Ref 9 [93] Passing mention.
  • Ref 10 [94] Not independent.
  • Ref 11 404
  • Ref 12 [95] The docket. Non-rs
  • Ref 13 [96] Not independent.
  • Ref 14 [97] A short quote from him. Not independent.

The first two blocks of references, 2 non-rs, 5 not-independent, 4 passing mentions, a 404, a spam link and 1 secondary source that reads like a puff piece. This is a WP:BLP. Its states in that policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources The sources are atrocious. They are crap. There is no other way to desribe them. scope_creepTalk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Why isn't the Justia RS? It is a primary source and I saw nothing on RSP about Justia being unreliable. Many of the sources corroborating this person's existence are court dockets. And what is wrong with Washingtonian being a secondary source? "Levy, an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group who has represented union dissidents" in the Michigan Law Review articles on JSTOR, "Paul Alan Levy , an attor ney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C." on the ABA Journal, his book was cited by the NLRB... Andre🚐 06:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Court dockets don't prove notability. They are records of mandatory attendance and that all you can say about them. They don't confer notability and notability is not inhereted off them. There is nothing wrong with the Washingtonian source as a secondary ref. But it needs more than source to prove a person is notable. This is a WP:BLP. Not a article about some song. WP:THREE is standard here per established consensus (summer before last). 3 secondary sources will do it. scope_creepTalk 08:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
His own work doesn't towards notability unless its been reviewed and published by external reviewers (not social media). So far I've not seen any evidence to contrary that any of his work is notable. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I see the dockets (Justia) machine generated is non-rs generally. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Lolade Dosunmu Adeyemi

Lolade Dosunmu Adeyemi (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)

Likely fails WP Academics and ANY BIO. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Murray Banks

Murray Banks (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 subject with one RS, couldn't find others during BEFORE. Previous AfD led to article being deleted (in 2008) and I don't believe he passes GNG now. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete orphan, not really a biography, little in the way of google scholar Czarking0 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Fredrick Muyia Nafukho

Fredrick Muyia Nafukho (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)

Requested by individual Maomulma (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  • comment I presume that the subject himself wants the article deleted? Is there evidence of this? However, I see a substantial GS profile with an h-index of 49 which easily clear WP:NPROF but the article does have some issues and needs cleanup, but I do not see a reason for deletion. --hroest 20:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Takis Sakellariou

Takis Sakellariou (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 - clearly falls into WP:LUGSTUBS. Réunion! 03:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • That Olympedia gives him a decent-size bio strongly indicates that he was notable. What we need to do is search Greek sources. Has that been done? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: Considering that Olympedia is owned by the IOC, that isn't a independent source. Let'srun (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    The content was written before IOC ownership and was previously hosted by Sports Reference; only after the rename to Olympedia did the IOC buy it (i.e. its independent). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see a date on the bio. How are you sure it was written before IOC ownership? Let'srun (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    I'd have to try to look through Wayback Machine archives for this particular one, but based on other ones I've checked in the past, the biographies were originally on SR, then imported to Olympedia when SR's Olympics site split. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - Die Olympischen Kunstwettbewerbe 1912-1948 (The Olympic Art Competitions 1912-1948) covers the olympic artwork, but with little beyond. [98] He also gets multiple mentions in A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War [99], although these are not biographical of him. That's all I found so far. That is not a GNG pass yet, but may indicate there is more to be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not a typical Lugstub at all. Has anyone searched in Wikilibrary sources? Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
There's a lot of people with the name Takis Sakellariou. There's also no Greek article on him, unfortunately, so it's not like we can just expand it with the corresponding article in Greek. If someone native in the language looked, maybe we'd get a more definitive answer if there's any articles that do pass GNG on him. Réunion! 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
There will certainly be namesakes, but what is the basis for saying there are a lot of them? Sakellariou is not unusual but neither is it a particularly common Greek surname, and the same could be said for the forename, Takis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Having said that, this one [100] is clearly more notable and accounts for most of what I am turning up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
In Greek there is an extensive reference to Sakelariou here which comes from a book on the subject - I think it's a reliable source. Apart from that, however, I have not found anything else worthwhile. Delete Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics or consider Grigoris Lambrakis, although mention at the page would be required. I have searched but unable to find any SIGCOV secondary sources for this subject. There is a more notable namesake in entertainment (actor and producer) and most sources refer to that one. However the sources I found above are confirmed to be this page subject. The problem is that these are just not enough. The history of the Olympic art competitions confirms his entry, but doesn't have anything to tell us about the man. Likewise Gkotzaridis (2016), that is, A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War, which I have now obtained a library copy of, only actually has three mentions of the page subject, the other mentions of Sakellariou in the work referring to one of five others with that surname: Alexandros, Aristeidis, Epameinondas, Petros and Vassileos. The most substantial of the references to the page subject reads: As for Takis Sakellariou, he was properly bedazzled and stirred - like so many others back at home - by the spectacle of Germans rooting for Greek athletes in Greek and some even succeeding in intoning the first verses of the Greek national anthem! and this is referenced to one of his works:
- Takis Sakellariou, "The Foustanela-dressed of the Gymnastics Academy and the Greek Champions: Mantikas, Syllas and Papadimas," Athlitismos, August 10, 1936.
That source, of course, is primary. The book also confirms his involvement in training, with As soon as he met Grigorios, the coach, Takis Sakellariou, sensed at once that he had in front of him a rare instance of an athlete, with remarkable jumping capabilities. He started to train him, believing firmly that he would grow into a wonderful jumper. The other mention also briefly mentions training. And that is it. We have no secondary sources covering the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
In view of the one good source below, striking my redirect for now, as focus on the subject as a sports science pioneer may be more fruitful than as an Olympian. At the very least we should allow time for further searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I am putting my redirect !vote back. The source below is excerpted from a local history book published by the Piraeus association. The website is similarly supported by the association. The claims about him being a pioneer are, it seems, overhyped, as there is no other evidence of this. He is of local interest, but it is a single source by an association promoting Piraeus. This is not enough for GNG and nothing else is coming to light. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. @Svartner and Sirfurboy: A search brought up that he literally had an in-depth story written on him this year, see this, which is 1,600 words on him by some Greek historical writer, titled "the pioneer of scientific gymnastics". In addition to it being SIGCOV, the fact that he still gets in-depth coverage today and that recent Greek writers were able to find so much on him strongly indicates that there would be further, offline coverage, as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    I agree this one meets SIGCOV in a secondary source, and is an excerpt from a book that appears to be reliable, and independent. Who are the Thematic Office of Culture? Almost certainly this gives us one good source. We need multiple to meet GNG, so one more will do it (given that we have the brief mentions too). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
    The website you found deals exclusively with Piraeus issues - it records the local history of the city. There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
    There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. – How do you know? Have you checked old Greek archives? What about 1930s newspapers? Not everything is on the internet... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
    If there are sources that are inaccessible to us - it is as if they do not exist since they cannot be documented. The newspapers of the time are considered primary sources since they cannot prove notability. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    Inaccessible to you does not equate to non-existent. If you have not checked any Greek archives, then you have no right to claim that they do not exist. Neither are all newspaper sources primary and unusable like you claim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    This is essentially a Russell's teapot argument. It is for the people asserting that these things exist to demonstrate that they do. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    Its also utterly ridiculous to claim a clearly prominent figure who still gets covered by historians today has "no further coverage" when no one has looked where the coverage is most likely to be! The chances that he would not have been covered significantly in his day is very, very, very slim given that he's still being covered today. No one has checked any Greek archives. People get covered most when they are active; that he gets covered significantly decades after his death is a very strong indication that there was significant coverage of him in the past. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. We have one source with clear sigcov and some other sources that mention him. For a topic so inaccessible, this is enough to convince me that WP:NEXIST applies. Toadspike [Talk] 10:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Redirect – I have struck my !vote after seeing FOARP point out below that the one source with sigcov seems to be a blog created with the "sole purpose" of promoting Piraeus. The author's other credentials are not, in my opinion, enough to qualify him as so much of a subject-matter expert that it can overcome the obvious declared bias. Toadspike [Talk] 21:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
The website is hosting content from a book the author wrote on Pireaus history. Plenty of reliable writers/media outlets focus on specific regions. What sort of credentials are you looking for for a subject-matter expert? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect - Olympedia is an unreliable source, as we saw with the Frank English AFD (wrong death-date, wrong name) and others. Moreover the operators corrected Olympedia directly in response to our Frank English AFD so it appears that they are using Wiki as a source. This unreliability is part and parcel of the other reason that Olympedia does not indicate notability: it has wide-sweeping inclusion criteria. A lot of their data appears to come from family members, so it is not independent even ignoring the fact that it is owned by the IOC.
I was tempted to vote keep based on the Pireorama, but looking at the about page it appears to just be a blog set up to promote Pireus, and as such is a self-published source. The article is an excerpt from what appears to be a self-published book (Milesis is a prominent member of the Pireus Association). The article also references an encyclopaedia listing for Sakellariou but crucially it also tells you that Sakellariou authored that encyclopaedia - as such, that encyclopaedia is not an independent source.
It just doesn't look like there's any there there, which is the problem with so many of these LUGSTUB articles. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Even if you consider Pireorama a self-published source, the author Stefanos Milesis (Στέφανος Μίλεσης) is clearly a subject-matter expert, given that he's a historian, newspaper columnist, lecturer, television host and the author of nearly two dozen history books, many of which are non-self-published. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@FOARP - Every site has some errors. It happens. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics : Subject lacks the required WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I too share the concerns with using Olympedia and I can't find anything better to support notability here. Let'srun (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
    • And what's wrong with Milesis's article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
      It's a blog post, an excerpt from a book published by the association of which Milesis is a member, about that association (and so self-published). FOARP (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
      But Sakellariou wasn't a member of that organization, was he? Self-published sources can still be reliable if the author is a subject matter expert. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
      It says he's a member on his Linkedin profile: ("He is a member of the National Society of Greek Writers, the Piraeus Association and the Maritime Museum of Greece."). FOARP (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      I mean Sakellariou. If Sakellariou has no connection to the Piraeus Association, then someone in the Piraeus Association who is a subject matter expert writing SIGCOV about Sakellariou is SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      The passage in the book certainly is SIGCOV. But that is not enough. To count towards GNG, you need significant coverage (SIGCOV) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. A self published source is not a reliable source. But, in any case, you can argue the toss on this one - we still don't have multiple sources. And sources like this are exactly why we need multiple sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. Note that per WP:SPORTCRIT, having one piece of SIGCOV indicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Also note that, per WP:NSPORT, The sports-specific notability guidelines are ... meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. One piece of SIGCOV is sufficient to satisfy NSPORT, and thus it should be acceptable to allow for more time instead of demanding "GNG now!" He's got SIGCOV, a second piece of arguably borderline coverage (Olympedia), and thus it should be acceptable to keep this on that basis for now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      Nah, it's not. SPORTCRIT starts off (emphasis mine) A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The bit you quote specifically says one source does not indicate notability but is a minimum requirement for any article that meets the following shortcut criteria for a presumption of notability. And no one has argued that this article meets any of those. But again, SPORTCRIT is the same as GNG here. Multiple sources are required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      There is no other way to interpret that having SIGCOV, like here, indicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article, and meeting it is meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... [and] Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
      That's not how it works Beannie: Self-published works are self-published works regardless of what they are writing about. The Pireus association is obviously interested in promoting their city. WP:SPS also warns against using self-published works, particularly for biographies ("if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". WP:SPS also requires the "expert" to have expertise "in the relevant field", which is questionable here - as far as I can see Milesis's background is in business administration and his career is broadcasting, he is at best an amateur historian. FOARP (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      Per above, A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. You think its "questionable"? He's a newspaper columnist, a television/radio host discussing the area history, a lecturer on the area history, and has written numerous published history books on area history. He's clearly acceptable for area history like this. if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources – yeah, the thing is that no one has looked in any of the archives where that coverage would be. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      Which sound exactly like millions of other amateur historians. FOARP (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      Well, you can say that, but all that matters is that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Being published in newspapers, on radio / television shows and having books published by independent houses meets that, whether you think its like "millions of others" or not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      In addition to what Sirfurboy has ably discussed above, I’d throw in self-published sources being a poor indicator of notability even accepting for the sake of argument the author being an expert of some kind. “Self published by an expert” might be reliable because the person writing about it knows the subject area, but the fact that they couldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them and had to do it themselves makes notability dubious. FOARP (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
      Self-published doesn't automatically mean that the author couldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them... If written by an expert, the piece is reliable per our policy on self-published sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
      "Reliable" does not automatically mean "notable". People talking about themselves is an example of a source that is reliable, but does not show that the subject is notable. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
      "Reliable" + "independent" + "in-depth" = SIGCOV. This is not a subject talking about themselves. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
      No WP:SIGCOV just means significant coverage. That is, it is in-depth, addressing the subject. For a subject to be notable, it must meet the general notability guidelines (GNG), for which there must be multiple sources with SIGCOV, where each must be reliable, and independent. And also these must be secondary sources. Furthermore, the article must not be excluded under what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). See WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
      And? Pireaus is both reliable, independent, and in-depth. NOT has no application here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
      "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. This WP:SPS has been discussed above against that standard. We do not agree that it is reliable. Even if it were, we still need multiple sources. We especially need multiple sources if the only source we have is a local self published source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
      Ugh, I've demonstrated that the source is clearly a subject-matter expert, which means that even if SPS, it is reliable. Olympedia can be counted as the second source; it is over 100 words on him. I contacted Millesis and he said that Sakellariou was covered numerous times in his day, so I've asked if he could share the extent of some of the sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Request as this is soon due for closure, could we get a relist? (see above comment) Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    On what basis? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    See the comment directly above the request. Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Question Has someone looked into Greek newspapers, as newspapers can be good quality reliable secondary sources? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    I looked at a number through archive.org, yes. The expectation, of course, is that news reporting will usually be primary, not secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    If a newspaper article is reporting about a current event it's a primary source, in most other cases it's a secondary article. If we are able to find a newspaper article writing about the works of Sakellariou, it's likely to be a secondary source article. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Archive.org is not the best place to search for offline-newspaper articles. Is there an online website where you can search into old Greek newspapers? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    What Greek newspapers did you look in? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – I managed to find this piece of significant coverage on him from 1958 following his death that's more or less 300 words. [101] Additionally, we now know when and why he passed away, the when being on the 17th of September 1958 (which can also be confirmed here) and the why being from a cerebral haemorrhage following a stroke. Using Google Translate, he is described as a "teacher", he was the deputy director of the "Maternal Education" and a sports editor (including for Vradyni for 10 years) who wrote "many articles in newspapers and magazines". He also "dealt with studies on sports in antiquity and published a dozen of notable books that were translated into foreign languages". In addition, he was also a professor at the "Gymnastics Academy" and a swimming coach for the national team and for Panathinaikos A.O. who "highlighted a number of excellent swimmers." Whilst the other pieces of coverage that I've found didn't contain significant coverage of him, they could help in expanding the article. This piece talks about the establishment of prizes in his honour; this piece describes him (using Google Translate) as a "great teacher"; and even though this doesn't contribute to notability, I also managed to find an article written by him. [102] I think based on this, we can safely assume that there's more coverage on him in offline sources than what is currently available to us. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ruud_Koot/Feed
Marcações: