Jump to content

User:Ruud Koot/Feed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science

[edit]

Articles for deletion

  • 09 Oct 2024 – Jason Parker (security researcher) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Brandon (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
  • 27 Sep 2024 – Turing switch (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Helpful Raccoon (t · c) was closed as delete by Asilvering (t · c) on 04 Oct 2024; see discussion (2 participants)

Categories for discussion

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(6 more...)

AA: Computing

[edit]
Shortcut

Articles for deletion

(18 more...)

Proposed deletions

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(13 more...)

Articles to be split

(17 more...)

Articles for creation

(27 more...)

AfD: Computing

[edit]

Computing

[edit]

Corvigo

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

There doesn't seem to be much coverage of this company outside of trade journals. The NYT article mentions the company a few times but does not address it directly in much if any detail. CNN is one single namedrop. I can't see any way of meeting all four criteria of WP:ORGCRIT with multiple sources, unfortunately. Previously deleted by PROD in 2006. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Roger Jones (physicist)

[edit]
Roger Jones (physicist) (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)

Massive conflict of interest issues with a good amount of the edits coming from the subject of the article himself. Some of the sources appear to be dead. Any other sources don't even mention him, focusing more on the actual companies he claimed to have some involvement in. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don’t delete. Vincent MOSCARITOLO made a significant contribution to the end to end cryptography used by modern messaging systems today.

He is still active, publishing on Substack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4th-amendment (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

you might have posted on wrong thread 4th-amendment, this is for a nightclub shooting. Canary757 (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Vincent Moscaritolo

[edit]
Vincent Moscaritolo (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:NBIO, effectively zero reliable and secondary sources. Brandon (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Jason Parker (security researcher)

[edit]
Jason Parker (security researcher) (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)

Autobiographical article, content is not substantiated by the sources and it does not seem possible to write more than a stub about the subject. The sources almost entirely briefly mention the subject in connection with a security vulnerability, some include short quotes from the subject, none seem to provide details on the subject themselves. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you please provide more details about what isn't substantiated by the sources? The small handful of paragraphs without citations have information that's given in articles cited elsewhere. If you could point to any specifics, I would be happy to either show which article(s) it comes from, or if one of the more recent citations that discuss it have been missed, add them.
In a lot of cases, the notability of a subject comes from their work, so I'm a bit confused how this would be different from many other articles on Wikipedia. Is this simply a categorization problem? In the public sector circles where this information travels, the name and works are quite well known; the number of high quality sources would also suggest this.
As for your comment about it not being possible to write more than a stub, I have to disagree. There is a lot more detail about the works and their specific effects that could be added, but I didn't find it prudent for myself to add that. Additionally, WP:Stub suggests that some editors and the bot would find that 250, 300, or 500 words (this one is 650 as of this note) is an appropriate length to not be considered a stub.
Having said all of that, I note your status on Wikipedia, and understand that there is little likelihood of this article staying. NorthAntara (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else.
Being the primary author of an article about yourself is not recommended. You were extremely transparent, which is appreciated, it is just very challenging to write a neutral article based entirely on verifiable sources as the subject of the article yourself. With that said, here are some article about security researchers that have a tone and structure I'd suggest emulating: Tavis Ormandy, Eva Galperin, and Charlie Miller. Cutting inferences such as "leading to increased awareness and remediation of these issues" and the entire impact section would be the first edits I personally would make. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - Leaving aside the autobiographically-ness of the article, I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage (imo).Sohom (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
[edit]
The Linux Link Tech Show (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 does not pass WP:N or WP:WEBCRIT and was WP:PRODed in 2012. The current sources are largely blogs, forums, interviews, or primary and I'm not finding much of anything else in a WP:BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Technology, Computing, Internet, and Software. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The cited secondary sources, in addition to reliability concerns, do not contain significant enough coverage to make this topic notable. Web search does not turn up other usable sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. There are three non=primary sources in the references: the TechNewsWorld source is a trivial mention, and NetworkWorld (though reprinted in a book and ItsFoss are listicles with minimal coverage of the subject. I could not find anything online that shows significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, though with a podcast that's been going since 2003, it's possible there has been coverage that is no longer around/indexed by search engines. However, notability must be established rather than assumed, and the notability for this article's subject has not been. - Aoidh (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Cradlepoint

[edit]
Cradlepoint (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)

Scope creep previously PRODded this article, but it was procedurally dePRODded. The rationale was "Company article that fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news. Fails WP:SIRS." Indeed, the coverage is routine and WP:ORGTRIV, and most of the sources are WP:TRADES. Janhrach (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete I never saw it was deproded or I would have sent it to Afd. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 14:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete nn business. Refs are regular PR stuff --Altenmann >talk 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - their products are used by NORAD, the NYC Board of Elections, and other agencies. Bearian (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect (or delete). There are a fair number of articles in trade publications but I don't see anything beyond the routine mentions and brief announcements. Nothing that would come close to NCORP. Could potentially be redirected to Ericsson, but I don't really mind too much either way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Presumed security

[edit]
Presumed security (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 term seemingly coined by a single blog post. The post does not appear to have received secondary coverage and Wikipedia now seems to be primary source of the term. Brandon (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Check Point VPN-1

[edit]
Check Point VPN-1 (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 real sources on this article demonstrating notability, and only one source I could find online. Fails WP:NCORP. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete - incredibly minor product offering from an otherwise notable company. Lack of sustained coverage reflects that. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as vast amounts of literature were written on the subject, readily accessible through Google Books, including in bundled magazines. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP also applies. gidonb (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    There are a grand total of two books on the topic and they are technical manuals. The higher standard of WP:NCORP applies here, so they don't qualify as sources. Any content worth keeping should be covered in the main article about the company. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
There's more and NCORP does not apply as VPN-1 is a technology, not a company. gidonb (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:NCORP states "this page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service." And the introductory sentence of the article is "VPN-1 is a firewall and VPN product." Brandon (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in searching for this product in the EBSCOhost databases, provided free of charge by the The Wikipedia Library. There's lots of results there, though I don't know enough to evaluate the reliability of those sources, and am not enthusiastic enough about this topic to look through all of them. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If there are reliable sources out there, please do not just mention that they exist, bring them to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment Looking at the EBSCOhost results, they're mostly reviews of VPN-1 software and devices in technical magazines - e.g. there's one in Network Computing from 2000, two in Network World from 2000 and 2005, and one in Server Management from 2007. There's also a ComputerWorld article from 2001 about a security hole in VPN-1. I'd consider all of these to be reliable, independent sources, and they go into as much technical depth as I'd expect from a networking magazine. I didn't find any really early reviews that would support the material about why VPN-1 was novel when it first came out, though. Adam Sampson (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Shalini Govil-Pai

[edit]
Shalini Govil-Pai (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 individual. Refbombed primary sourced spam that screams of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about her. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Article can be converted into stub as the profile is notable in terms of a C-tech level Google and Android personnel at a significant position. Chris.lee auth (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chris.lee auth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: As can be assessed through the WP:N guidelines and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, these are some major third party reliable platforms that mention Shalini as a potential figure in tech industry.
1.      https://events.variety.com/EntertainmentTechnology/speaker/861637/shalini-govil-pai
2.      https://variety.com/2022/digital/entertainment-industry/ariety-winter-entertainment-summit-industry-future-1235162396/
3.      https://markets.ft.com/data/announce/detail?dockey=1323-16608055-43IJTLORKTH168VQH8G4GJ9HI6
4.      https://www.thewrap.com/ai-debate-thegrill-2024-google-fox-usc/
5.      https://news.engr.psu.edu/2022/2022-oea-shalini-govil-pai.aspx
6.      https://www.psu.edu/news/engineering/story/eleven-alumni-receive-college-engineerings-highest-honor
7.      https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/seven-prominent-indian-origin-it-industry-women-in-us/shalini-govil-pai/slideshow/20459472.cms
Maverickbl (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Maverickbl, it's rather remarkable that your 23rd edit in less than a week as a Wikipedia user is to an AfD discussion! It's not common for new users to find their way here that quickly. That said, you do not appear to understand how the sourcing requirements work for GNG.
  • Variety is not covering Govil-Pai independently, it's promoting one of its own events at which she spoke.
  • The Financial Times article is not actual journalism by the FT; it's a required public posting from YouGov and is thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
  • As with Variety, The Wrap is promoting one of its events, not providing independent coverage.
  • Penn State is not an independent source; Govil-Pai is an alumna and they are promoting her affiliation with them through this award.
  • The Economic Times article is a single two-paragraph mention of Govil-Pai in a list of other people. Setting aside the WP:NEWSORGINDIA problems, it's certainly not WP:SIGCOV of Govil-Pai.
Hope this helps. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Simon Crosby

[edit]
Simon Crosby (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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 08:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep I disagree that most of the references given above are interviews; they are articles that partially quote him, but that is rather common for articles about a person. I find the Wired, the Register, Infoworld and CRN to be independent, and together they demonstrate notability. None provides a true biography, so hopefully that will come along in the future giving us more personal, rather than just professional, information. Lamona (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Question. Would a redirect to Bromium be a good alternative to deletion? It looks like most of the coverage is more of Bromium than of Crosby. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete -claims on the page are not verifiable; he didn’t create any software- “along with other Cambridge alumni including Simon Crosby and founding CEO Nick Gault created XenSource Inc. to turn Xen into a competitive enterprise product.” Bearian (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science

[edit]
Shortcuts


Science

[edit]

University Place (TV Series)

[edit]
University Place (TV Series) (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)

Completely unsourced. Tried Googling for sources, and got a bunch of official PBS websites (that is, they weren't third-party sources). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sperry UFO case

[edit]
Sperry UFO case (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)

None of the cited sources are WP:RS. After searching, I cannot find a single WP:FRIND source to cover this topic. It's had a banner warning that it gives undue weight to the fringe viewpoint, but every source I can find is either an interview with the witness or from within ufology. I checked some books that cover many famous UFO sightings like Curtis Peebles' Watch the skies!: a chronicle of the flying saucer myth, and I don't see this mentioned. Rjjiii (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Roger Jones (physicist)

[edit]
Roger Jones (physicist) (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)

Massive conflict of interest issues with a good amount of the edits coming from the subject of the article himself. Some of the sources appear to be dead. Any other sources don't even mention him, focusing more on the actual companies he claimed to have some involvement in. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz Neeley

[edit]
Liz Neeley (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)

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [9][10]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is this the same person: [11]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [12], [13], [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    1. "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave". NPR.org. January 14, 2020.
    2. Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.
    3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
    4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.

Yihua Zheng

[edit]
Yihua Zheng (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)

Nothing to indicate that WP:NPROF is met, nor WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. Was draftified for a chance to develop it, but instead it was moved back to mainspace with no changes. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence at all of notability. Deb (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see high-enough citation counts for WP:PROF#C1. Most of the sources are deadlinks; the "new breed", IEEE Xplore, and "Space Physics and Space Weather Scientist" ones are live, but non-independent (the first and third were written by her employer and the second is just a self-written author profile). So we do not have the independent and in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, China, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Her name is too common,and someone else has got the Google Scholar entry. She is starting to get some attention with moderately cited papers, and counting by hand I make her h-factor to be 15-17 in a medium citation area. That is not quite enough for me, it is WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Warwick Ventures

[edit]
Warwick Ventures (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)

Low quality sourcing on the page, little else seen in good quality third party sources to show that this subject has notability outside of University of Warwick. Anything which has significance could be merged there. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis

[edit]
Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis (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 couple of primary sources in the scientific literature do not show this topic meets WP:GNG, nor does it demonstrate that the topic merits a named reaction after the corresponding author. The current content is likely inaccessible to most readers. There may be some content that could be merged into β-Lactam#Synthesis. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone can identify specific text that is actually good enough to merit merging. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion

[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion

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


Deletion Review

[edit]

AfD: Academics

[edit]

Academics and educators

[edit]

Alfred Still

[edit]
Alfred Still (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 draft that was moved into mainspace by the creator. If Still is notable, it would probably be because of offline sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, could not find any sources. SirMemeGod  18:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment I've blocked the creator of this article for disruptive editing and edit warring Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of creator's behavior. The two sources not cited inline establish Still as a professor at Purdue. Looks like he authored multiple textbooks, including 2 editions of Elements of Electrical Engineering. Archive.org if it ever comes back online. This website (Craftsmanspace.com) lists 2 other textbooks by him. And I believe this is a 4th book. However, I'm not sure how to evaluate past textbooks for widespread usage per WP:NACADEMIC Cyanochic (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Badiul Alam

[edit]
Badiul Alam (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)

3sources, 2primary plus deadlink. main claim is a gold medal from American Biographical Institute, which is a paid for valueless vanity project according to ABI wikipage. otherwise non notable imo. lacks sigcov with a similarly named journalist dominating google. Canary757 (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz Neeley

[edit]
Liz Neeley (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)

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hari Sharan Karki

[edit]
Hari Sharan Karki (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 since coverage from secondary reliable sources is clearly lacking, and some of them only mention the subject in passing, or not at all. Therefore, the subject does not appear to be notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Also, the page appears to have been copy-pasted in its entirety, and COI issues are somewhat evident as well. CycloneYoris talk! 21:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ammar Rashid

[edit]
Ammar Rashid (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, WP:NPOL: lacks direct and in-depth coverage. Gheus (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I found some coverage, but I’m still assessing whether it meets GNG. However, the BLP is overly PROMO. @Gheus: You nominated this just five minutes after this nomination. Are you confident you couldn't find enough coverage ? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I have created CSE Google search of all reliable Pakistani references. I tried a few search terms, but nothing significant appeared. Gheus (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    It is similar to this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Search engine. If you think this can help find reliable references quickly and save time, then I can share the files via email to you. You can donate it to WP Pakistan without my permission after some adjustments ofc. Gheus (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Gheus, Special:EmailUser/Saqib. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, I will do. Gheus (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I would say draftify it for now. It has the potential to pass WP:N, but it’s not quite there yet. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify per Saqib. Re-create if and when it passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Salma Malik

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

@Crosji: flagged this BLP and I suggested taking it to AFD, but since that hasn’t happened yet, I decided to take the plunge myself. The BLP is PROMO and is primarily authored by a user @Mustafa54, who contributed about 90% of the content. It clearly fails to meet WP:NPROF and it also doesn’t appear to meet GNG. The subject is just a ROTM professor. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Naoto Ueno

[edit]
Naoto Ueno (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 seem to meet WP:N WP:NBIO. No third-party sources indicating notability. Also severe WP:COI editing, including some that is clearly by the subject of the article. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Obvious WP:COI issues, an argument could possibly be made for WP:NACADEMIC. There are a handful of in depth interviews in academic journals, director of the UH Cancer Center, and while the highest cited papers on Google Scholar are with many authors with the subject in the middle, there are quite a few papers for which he is the lead/corresponding author that are relatively highly cited for the age of the paper. I'm not convinced of the magnitude of impact of the scholarly work and independence/possible journalistic COI of interview coverage is not clear.
Cyanochic (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep, tentatively. He has 30,000 citations and an h-index of 84, but in a very high-citation field. However even ignoring the highly-cited consortia papers, he still has several impactful research articles as the last/corresponding author (top cites: 576, 342, 231) and as first author (223), not to mention a lot of reviews in those authorship positions (554, 538, 237, 208; 235), though I don't give these as much weight. I've collected some of the more in-depth secondary analyses of work attributed to him as first/senior author below, which might help demonstrate a stronger case for C1. These could also be used to make his research section more NPOV.
Secondary/independent analysis
  • ~60 words

    Clinical evidence of graft-versus-BC effect has been reported in a limited number of patients (2/10) by Ueno et al,2 and in one anecdotal case by Eibl et al.1 However, the study by Ueno et al was different from ours in that it included patients without progressive disease, adopted a myeloablative conditioning regimen with demonstrated antitumor activity, and performed DLI in only one case without response.

  • ~120 words

    Meanwhile, other researchers think that looking at the top of a signaling pathway doesn't make sense when what really counts is whether the cell is proliferating or not. For that reason, Naoto T. Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., [...] has looked at the activity of a key cell cycle regulator, CDK2, in sensitive and resistant tumor cell lines. They found a correlation between increasing resistance and increasing CDK2 kinase activity, which promotes cell cycling. The amount of protein or activity of proteins in the pathway steps between EGFR and CDK2 do not seem to be related to erlotinib sensitivity, according to Ueno's data. [quote]

  • ~160 words

    An update of experience at the MD Anderson Cancer Center with inflammatory breast cancer over the past 20 years was published by Ueno and colleagues [4]. [...] ... Ueno and colleagues found that 71% of all patients had a response to anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy, with 12% of patients achieving a complete response [4]. In addition, [...] (truncated to avoid CV)

  • ~120 words

    Experience at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center over the past 20 years was reported by Ueno et al. [87]. One hundred seventy patients [...]. ... The study by Ueno et al. also showed the importance of response to induction chemotherapy. [...]

  • ~50 words

    Ueno and colleagues reported that 74% of patients with IBC experienced a response from an anthracycline-based regimen, and 12% had a complete response. ... Many of the women in the review by Ueno and colleagues initially presented with inoperable disease. After induction chemotherapy, 95% of these patients were able to have surgery.

  • ~20 words

    Current treatment recommendations for IBC are multimodal with combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by mastectomy and then concluding with chemotherapy and radiation. This regimen is reported by Ueno et al. 10to show a [quote]

  • ~160 words

    In 2008 Ueno and colleagues published a retrospective analysis of 66 metastatic breast cancer patients, 39 of whom had undergone myeloablative HCT/AT between 1992 and 2000. Data were [...]. These initial experiences showed that an allotransplant-based approach could result in long-term disease control in metastatic breast cancer, but the rate of TRM was a serious drawback. ... In the already mentioned retrospective analysis conducted by Ueno and colleagues [42], 27 of the 66 patients [...]

  • ~120 words, but by a former coauthor

    The first series of patients was reported by Ueno et al [6] from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Ten patients [...] ... The largest unpublished series was presented by Ueno and Niederwieser on behalf of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) [...]

  • ~45 words

    Erlotinib inhibits triple negative breast cancer as shown by Ueno and Zhang[30] when they generated a SUM149 xenograft model by implanting luciferase expressing SUM149 cells into mammary pads of athymic nude mice. The results indicated significant inhibition of tumour growth at doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter Middlebrook

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Peter Middlebrook (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)

Recreation of page that has been twice deleted in two prior AfD discussions, the most recent in 2021. It doesn't appear that very much has changed. There is a 2024 podcast type interview, but this does not appear to me to contribute much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  • weak delete All the sources are of the form that imply notability, but they're just not robust enough as sources to really stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete for the third time and Salt. Promotional puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC).
  • Keep Subject has made significant impacts and has independent coverage from The National, The Guardian and Journal of economic issues to meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOVTesleemah (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Tesleemah, I do not think that The National (Abu Dhabi) is a reliable source. The Guardian has passing mentions only that I see, and Journal of Economic Issues has only a citation to a paper -- I do not see SIGCOV. Am I missing something? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The article adheres to the guidelines for biographies of living persons, and is based on verifiable information and maintains a neutral point of view. I also disagree with the editors regarding the dismissal of certain sources, such as The National (Abu Dhabi). While it may have bias in political matters related to the UAE, this does not extend to its coverage of individuals.

The criterion for notability is clearly defined in various sources. For instance, this excerpt aligns well with Wikipedia's notability criteria:

"Dr. Peter J. Middlebrook is a leading international economist specializing in emerging and frontier markets. His work has been featured in BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, Time Magazine, the Financial Times, and MENA regional news. He led the technical development of the proposed Arab Stabilization Plan and has played a key role in the development of the New Silk Road for the US Government."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.148.242 (talk) 20:28, October 9, 2024 (UTC) — 87.241.148.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

  1. ^ https://ebbf.co.bw/speakers/dr-peter-j-middlebrook/
  • information Administrator note I can't determine which of the SPAs above are sock or meatpuppets and which aren't, but some sort of illegitimate action is clearly taking place. The closing admin should consider this when weighting these !votes. I've also semi-protected this AFD in order to stop further disruption. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) I forgot to link it, but see this SPI for details. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sayed Zubair Farooq

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

Fails WP:GNG and no evidence or claim of notability. The sourcing is poor, and the article has an overall promotional tone. There are not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Father is notable but that is it. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of it is coming from secondary sources, most of his career is referenced from news articles, his family background is referenced from Bangladesh: A Legacy of Blood, a very reliable source written by Anthony Mascarenhas, Humanitarian and social life is where there may be primary sources, i can remove that if you like. Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • except for the article on halalop being a secondary source
Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
another notable thing is that he will be running in the coming bangladesh elections but I dont have a secondary source for that yet. Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
It will be better if citation are from independent sources. And don't add any sentence you can't find references for. A notable stub will still stand Tesleemah (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
i have removed sources that were written by himself Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
what is promotional? Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
This sentence may give you an idea what "promotional" means; "Sayed Zubair Farooq will win the election, because he's the best and wealthiest politician to ever live in or come from Bangladesh". Intrisit (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
nah like what is promotional about the article Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Ohhh, that!! Sorry, seems I didn't scan through the article well! Intrisit (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Working for someone notable doesn't confer notability - and the claim is unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Dishonest sourced promotional cruft with lines pulled straight from promotional primary sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Mary Ann Raghanti

[edit]
Mary Ann Raghanti (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)

Biological anthropologist with an h-factor of 34 and no major awards, created on Oct 2 by a user with (currently) 30 edits. Page is a badly written stub without much information. She has a good career, but I am not convinced she is notable as yet. Page was tagged for notability by User:Ipigott on Oct 3 and I draftified it on Oct 4. Tags removed and page moved to mainspace on Oct 7; claim by original author that she is notable, with no further explanation, attempt to meet any of WP:NPROF or reach concensus. Only possible notability claim is as a co-author of an Ig-nobel prize paper. I am not sure if we consider that enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I personally remain not convinced, particularly about AAAS. I remember being told by a very distinguished chemist who was NAS and an h-factor of 145 that nobody considered it that meaningful (he was FAAAS plus a large string of major awards). I also remain with reservations about the IgNobel. However, the concensus is clearly different so I am going to withdraw the nomination (if I can work out how to without more coffee). Ldm1954 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think Fellow of the AAAS is enough for WP:PROF#C3, her citations are at least enough to make a case for #C1, the IgNobel may not be a major award but it carries a lot of publicity, and she's had a fair amount of other publicity for her work: along with the sources listed above, here are a couple more in Smithsonian and Scientific American. Bad nomination and bad draftification, as many of these signs and sources for notability were already present in the draftified version. It was very stubby but not badly sourced for what it was. You'll be lucky if the article author persists in contributing here rather than getting bitten by your bad nomination piled onto a bad draftification and leaving the project forever. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree about Fellow of AAAS, that is not one that should ever count towards #C3. They elect ~500 per year from among people who have been paying dues. I also strongly disagree about her citations, by comparison to others in her field they are low - I checked, did you? She is in a medium citation field, and most of her well cited papers have more than 5 authors (sometimes far more) with her somewhere in the middle.
    If you feel the Ignobel is major, then OK, that is your opinion but I do not particularly considering the topic. Some of the Ignobel papers are real science, some are a joke and not WP:Sustained. This one is a joke. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    N. B., you may not know that composites where one of the components is ice is a high school/intro MSE experiment, e.g. Boeing link. (We used to do this as a lab demonstration in the intro to ceramics MSE class.) If you look at the Ignobel paper they say the knife melted, that should have been caught by a referee. The paper has decent news coverage (27) but only 14 cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eppstein.--Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep AAAS fellow meets criteria #3 of WP:PROF. The AAAS names <0.4% of each section of the society as a fellow, which meets the "highly selective" criteria described in WP:PROF. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. AAAS fellow looks a little less prestigious than e.g. IEEE fellow, but I think it's enough for NPROF C3. The citation record is solid enough to give some support, and the Ignobel looks to give some progress towards GNG for a possible combined notability case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nominator seems unaware of notability guidelines. I am concerned about their NPP actions. Could someone please re-review their actions? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    A classic example of attempted retaliation by @TheBirdsShedTears because I tagged an article of his as being of unclear notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Javier Díaz Noci

[edit]
Javier Díaz Noci (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 see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep . I see enough citations of this subject's work to think he meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yihua Zheng

[edit]
Yihua Zheng (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)

Nothing to indicate that WP:NPROF is met, nor WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. Was draftified for a chance to develop it, but instead it was moved back to mainspace with no changes. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence at all of notability. Deb (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see high-enough citation counts for WP:PROF#C1. Most of the sources are deadlinks; the "new breed", IEEE Xplore, and "Space Physics and Space Weather Scientist" ones are live, but non-independent (the first and third were written by her employer and the second is just a self-written author profile). So we do not have the independent and in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, China, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Her name is too common,and someone else has got the Google Scholar entry. She is starting to get some attention with moderately cited papers, and counting by hand I make her h-factor to be 15-17 in a medium citation area. That is not quite enough for me, it is WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Kenneth Mims

[edit]
Kenneth Mims (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)

High school teacher who founded an interesting academy in Phoenix. While the academy might be notable, he does not inherit the notability. Much of the article is about the academy, not him. I see nothing substantive enough on him. Notability was questioned in August; I see no change and no notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona, Georgia (U.S. state), Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Won an award from the US Department of Energy for STEM teaching. Some of the articles that appear to be about the academy have lengthy information about him, e.g. this. There are some non-independent references that need to be removed, but enough remain to show notability. Lamona (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    Comment: I looked carefully at that DOE award. It provides a $7,500/month stipend providing "the opportunity to work in a Federal agency or in a U.S. Congressional office" quote taken from BNL site. As such I do not classify it as a major award that would sustain a notability claim, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. We only find typical announcements, such as the US Dept of Energy's about the award of a fellowship to our subject; a lot of items whose focus is not our subject but general events, such as this, this, this, or this; more announcements such as this; and little else. We distinctly lack evidence of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I’m not going to !vote, but I must note that there’s no allegation of notability in the lead paragraph. It literally describes me, or for that matter, thousands of other people. The page needs more editing. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per The Gnome. I agree that the award is not notability-lending. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Joan Catoni Conlon

[edit]
Joan Catoni Conlon (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. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep as the article has now been improved with the addition of referencing including three reviews of her publications in reliable sources journals, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yury Antsiferov

[edit]
Yury Antsiferov (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:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources in the article are not great in establishing notability and BEFORE does not prove otherwise. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I am the author of the article, so my voice doesn't count here, but since I was mentioned in the comments, I would like to share my thoughts. Firstly, Antsiferov is mentioned in several articles (for example, in relation to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him), both of which are quite high-profile and have been covered by many reputable media outlets. Secondly, he is the author of well-known textbooks in Russia, which are used by students at elite Russian universities (MGIMO, MSU). Madrugador88 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
@Madrugador88 Oh your voice does count please, that's not how it works. The relationship to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him did not provide sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
In order for the textbooks to help towards Wikipedia:AUTHOR, they would need to be the subject of multiple independently published book reviews. For them to lead us to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we'd need to see that they are being used by a large number of colleges and universities, with evidence for that (for example, if the publisher has put up a list of textbook adoptions). Qflib (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Simon Crosby

[edit]
Simon Crosby (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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 08:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep I disagree that most of the references given above are interviews; they are articles that partially quote him, but that is rather common for articles about a person. I find the Wired, the Register, Infoworld and CRN to be independent, and together they demonstrate notability. None provides a true biography, so hopefully that will come along in the future giving us more personal, rather than just professional, information. Lamona (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Question. Would a redirect to Bromium be a good alternative to deletion? It looks like most of the coverage is more of Bromium than of Crosby. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete -claims on the page are not verifiable; he didn’t create any software- “along with other Cambridge alumni including Simon Crosby and founding CEO Nick Gault created XenSource Inc. to turn Xen into a competitive enterprise product.” Bearian (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Jose Santos Rios

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

Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The Senate Resolution and the House Resolution indicate that while very accomplished, this individual would receive run of the mill coverage of a typical mayor in the United States. Mpen320 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - mayors in a smaller territory like the CMNI have a greater influence on its politics than a similar municipality in Texas for example. As mayor of Saipan, its capital, Santos Rios represented the majority of the population of the Northern Mariana Islands. Anyone elected to this particular elected office is as influential within the CMNI as other "territorial-wide" elected politicians, and Santos is no exception. Scanlan (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Reply. Can you explain how he meets WP:GNG then? Similar mayors of cities in the continental United States do not necessarily qualify on basis of their influential position alone, but some like Wilmot Collins of Helena, Montana do.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  • weak keep: The islands are tiny and don't have many media outlets, so coverage is sparse to begin with. [30] and [31] are coverage about the nomination and award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Notability has not been demonstrated. Deb (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is still divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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