User:Ace111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

MediaWiki version 1.26wmf2 (38d3b3a).

Wikipedia:Babel
ru Русскийродной язык этого участника.
en-4 This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.
de-2 Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.
fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.
Search user languages
Crystal Clear action run.svg
This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).
Crystal Clear action run.svg
(contribs)
This user runs a bot, Acebot. It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.
Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (Russian).
Stargate SG·1 symbol 01.svg This user is from the planet Earth. Rotating earth (large).gif
Female Chestnut Teal duck.jpg This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤


Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.
Picture of the day
Chestnut teal

Chestnut teal
Photograph: Fir0002
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


The Signpost
22 April 2015

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wbar blue left.jpg
Wbar blue.jpg
Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
Lang-en.gif Lang-Sw.gif Lang-nl.gif Lang-ge.gif Lang-fr.gif Lang-war.gif Lang-ru.gif Vlag Fil Cebu.gif Lang-it.gif Lang-es.gif
English Svenska Nederlands Deutsch Français Winaray Русский Sinugboanon Italiano Español
4,858,741 1,963,703+ 1,819,569+ 1,809,686+ 1,617,407+ 1,259,049+ 1,216,241+ 1,208,915+ 1,195,241+ 1,175,539+
More than 35,010,176 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 4,927,190 articles.


Russia[edit]

Alexander Bruno[edit]

Alexander Bruno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alexander Bruno" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

While the person may just meet WP:NPROF, the current article is basically a resume. WP:TNT would be needed here to sort it out. I couldn't find any sources, although more non-english sources may exist. Mdann52 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't need TNT, just needs putting into paragraphs. The books are easily enough documented, and will show notability -- along with the impt position of Chairman of the Math Dept of Moscow StateUniversity. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @DGG:, where are you getting the information that he is affiliated with MSU? This bio seems to indicate that his employer is the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics. It makes a big difference because MSU is arguably the best mathematics department in Russia but Keldysh is just one of many research institutes. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
      The same bio says he is a full professor at the MSU Math Faculty, but indeed he is the head of the math department at the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, not of MSU.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yuriy Abramochkin[edit]

Yuriy Abramochkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yuriy Abramochkin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Biography of a living person that does not show notability asnac (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

To add more information: The references are almost all to websites showing his photos. There is no article in the Russian Wikipedia. asnac (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete - No significant & notable information is available on internet or print media. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Question. What kind of survey of print media did you carry out, User:Preeti Sharma's Knowledge? -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Don't know yet, but if he really is in (some edition of) Contemporary Photographers (as the article claims), that's a big plus. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Response. This work is not referenced in the article but looking for clues on a Russian website it's probably this, from 1995, i.e. before Wikipedia killed off books like that! asnac (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Uh, Asnac, I read: Yuri Abramochkin is one of 15 Russian photojournalists included in the encyclopedia “Contemporary Photographers”. I'm not sure what you mean by "referenced", but a book of this title (perhaps one of the three editions of this particular book) is mentioned in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I meant that there's no footnote reference to the edition, page number etc., hence it's hard to verify. asnac (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The book is not available online, being published in 1995. I've ordered my copy, which should arrive by 7th of June and I will be able to provide the page number at the reference. In addition, the articles provided as references are the secondary sources with information about the photographer, contrary to claim above that they contain only photographs. Please, note the article is about someone who was mostly active from 60s till 90s, so it's not easy to find many online sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That may be helpful. Be careful of going to trouble or expense if the article would be deleted anyway - see the guidance in WP:ARTIST. asnac (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I am still interested in the book, since it allows to find a lot of information of those, working in non digital age. Still, I think other reference provide enough basis for his inclusion. He is one of the most revered photojournalist of Soviet era. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If so then maybe there are additional Russian-language websites that acknowledge his contribution. If you can find some links that (for example) say that he's accepted by fellow professionals as being influential in his field, and/or give independent reviews of his work, that would help towards establishing notability. asnac (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Easily meets WP:ARTIST #1. Featured in length in Contemporary Photographers which refers to him as "one of the leading Soviet Agency photographers". Winner of the Golden Eye award [1] among others. If that isn't enough, the foreward of his book, Russia As I See Her is written by Mikhail Gorbachev himself. [2] - NQ (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep I orginally nominated this page for deletion but the article is now well referenced and there is no question in my view of notability. Thanks to NQ and Hoary for their research and the improvements to the article. asnac (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B[edit]

Paul B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Paul B" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Unsourced and not obviously notable. Speedy declined due to "leaders of the UK sales-charts", but that doesn't sound like a credible claim of significance as there would be a link to the Official Charts Company or BPI if that were the case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: as the editor who nominated it for speedy. Thanks to Ritchie for bringing it here. The Dissident Aggressor 16:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely - When the article was started, it was actually aimed for the record label and eventually to Paul B so the article got a little better and hasn't never actually gotten better. A few searches found nothing even close to improving. There may be a language barrier but it's very likely this obscure artist is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Victoria Janushaita[edit]

Victoria Janushaita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Victoria Janushaita" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No indication of notability. Just one of the many soldiers (just because she was a woman, does not make her notable). No Google results either on the (distorted name) used for the article title, or the correct Lithuanian spelling Viktorija Janušaitė. The only thing could find was that she indeed work as stenographer. Original research on the "opening up the male preserve of a military career to women". Prod by user:Maranjosie removed by original author. Renata (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As Renata mentions, there are demonstrable problems with the notability of the subject. I appreciated the clear writing and broadly interesting subject area, and so had a look around for sources or evidence of notability myself to see if I could find a way to build up the article, but wasn't able to find anything. (Disappointing, since the bulk of non-notable creations are I see tend to be poorly written, copy-pasted/stolen content - this was clearly in another class.)
A couple of tangential suggestions, and something the article's creator may enjoy assisting with: (1) he pointed out on my talk page that there were many articles on similarly non-notable soldiers. Obviously, volume of other non-notable subject articles isn't a reason to retain, but if he is correct, it may be worth having a cleanup to delete those, since they have clearly been misleading as to what is appropriate content, and (2) given his knowledge of this interesting area, he may find some scope to add content to subject related matter articles - for instance, women in the armed forces, Russian armed forces, etc.  Helenabella (Talk)  07:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Polyaki[edit]

Polyaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Polyaki" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Has been proposed for merger with Polish minority in Russia since February 2012, but there is nothing of value to merge. Propose redirect.  Liam987(talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Does not the Altai Mountain settlers mention have some value?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Just redirect. Renata (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Traumatomy[edit]

Traumatomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Traumatomy (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD,  · Stats)
(Find sources: "Traumatomy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Up-and-coming creative ensemble generating some momentum, but Wikipedia:Too soon to meet inclusion per WP:BAND. Sources found are mostly WP:UGC. The review by Eden 2014 is independent in an online magazine, but I'm not sure that is sufficient. They have a respectable Facebook following and may be appropriate for Wikipedia soon, but... WP:CRYSTAL. Gaff (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Some well-meaning editor has now made the page a REDIRECT, pointing to the page Traumatomy (band). I don't know how to fix this page to reflect that change. --Gaff (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect/rename. Sources appear on google 12 3 in relation to the search term, but the band should be renamed to help improve the article (see Wikipedia:Article titles) in order to avoid any confusion. ITfan1990 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I history-merged Traumatomy with Traumatomy (band), and then moved it back to Traumatomy because it was under AfD. Someone redirected Traumatomy to Traumatic brain injury, but Google search found no use of Traumatomy as a medical term, but only as the music band. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for your help, but the band should be placed in parentheses. I have restored the page content and redirected the namespace to the band correctly (see above), but kept the {{R from move}} template(s). ITfan1990 (talk)
  • That was a cut-and-paste move, and I have just history-merged it and put the article back at Traumatomy, where it should remain until this discussion has been settled. Is this discussion about deleting or moving the music band article, or about deleting the redirection? AfD is not the place to discuss deleting a redirection. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the histmerge, but the article clearly doesn't belong there per AfD discussion at this time. As stated above, the band name should be listed in parentheses for now. This time I added a complex histmerge tag, also explaining the naming policy mentioned move. Please be aware of it. ITfan1990 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- Subject fails on WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Google search emits facebook, twitter and other music indexing sites. At the moment this band does not qualify for a Wikipedia page, but they will definitely in coming months. Hitro talk 18:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "This time I added a complex histmerge tag": I have done the histmerge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment- It is clearly mentioned in the notice that "article should not be blanked" but it is blanked for like 24 hours now, it is an AfD discussion, it is a 'keep' or 'delete' debate. We should emphasize on basic rules. Hitro talk 19:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is no AfD notice on the page for the band, which is today at Traumatomy (band) (I found it while stub-sorting Category:Stubs), but there is an AfD notice at the redirect for Traumatomy. While this AfD stays open, there should be an AfD notice on the article itself. Could a passing admin (@Anthony Appleyard:?) perhaps sort this out? PamD 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : I have copied the content from Traumatomy (band) and pasted it on the article under consideration, and I have requested Traumatomy (band) to be deleted speedily as per G6.Hitro talk 19:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment- My edits are being reverted without any proper reasons by ITfan1990 (talk · contribs), however I believe he or she is new to Wikipedia, so might not be aware of rules and guidelines here. Hitro talk 19:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment See above. Stop trying to revert the histmerge that was agreed upon here. Please do not remove the tag again without a valid reason. Thank you. ITfan1990 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I've removed the deletion notice from the redirect to the article. To closing admin - if delete, please delete both Traumatomy (band) and Traumatomy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 07:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Russia Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Russia deletion review[edit]

Shortcuts:


Science[edit]

Alexander Bruno[edit]

Alexander Bruno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alexander Bruno" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

While the person may just meet WP:NPROF, the current article is basically a resume. WP:TNT would be needed here to sort it out. I couldn't find any sources, although more non-english sources may exist. Mdann52 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't need TNT, just needs putting into paragraphs. The books are easily enough documented, and will show notability -- along with the impt position of Chairman of the Math Dept of Moscow StateUniversity. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @DGG:, where are you getting the information that he is affiliated with MSU? This bio seems to indicate that his employer is the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics. It makes a big difference because MSU is arguably the best mathematics department in Russia but Keldysh is just one of many research institutes. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
      The same bio says he is a full professor at the MSU Math Faculty, but indeed he is the head of the math department at the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, not of MSU.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

1333 Cevenola[edit]

1333 Cevenola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1333 Cevenola" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Not notable per WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: It has a spectral study and a light curve, as well as being mentioned as a candidate binary in several other papers. At least a weak keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

1829 Dawson[edit]

1829 Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1829 Dawson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Should be deleted and redirected to the list article, List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Weak Keep: I found a pair of light curve studies and a few mentions in other journal articles, so this seems like a borderline keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

1692 Subbotina[edit]

1692 Subbotina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1692 Subbotina" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG, not notable. Should be deleted / redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO. All I found are data entries with no substantial coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

1747 Wright[edit]

1747 Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1747 Wright" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. delete /redirect per NASTRO, to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: There's a surface mineralogy study and a light curve analysis available. I think it's sufficiently notable to keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Binding antibody[edit]

Binding antibody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Binding antibody" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I was alerted to the existence of this article by its appearing, earlier, at the Binding disambiguation page, where the description for Binding antibody made no sense to this practicing scientist, and ended with the word "possibly" (suggesting appearance by vandalism).

On reviewing the article, I found that it contained only the same one line it was created with, in 2006, a line article that largely repeated the nonsense on the disambiguation page: "A binding antibody is an antibody that has a reaction when combined with an antigen, possibly eliminating it." This line is the entire article.

The article has been edited 8 times since 2006, making no addition or change to this strange, unsourced sentence. (Edits include its tagging, since 2009, for its lacking any citations, a prior misplaced attempt to have it deleted, and additions only of categories / wikilinks.)

As to content, the reason I am pushing this matter is that the content is scientific nonsense/gibberish.

First, by definition, antibodies exist because they were generated to bind their antigens. In essence, all antibodies (immunoglobulins) are "binding antibodies;" if a protein has an immunoglobulin structure, it by definition contains an antigen binding site. Look to see if there is an article on the proposed complimentary material—"Non-binding antibody". You will not find it. This is simply because antibodies are, as a class of biological macromolecules, defined by their having been generated by random combinations of genes encoding unique antigen-binding sites (paratopes), followed by random mutations in the information encoding this hypervariable area, resulting in a binding site specifically suited to bind the antigen that led to the antibody's biosynthesis. Said, again, more simply, all antibodies, by definition, by their natures, bind their antigens. (Period.)

Hence, an article on the concept of "binding antibody" suggests a fictional classification which has no basis in sound teaching. If there is a specialist use that refers to, e.g., a subset of antibodies in a mixed antibody population that binds while the majority do not, this is abiologic and is simply a rare syntactic juxtaposition of words—possibly, how the original author came to propose the article—and so undeserving of an article. (The juxtaposed words "natural product" appear in one seventeenth century chemistry tome in reference to oxygen, as in "oxygen is a natural product of expiration", but this does not mean we create a Wikipedia article for this rarified connotation.) Any other attempt to force meaning on this sentence arrives at the same sort of ridiculousness.

Second, to anyone with any expertise, the action of the single statement article, "has a reaction…", is also so much nonsense. If by "reaction" the editor implied the Antigen-antibody interaction, then this further amplifies its self-referential and circular nature (the sentence, here substituting simple definitions): "A binding [immune system protein that binds antigens] is an [immune system protein that binds antigens] that has [an interaction between an [immune system protein that binds antigens] and its antigen] when combined with an antigen…." So much self-referential, meaningless rubbish.

Third and finally, there is no way, absent a source, to understand what the individual who indecisively entered "possibly eliminating it" intended it to convey. If the author is speaking of Antibody clearance ([3]) or Therapeutic antibody elimination (a pharmacokinetic issue, [4]), these are not clear, and, in any case, no knowledgable individual uses this title term in the discussion of these specialist subjects. (The word pairing may be used in a diagnostic discussion, to distinguish between component parts of a complex EIA, but that is a specialist technical context, and not deserving of a WP article. But the ignominy of this word pairing is such that it does not even appear in the EIA article.)

In short, there is no way I can conceive, with doctoral training in such things, to make this article title or sentence understandable, or to see, given their nonsensical, self-referential meanings, how this article could evolve to cover any scientific content in a constructive way. This is the likely reason—no one coming to it, understanding its point—that it remains an undeveloped and unlinked article.

Bottom line from this expert, the article, through its title, creates a faux, nonsensical category, and the article itself is a single line of material without any scientific merit or strengths. Those of you who have the WP expertise, please, merge it with Antibody (the equivalent of deleting this nonsense), or simple find the appropriate code/reason to delete it. But do not leave it in.This article has no place in an esteemed encyclopedia.

In following, any editors making substantive changes to the text since its 2006 creation will be pinged. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tree Biting Conspiracy: was the article's original author, and so is contacted so that he can explain the purpose of creating the article, and the source for where this line of information was taken.
@LessHeard vanU: is an Adminstrator that tagged the article for lacking sources, and is contacted so that he can express his opinion.
@GB fan: reverted the earlier deletion request from a non-registered editor, and is contacted so that he can express his opinion. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have fixed the AFD and properly listed it. -- GB fan 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have no opinion on what should happen to to this article. I did decline a speedy deletion nomination with the rationale "[wrong information]". There was no discussion on the talk page about any wrong information. -- GB fan 19:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I cannot add further reasons than the very thorough rationale given above.--Rpclod (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to neutralizing antibody. This is a real distinction, e.g. this paper but one sentence is not an article, the one sentence that's here makes no sense, and the phrase "binding antibody" is meaningless outside the context of this distinction. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see from this 2002 article, that the meaning is one of the possible imaginable meanings I speculated on above; however, one old primary source barely justifies mention in the Antibody or EIA articles, it certainly cannot justify a stand-alone article. Yes? Redirect, maybe, if we can find a good sampling of secondary sources, see below. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting point, @Opabinia regalis: and @Staszek Lem:, and I appreciate the thought behind it. But can we provide good secondary sources that indicate that this word-pairing is synonymous with neutralizing antibody? I did a stint while in pharma remediating HIV detection products for the diagnostic unit of the company that had come under FDA scrutiny, and so am well enough versed on multiple antibody/neutralizing antibody/blocking antibody uses in EIA test designs. I am just aware of no literature that uses this "binding antibody" language. But my opinion does not matter; what do the sources say? Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Well, it's not synonymous, just related. "Binding antibodies" are the ones that bind but don't neutralize (but apparently initiate other immune processes, see PMID 22995189). See also PMID 19467718, PMID 24009164, PMID 21540646, etc. This one: PMID 22930363 is a review that discusses the point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Data Wisdom[edit]

Data Wisdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Data Wisdom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No evidence that this is a generally used term DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A neologism from a blog posting dated less than two weeks ago. Obviously it has not had time to gain the attention and in-depth secondary sources needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing aside from the current links listed. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

1698 Christophe[edit]

1698 Christophe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1698 Christophe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Could redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect: per WP:NASTRO. No suitable sources to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I only found four papers that even mention this (usually there are a dozen or more) and in all cases it was only as a line in a table. Not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

1903 Adzhimushkaj[edit]

1903 Adzhimushkaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1903 Adzhimushkaj" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect: per WP:NASTRO. No suitable sources available to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I don't see the independent in-depth coverage of this body needed to satisfy WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

1512 Oulu[edit]

1512 Oulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1512 Oulu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted and/or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect per WP:NASTRO. This object does receive some minor attention as a member of the Hilda family, but probably not enough for notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect. I don't see the independent in-depth coverage of this body needed to satisfy WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hybrid vapour phase epitaxy[edit]

Hybrid vapour phase epitaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hybrid vapour phase epitaxy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I've declined the PROD on this as there's a comment on the talk page that I'm going to say is a challenge.

The original PROD rationale was: "A chemistry stub long tagged for notability that almost sounds like a dictionary term"

I've no comment on the article's notability. GedUK  12:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - from internet search it seems "vapour phase epitaxy" is something real. See also Metalorganic vapour phase epitaxy. I fail to see how the article at hand meets any notability requirement. The article does not really describe what its subject is, either (you would not have a stub at elephant stating elephants are hunted for their meat without some definition first, like elephants are mammals from Africa and Asia); but I think it evades WP:A1. Tigraan (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. This appears to be the same thing as hydride vapour phase epitaxy, with the term "hybrid" occasionally appearing as what looks like a backronym. Searching for the more common term, or just HVPE, makes clear that this is a widely used process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I would agree if I was convinced that last article (hydride vapour phase epitaxy) was worth keeping. Seems to me it is worth a mention on the Metalorganic vapour phase epitaxy page, at best. Tigraan (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
MOVPE and HVPE are not the same thing. This is waaaaaay out of my field, but I'm convinced on checking the usage of these terms that "hybrid" and "hydride" refer to an identical process. It's not clear what it's a hybrid of because it isn't; that's just a common (mis)analysis of the acronym HVPE. Along the lines of whether HPLC is "pressure" or "performance". Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment/Merge Searches of scientific literature show that it's definitely a distinct technique, although what it's a hybrid of isn't made very clear. This is one of those pages that would need someone very familiar with the science to make any quality improvements. If such a person cannot be found I would suggest that it be merged into ether Chemical vapor deposition (where it is already mentioned) or possible Epitaxy. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology[edit]

Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Does not pass WP:GNG on its own. No independent sources in article. Delete or merge with Lodz University of Technology. Jbh (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge. Not worthy of a stand-alone article. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other departments do not have their own articles, so adding the chemistry faculty to the main article would place undue weight on that field. My perspective on notability, as a chemist, is that Lodz has a medium to large staff. I don't recognize any faculty members myself, but the institution does have a notable presence in the field. Also, since the article is a list of faculty members, a reference to the appropriate website is all that's really needed, as that presumably provides verifiable information about history and statistics. At any rate, the lack of references does not merit deletion. Roches (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Other departments do not have their own articles, so adding the chemistry faculty to the main article would place undue weight on that field is borderline WP:OTHERSTUFF and at any rate easy to solve (add them too; if chemistry is worth adding but not the others for some reason, then no undue weight problems; and if chemistry is not worth adding, delete instead of merging).
The lack of references is not a reason for deletion but the inexistence of sources is. Although the absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it's still some indication hence the WP:BURDEN guideline. Tigraan (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment References are needed to establish notability per WP:NRV. The individual faculty members do not contribute to notability per WP:NOTINHERITED WP:ORGSIG. If it is WP:UNDUE to merge then it should be deleted rather than merged. Jbh (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

By "undue weight" I mean that this article would represent more than half of Lodz University of Technology after a merge. If other faculties don't have articles, it's not because they're not notable. Many articles for American universities have separate articles for parts of the institution.

If it's not clear, "Faculty of Chemistry" does not mean the academics themselves. It is a subdivision equivalent to a department at a U.S. university, and the word "department" is used for a group of related researchers, which is not normally a formal group at American schools. In the U.S., "faculty" is the next higher level above a department, as in "Faculty of Arts and Science". Roches (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I added some relevant details to List of Universities in Poland, definitions of what are called "academies" (for arts) and "technical universities" (which are like universities that only teach physical sciences and engineering). It's nothing whatsoever like a technical school in the U.S.

If any editor here can read Polish or wants to machine-translate, the website almost certainly has a media or press page that will list recent mentions of the faculty in secondary sources. The English version seems to be missing one. Roches (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Multigenomic organism[edit]

Multigenomic organism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Multigenomic organism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This article has a misleading title that does not accurately reflect its subject matter and is not in accord with scientific consensus on the meaning of the term "multigenomic organism". It appears to describe obligate symbionts (a page which does not yet exist), not multigenomic organisms. A multigenomic organism would be an organism that is described as a belonging to a single species but which happens to have several distinct genomes - potentially from symbiogenesis or allopolyploidy. One could conceivably have a multigenomic organism without a symbioic relationship (i.e. organisms with distinct nuclear and mitochondrial genomes that arose as a result of symbiogenesis would not be called symbionts because the two ancestral organisms have ceased to be distinct). I think that this article needs to be heavily revised or, preferably, deleted in accordance with WP:TNT ("the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over"). In its place, it would be ideal to create separate pages for both obligate symbionts and multigenomic organisms and highlight the potential for confusion. Lagomorphae(t) 02:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lagomorphae(t) 02:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to Symbiosis#Mutualism (with some rewrite to fit there, perhaps with a new subsection), if I understand correctly the topic (it is not so much a matter of WP policy there). I do not agree with the TNT invocation as I think there should be no article at all at Multigenomic organism; reasons detailed below.
A "multigenomic organism" would be one that includes multiple genomes. The confusion with symbiosis comes from the problem of what an "organism" is. For instance, human intestinal bacteria could not survive outside the human body, the human host needs them to survive, and neither is eliciting an immune system response from the other. Debating whether there is one organism ("human") with multiple genomes or multiple organisms (human + bacteria) with one genome each, living in symbiosis, seems a bit moot to me.
Since there is no real-life example of multigenomic organism that could not be rewritten as obligate symbiosis[citation needed], even if in theory you could imagine some (say, having different genomes for liver cells than for hearth cells) I do not think that it warrants more than a mention on the symbiosis page such as "Organisms in mutual obligate symbiotic relationships are sometimes considered as a single organism with multiple genomes".
Oh, and some sources would be good, in any case. Tigraan (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move and rewrite or delete. The content of the article is a valid topic, and the title is a valid topic, but they don't go together. There are real examples of organisms that are referred to as "multigenomic" (mostly arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, but I see some bacteria and protists described with this term also). If there's anything in the content of this article worth preserving, move it to obligate symbiont; otherwise delete it. Meanwhile, write a new article at this title on actual multigenomic organisms. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge integration map[edit]

Knowledge integration map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Knowledge integration map" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

A number of reasons:

  • Created by Bschwendimann, who is also the inventor of this concept and the only significant contributor to the page. This does not seem to give much indication of notability, if no-one else has felt the need to edit it in 2 years; it seems to be entirely self-promotion.
  • Likewise, as far as I can make out, the sources on the article are written by Schwendimann or by their supervisor Marcia Linn - or are about concept maps, not "knowledge integration maps". Significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject? No. -> I disagree with the reviewer. Concept maps appear in many different forms (as shown by the links on the 'concept map' site). It is important to cover the range of different concept maps, not just the generic entry on 'concept maps'. I consider the entry on 'Knowledge Integration Maps' an interesting contribution.
  • There's a certain amount of what may be copyvio - [5] and [6] both contain sentences from the article.
  • It's a mass of incomprehensible jargon. If we were going to have an article on the subject, "can't get there from here". Pinkbeast (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC) -> The reviewer should be more specific what jargon he/she doesn't understand.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

-> From reading the article, Knowledge Integration Maps are a specific form of concept map. To distinguish this form from other forms, it seems justified to use a specific term.

As the author of the article, I'd like to clarify that Knowledge Integration Maps have been presented to the research community as well as teacher communities. Both researches and teachers considered Knowledge Integration Maps a valuable new form of concept map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschwendimann (talkcontribs) 13:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - there is a good amount of scholarly literature on "knowledge maps", but that appears to be about something else. The only research hits I see on "Knowledge integration map" invariably says something along the lines of "introducing a novel kind of concept map", which would suggest the idea has not (yet) caught on. At most, it could warrant a couple sentence mention at concept map, but I am doubtful even on that. Pinging @DanS76: who accepted this at AfC in case I missed something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Young Investigators[edit]

Journal of Young Investigators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Journal of Young Investigators" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability for 5 years without any good sources forthcoming. Sources present in the article are either blog posts or in-passing mentions of the journal. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I like having new journals listed on Wikipedia, especiallone when they are produced by reliable institutions. (my distaste for advocacy masquerading as peer-reviewed scholarship; for pay-to-play journals, and fraudulent "journals" of so many kisds, and my outrage that so many "real" journals are for-profit knows no bounds) I do see the difficulty of sourcing articles on new journals. But I also see a distinction between this pair of journals established and operated by academic Goo-goos as a science education/promote science in schools, and run-of-the mill start-up science journals (and within that category, I do see the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, given so much fraud and exploitation of desperate-to-publish young researchers, of distinguishing among the many new journals that start each year except in instances where there is substantive independent coverage).E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep JYI has garnered significant attention over the years in the general press and in the academic literature not for its role in cutting-edge scientific inquiry, but for its role in the education of young scientists. Sources exist that satisfy WP:GNGE.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sorry, I'm not convinced. I'm seeing a few -- and only a few -- News hits for the subject, and always by way of a citation to something they published ... not a scrap about the subject, never mind the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. I see that EMGregory has put a source in the lead stating that the subject is "notable" ... and the source is a blogpost. GNG fail. Nha Trang Allons! 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
True, because it was a PLOS blog post, an article by an entering grad student apparently written for the PLOS blog on the topic: undergrads, peer review, and publishing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per the above. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 00:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether or not it's indexed in selective databases is a total red herring for this kind of journal, which is primarily an educational rather than a research project. This was discussed quite a bit in the science-education literature; see e.g. this series of articles in Cell Biology Education. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you feel that this does not fall under the purview of NJournals, that's fine with me, but then this needs to meet GNG, which quite obviously it doesn't. --Randykitty (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That link above goes to an extended feature in a well-known science education journal about the subject, obviously significant and in-depth. PLoS blogs are not just 'some guy's blog'; they're curated content supported by a major publisher with a specific interest in covering unusual publication venues. It's explicitly discussed in multiple books on undergraduate education. The JEI AfD is more of a borderline case, given that so much of its coverage traces to one event, but this is notable by any reasonable definition. Since both articles are short, I'd also consider merging and redirecting both (and other examples of the genre) to a new article at a title like undergraduate research journal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The feature you link to spends about 1 paragraph to this journal, not really the in-depth coverage that GNG requires. However, it does treat the subject of undergraduate research journals in-depth. I think it is an excellent idea to create an article "undergraduate research journal", discussing the topic of this type of journals in a more general way. It could include a brief list of existing journals to which this article and Journal of Emerging Investigators could be redirected. I'm a bit busy myself right now, but can help if you start the article. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit oversimplified - the feature was published in direct response to JYI, and I linked that piece because it serves as the intro to an additional three pieces of invited commentary published in the same issue (though I see they are mentioned but not actually linked on that page, which is annoying). I apparently didn't get around to posting the merged suggestion on the other AfD, but that's the weak link - JEI is not an "undergraduate" journal, though it obviously comes from the same early-STEM-education context. I'll put it on the to-do list - there should be an article on the topic regardless of whether these are kept or merged. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. In contrast to the related AfD of Journal of Emerging Investigators, which had two major sources directly about the journal, the coverage of this one looks shallow and incidental to stories about other subjects. I don't think it passes WP:GNG and I don't see any relevant criterion of WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Disease Dietomics[edit]

Disease Dietomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Disease Dietomics" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Adds very little to topics such as dietetics, nutrition, food science etc. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Couldn't find a single reliable source online.--C E (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

1911 Schubart[edit]

1911 Schubart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1911 Schubart" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted and redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: this is the largest object in the important 3:2 orbital resonance (Hildas) with Jupiter, and is the largest member of the Schubart family.[7] Praemonitus (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as the main object in its orbital family. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

1394 Algoa[edit]

1394 Algoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1394 Algoa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted and redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: this object has been the subject of three independent photometric studies between 2012 and 2014. Praemonitus (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's unclear to me why this object has been the subject of as much attention as it has, but I think the studies mentioned by Praemonitus are sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

1904 Massevitch[edit]

1904 Massevitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1904 Massevitch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; delete and redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO: it does receive brief mention in a few scholarly articles, but the content is insufficient to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as having an unusual combination of characteristics (V-type but located in the outer main belt) [8]David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Emerging Investigators[edit]

Journal of Emerging Investigators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Journal of Emerging Investigators" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable journal publishing just a handful of articles each year. Not indexed in any selective databases. There are a few independent sources, but they all mention the journal just in passing: they are about one particular student article, not the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator. It fails to meet the standards set forth for notability of journals. Perhaps the author of the notable student piece should have an article, but not the journal itself.--Shibbolethink ( ) 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep while it is true that this does not pass WP:NJournals, that failure is trumped by the fact that it does pass WP:GNG The articles, from Wired, Miami Herald, and Nature cover this journal as a unique effort in teaching science, and are backed by the Kelsey/Lincoln article "Next-generation training: publishing student scientists’ research" These 4 articles, references 2 thru 5 form the core of my argument for GNG status. They are thorough, in depth discussions this journal and the educational work that it does. the rest of the sources - addressing a particular paper that caught the fancy of the press - serve to illustrate the journal's utility, and to corroborate its notability. It's a nice article. And it's nice to see a new editor create a good article on a notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's weird! When I click the links to the sources you mention, I see different articles than you do! The Wired article is 50% copied from the journal's own website and the byline reads "'Chuck is a proud geek and a dad. By day he works in Information Technology in Higher Ed. By night he is a producer and musician playing bass in the Milwaukee band, "The Vitrolum Republic."' Seems more like a blog post than editorially-verified content. The Miami Herald article that I see only mentions the journal in passing (certainly not in a "thorough, in depth" way) and is about two school kids. The Nature "reference" is indeed extensive, but it is a post on their "guest blog" and not published by Nature itself. The author is the founder of this journal, so it is not precisely independent either. In short, as far as I can see, this is a clear failure of GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Wired has a bit of style, it includes a serious journalist calling himself GeekDad, & packing a lot of accurate info into a small space. The Herald, a major daily, showcases this tool for teaching science with real reporting. Nature allocates space to the creators to showcase themselves. That's a lot of serious coverage in major places for a small science-teaching project in the form of a journal. It is the very stuff of notability. And some of the rest of the coverage is the articles about that print font project are more than a passing mention. The Huff Post essay describes the process in which journal editors worked with the student to improve the project's design after the initial article submission. (WP:NJournals exists because we know that many of the most important journals can pass only under such a SNG, the Miami Herald and Forbes Magazine don't write features about them, so we judge their notability in other ways. WP:NJournals is a Subject-specific Notability Guideliness. While editors are encouraged to look toward Subject-specific Notability Guideliness when the primary notability guideline is failed, when WP:GNG is NOT failed, we need not look to various SNGs to decide that the primary notability guideline can be ignored and decide, contrary to the instruction of the primary notability guideline, that established notability does not exist. The SNGs do not overrule the GNG. What was brought to AFD here is a decent article that is well-sourced, passes GNG, is informative to readers, and which serves the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm the author of the article, and so while I'm obviously biased, I wanted to make a comment to correct some misconceptions. I'm new to WP and this is my first article, so I'm not as familiar with the standards other than those I've read from WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. I'll leave the continued discussion up for the other editors on here, as they would know better than me. To be clear, I have done some work with the journal (I won't deny a close connection to the subject), and I think that it is notable for what it does, as well as the press that it has received. The website (or Google Scholar) clearly illustrates that the journal publishes more than 'just a handful' of articles a year (25 articles in the first 3 months of 2015). To my knowledge, none of the articles -- with the exception of the Trends in Pharmocological Science and Nature article, which look like invited submissions and typical for science journals-- were written by anyone associated with the organization. If you read any of the articles about the featured kids (take for example the CNN article), the journal is mentioned more than just in passing, and there is a quote from the journal's founder about how they encouraged the kid to find out how much the government could save on ink. In my mind, this is an example of a good educational organization / journal at work. I didn't include the articles that just mentioned the journal in passing, but how many public news articles are written about a journal itself? The public doesn't see the CNN article about Nature magazine, but they do see the article about that cool new study coming out of Nature magazine. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any scientific journal aimed at kids which is listed in Scopus, but to my knowledge, the Journal of Emerging Investigators is the only journal that is both free and takes students through a review and editorial process similar to professional journals. All the articles are on Google Scholar. To me, this knowledge and references 2-5 fulfill the WP:GNG standards. The remaining references about a notable author provide further support. Mspringel (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand your passion for your journal. However, a mistake new editors often make is to think that "notable" means "worthy". That is wrong. Something bad can be notable and something very good can be not notable. The two concepts are independent. New editors, like yourself, often think that because something is worthy and worth while pursuing, it should be covered in WP. But unfortunately that is not what WP is about. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Randykitty, WP:NEWBIES. Perhaps see if there are ways to bring the article up to your standards, or wait and see how other editors view it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I am familiar with NEWBIES. It does not include leaving articles that are inadequately sourced just because they are created by a new editor. Creating new articles is one of the most difficult things here. As for waiting to see what other editors think: an AFD runs for a week and this one is listed on four different lists (see the fine print above). These lists are generally watched by interested editors who then can comment if they see fit. In addition, the AFD is listed on the "article alerts" page of the academic journals project, so there is ample opportunity for other editors to chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
In re: NEWBIES; perhaps you could have worked with the creator for a few days, explored whether sources not have easily located existed, and retained the good will of a new editor, whether or not efforts efforts to keep this page panned out. After all, this is not the classic new article AFD in which a new editor writes a memorial page, or puts a page up for his garage band.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see any sources and none have been found yet either. In addition, the article creator is a staff member of the journal. It may not be a "classical memorial page", it is a classical "my thing should be on WP" page. Taken together, I don't see much opportunity for "working with the creator". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Look, just judge the article on its merits and the organization's notability, rather than my relationship to it. I understand if you don't think it's notable, and I respect your opinion. If the editors here agree that it's not notable, then please delete the article. If the editors decide that it can be improved and kept, then I'd be happy to help. I don't want to be a factor in the decision. I'll sticking around WP anyway, and the result of this discussion won't affect my decision to stay and help. The JEI article was just a contribution I thought I'd make because I knew a lot about the subject. Mspringel (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that's what's happened. Several users have found this article to not meet WP:Notability. I, for one, believe it fails to meet that standard, regardless of your relationship to it. Therefore, it deserves deletion.--Shibbolethink ( ) 16:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Randykitty and above. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 00:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, but this is a case of 15 minutes of fame, so GNG is not really applicable. Almost all the journals discussed on WP are here by virtue of being "important" in the sense of being indexed by the major services (per WP:NJOURNALS c1), i.e. they're well-established, archival, and report research that itself is widely cited. Doesn't seem to apply here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep. As I said in the JYI AfD - the fact that this is not indexed in selective databases or doesn't meet notability for journals is completely irrelevant; that's not what this project is for. Yes, most of its mainstream coverage comes from that one paper that went viral, but there is non-trivial interest in this in science-education venues, most prominently the Kelsey paper. Nature blog posts are curated (a guest post invitation is explicitly an editorial decision and a recognition of notability with respect to the Nature audience) and Wired's goofy bylines are a distraction. Lawyering over this stuff is a waste; isn't there actual spam to go delete? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Spam does not go to AfD, we delete it speedily as WP:CSD#G11. Once an article is at AfD, the question is not whether WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS that needs our attention, but whether the subject in question is notable. If you think that NJournals is irrelevant here, that's fine with me, but then it needs to meet GNG and I can't say that you make a convincing case that it does. --Randykitty (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Come on now, we only delete some of the spam speedily. If you think we are efficient at removing promotional material quickly, I think there might be some bridges for sale over here ;)
  • Comment I suggested in the JYI AfD that these (and others of the genre) could be merged and redirected to a new article at undergraduate research journal or similar title. This is clearly a notable general topic that should have an article. JEI is slightly out of scope as it targets younger students, but clearly comes from the same early-STEM-education context, so I think that is a reasonable redirect target. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said at the other AfD, a new article on a more general topic, to which these two articles could redirect, seems like a good solution to me. As for the preceding comment, perhaps the new article should be student research journal, I don't see a need to split this out in different articles depending on what stage of their education the students are in. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think the Wired and Nature coverage may be enough for WP:GNG (although I'm less impressed by the media spikes for individual flash-in-the-pan pieces of research published in this journal) and there's also a case to be made for NJournals #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • weak keep with the same reason as David E. A combined article wouldas O..r. suggests would be a good idea, but that shouldn't affect our consideration of this one individually. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Waste Heat Engine[edit]

Cyclone Waste Heat Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cyclone Waste Heat Engine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I consider this essentially an attack page, devoted to an attack upon the company and their product, but speedy was declined. I note that it is entirely based upon the SYNTHESIS of primary sources. It may appear straight description at first, but keep reading., DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Seems clearly notable to me, possibly it could be merged back to the related article. I tagged it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles on the talk page; as it's a highly technical article, relevant projects should be consulted before running straight to AfD. Wikipedia also has this feature that lets you delete things you think are undue. МандичкаYO 😜 01:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The way to deal with the decent material is to add it to the main article, rather than by keeping an unsatisfactory article. It was never a justified split. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete I cannot see why the article has to have what is basically an entire treatise on steam engine thermal design, but in any case I cannot find any evidence of real notability. The most promising book reference turned out to be a paranoid work in the Orwellian vein—self-published, naturally. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The synthesis and attack elements seem to be mostly gone... I am a bit confused by the "merge back" comments as this does not seem to have been split from anywhere. What is the proposed "main article"?... I'm not sure about the engine, but the company does appear to be notable. Since the remaining content seems OK (albeit probably too detailed), creating an article for the company & merging would be a viable option. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably delete for now because that News search shows a concerning more than half press releases in a 15-page range with reliable and notable sources zig zagging in and out of pages. Books also found a few things. The information is good but having most of the sources press releases is outstanding. I'm uncertain but I think the company could be notable later with more actual news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The ratio of press release to quality coverage does not matter, only the amount of quality coverage. If say 1/3 of the stories are not press releases, that leaves 5 pages of sources, more than enough to establish notability (for the company). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Generalized quaternion interpolation[edit]

Generalized quaternion interpolation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Generalized quaternion interpolation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Outwith my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish its notability. Neither has anyone else in the 7 years it has been tagged for notability; hopefully at AfD we can get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. I've read it through twice but can’t make sense of it. There are ways to do what it’s trying to do, interpolate between more than two quaternions, but it doesn’t seem to get close to any of them, or anything that I can make sense of.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I found the (single) reference online: [9]. The whole thing looks borderline WP:NOTESSAY and complete gibberish. I first tried to understand what this article is about without the reference with my smattering of elemental mathematics, and frankly the most basic things are not correctly explained. Some basic and probably incorrect summary of the reference follows with as little jargon as possible:
The main problem is to measure a 3d rotation. We have multiple measurements with uncertainty attached to each of them and we want to take a guess of what the real value is. Notice this "value" is a three-parameter thing, for instance axis of rotation (2 degrees of freedom) and angle (1 DoF), so it can be represented by a unit vector of the quaternion space (if you forget about compositions of rotations, that's equivalent to a 3-sphere).
The "naive" way to look at the problem is to use some weighted average of the measurements (it is already not that easy if measurements have inconsistent error bars). But the thing is, that average is not easy to define, for instance the average of a set of unit vectors is not a unit vector, so you cannot find a straightforward geometrical definition for "average" here, because there are additional constraints on our objects (they must fit on a sphere). The article then proceeds to describe an algorithm that supposedly finds a good solution to the problem for a reason I do not quite see.
Even if the article was rewritten into a clear, concise and correct summary of that reference, I am still not seeing how this could possibly be considered notable. Tigraan (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete—I think Tigraan's analysis is more than generous. I'm not finding any WP:RS where the concept is discussed under this name. Not sufficient notability for an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The goal is to find a unit quaternion m such that preimages of the points p_i under the exponential map sum to zero in the tangent space to the unit sphere at m (with weights w_i). The point(s) m solving this problem is/are the same as the Karcher mean on the three-sphere. So the subject of the article is not nonsense, in my opinion. Whether it has enough sense to keep, I defer to others' judgement, although I lean slightly towards "keep and improve" myself. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Slawekb: Any leads on where this has been discussed in the literature? I've happy to give quite a bit of leeway on math articles, but without any sources I'm concerned about the WP:OR aspect. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I was able to find this: http://labvis.isr.uc.pt/robomat/papers/T1_2.pdf, which does something similar but without the weights. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

SSC buffer[edit]

SSC buffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "SSC buffer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This seems to be more of a dictdef than an article; perhaps my lack of expertise in this area means I've misunderstood. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

K. Sridhar[edit]

K. Sridhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "K. Sridhar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Not a notable figure. Known for something "Twice Written" not sure what is it!! Sourced with facebook page. No secondary source. No contribution whatsoever. Educationtemple (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete-per nom. He wrote something twice??? That was all I could think of! Wgolf (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. My presumption would be that a full professor at the Tata Institute would be notable, but of course that's not a policy-based argument. And it's a little hard to search because there are other people named "K. Sridhar" with highly-cited publications. But I'm seeing Google scholar citation counts of 276 ("Quarkonium production in hadronic collisions"), 187 ("New LEP bounds on B-violating scalar couplings"), 167 ("Fragmentation contribution to quarkonium production"), 156 ("New LEP constraints on some supersymmetric Yukawa interactions"), 114 ("Getting to the top with extra dimensions"), 108 ("Next-to-leading order QCD corrections"), etc., which should be good enough for WP:PROF#C1 even in a high-citation field. In addition, the major-newspaper reviews of his novel (thanks for adding these, EricEnfermero; they weren't in the article as nominated) could also give him notability under WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per David Eppstein. It seems that there was some confusion over what Twice Written was. However - from the original version of this entry (2011) to the version sent to AFD to the present version - Twice Written has always been clearly described as a work of literary fiction or a novel. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Keep The citations arefully sufficient. I don't know why this was re-listed. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Aruna Dhathathreyan[edit]

Aruna Dhathathreyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aruna Dhathathreyan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Could not establish notability. Streesakthi Science Award is not a national award in India for science and technology. Fails WP:ACADEMIC Educationtemple (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ajit Iqbal Singh[edit]

Ajit Iqbal Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ajit Iqbal Singh" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Not a notable figure in Indian Science. Just being FNAS could not meet WP:ACADEMIC criteria. All the sources cited are primary sources. Educationtemple (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Do not delete. Thanks Educationtemple, for informing me of your nomination for the deletion of the Ajit Iqbal Singh article. As I said about the AfD for Gaiti Hasan, I find it rather disturbing that as Wikipedia and Wikimedians do their best to recognise that quality includes greater diversity in information (both gender and geography), this and other such articles about women scientists from India are being considered for deletion. As a datapoint, only 20-30% of WP articles currently come from the Global South (which comprises over 80% of the world's population) and our coverage of female-related content is poor (with only 1 in 10 of our contributors projected to be women).
In fact, this particular article was part of the Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon in Bangalore last year, held in order to improve writing about women scientists from India. The list of women scientists that needed enWP articles was created by a group of Indian scientists from a highly reputed Indian science research institution, and I would suggest that their understanding of notability and their expertise in this domain is to be relied upon.
Sadly, notability is an issue I face repeatedly as I work on women of note from the Global South in multiple spheres - notability cannot only be established by the publishing of scholarship _about_ people, when there is a systemic bias to publishing that exists both about notable people in the Global South and about women; and of course, doubly so for a woman from the Global South. :-( Notability, of course, is also contextual; for example, not everyone in the world recognises Oreos to be notable when many of us may never have seen or eaten one in our lives! As a Wikipedian, I do, of course, understand that the way we have defined notability has its own constraints; however, in a space of scholarship that is clearly educational - i.e. about women scientists - I would suggest we be bold, rather than be limited in our view of inclusion. I invite the convenor of this edit-a-thon, Shyamal and other contributors like Netha to comment on this nomination for deletion as well.
As I've said before, I'd be greatly appreciative Educationtemple, if we were allies in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission: we cannot achieve the 'sum of human knowledge' if we do not recognise the institutional biases inherent in knowledge systems, and do our best not to make Wikipedia fallible to them. thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I personally respect your views about women. But one has to prove notability (irrespective of gender) if the bio of living person has to be on WP. Let other learned editors comments and/or add more reliable sources/citations to the article to show some national contributions at least, if not international to pass the WP:ACADEMIC criteria by the subject. Educationtemple (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : Another article of the similar standard, created by same user - got several Keeps in afd discussion. I am sure this article will have same fate. No problem, and I would be more than happy to withdraw this nomination before editors do further exercise on it - IFF the creator/other editors please add some secondary sources on the article to support various claims within the article. I am sure, none of the claim is incorrect/overstatement but biographies of living people on WP do not look nice/appropriate without reliable sources as per WP definition of standards. A reader sitting in other part of the world will only judge the article by its citations and not by some facts that the subject was selected by a group of talented Indian Scientists who created a "list of women scientists that needed enWP articles". By the way, can you (Anasuyas) quote it within the body of the article? I am sure, you can't, since it will look so odd to convince the readers on the notability of a person by such reasons!! Furthermore, while we complain that there is a "systemic bias to publishing that exists both about notable people in the Global South and about women" and when we take responsibilities of creating the profiles/articles on Wiki after grand "Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon" meet to improve writing about women scientists from India, we should also take some responsibility of doing search for proper citations that could support the claims as per the WP standards. This afd nomination just thrust for either complete improvement or complete deletion since lots of stub type article from India (specially of genuinely notable people) leave a real bad impression in the world; and that is one of the reasons of under-representation of articles from India and so on. Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was asked to comment on this AfD. Unfortunately I do not know enough about the subject in question to contribute with a keep or delete. My only input is that the rules for notability are equal for men and women on the WP even if this sometimes poses a problem since men tend to write about male scientists in books, websites and magazines. This makes it harder to find reliable sources for many noted women and consequently for us to provide enough proof of their notability. But this is a discussion for another forum, and for the moment we have to rely on the facts at hand. So please find more sources about this scientist's notability so that it warrants a keep for the article, otherwise delete it. I have seen articles about men with more coverage being deleted, so right now it is not a question of gender. Best w.carter-Talk 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the contrary, FNAS seems to entirely meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS #3. About fifty fellows seem to be elected annually. For a country the size of India, that makes it pretty selective. Given only three of the fellows elected last year, for instance, were women, that makes it an even rarer honour for a woman. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply and query from all Editors here and Admins: All right. IAS was established in 1934. Since than tii date there are approx 5000 Fellows of this society. National Academy of Science, India has approx 2500 fellows. NASI has equal number probably. Indian Science Congress may have even more. All together, it comes to apprx 10 thousand Fellows. Will it be OK if I create the article about all these 10 thousand fellows on WP, since they all automatically meet the criteria of notability on WP as per above discussions. And I will only provide a single citation on all the articles, the link to the websites or the directory where its is stated that the person is a Fellow. Some times, I will not provide even that (as in this article), which has got several Keeps in ongoing afd, without a single reference whatsoever in place for any of the claim. My question is: Will all the editors here support me to do this. If any of these 10 thousand articles are sent in afd in future, I will give reference to this afd discussion Please let me know (specially the one who has given a keep here). Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The Royal Society has had far more fellows. We wouldn't dream of deleting articles on any of them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I will appreciate a direct reply of my question above. We are not talking about Royal Society here. We are talking about IAS, NAS, NASI, ISCA, NAAS and other similar societies and academies of India. More than 10 thousand Fellows and I dream to create article for all of them, just a single line article and one reference (May be nice Photo too). I am going to use this reply as a reference in future afds. I would consider your indirect reply or 'Silence' on this as your disagreement and then your 'keep' on this article will not have any meaning, I am humble. Educationtemple (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah! A user just posted me this article. She is also FNAS. A notability tag was added on this last month. I will selectively remove such tags from this, and all such articles if this article sustain in this afd. I am sure users such as @Anasuyas: would well receive this! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - any other reliance sources that is in Hindi? - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Because of her low citation record, she would unfortunately not meet WP:PROF except for the NAS membership,. Otherwise, as I understand it, the criterion for WP:PROF is fundamentally international, a single standard across the world, in the sciences interpreted in practice as a citation record in internationally recognized peer-reviewed sources (though recognizing some fields where the publishing is intrinsically only in national journals). This does show a Euroamerican bias, but that accurately reflects the current situation of scientific research, tho I expect it will in future decades be much wider. I have always advocated taking account of that to some extent also, in applying the standards less stringently for countries where the academic world, though it may be extensive, is lesser developed. Sometimes but not always this argument has been accepted, but applying it here would be stretching it too far on the basis of the evidence presented (this may not be the case for some of the other nominated articles).
The question is whether the Indian academies are similar in international prestige to the national academies of the US or UK. It is not. I also don't think it has the same prestige within India, and perhaps it may have even less prestige there than warranted, for as I understand it this is a nation which for historic reason has always laid very great prestige upon foreign (and especially British) qualifications. Leaving India, for the moment, the relative lack of prestige will affect even more the national academies of some much smaller countries). I think the statement in WP:PROF needs to be revised, and the first step in doing this is discussions such as the one here,to see if people are willing to interpret this differently--the effective guidelines at deletion have always been what actually does and does not get deleted. But the basic criterion is the establishment of the personas an expert in their field, and the other possibilities are really just shortcuts. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per DGG's excellent analysis and needs further reliable sources it fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF except for a claim of being a member of a national society. Now not all the members of every national society or association in the world can be deemed notable merely being a member of a society.Now members of Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences are considered notable that does not mean that every member of every scientific society all over the world can be considered of the same standard and that every member be considered notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think, FNA (Fellow of the Indian National Science Academy) meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS #3 [as mentioned above by Necrothesp ] -- Badger M. (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The argument from WP:PROF#C3 seems rather weak to me. The inclusionary guidelines at WP:PROF are usually meant to be used in case there is something of scholarly notability to be said about the subject and their work, which might otherwise fall on the wrong side of WP:GNG. One should usually expect to see some reasonably high citations on the subject's work or, at least, something on which to base an encyclopedia article other than membership in a society (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). In this case, however, the poor citation numbers fail to bear this out. (Also, the sources in the article are rather poor. One of which, discussing her research, says this: "The s include peredbation theory for line operators [sic]" which is obvious nonsense.) Indeed, the subject appears only to be notable as a member of a scientific body. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul Kratka[edit]

Paul Kratka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Paul Kratka" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Notability missing. Not Sourced. Few External links, all primary or personal websites and Linkedin profile. Educationtemple (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment-are there 2 different people in this article? As the Polish wiki for example just has him a actor. Wgolf (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There are 2 people. This one has got only official and social networking links. Noteswork (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

W Selvamurthy[edit]

W Selvamurthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "W Selvamurthy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Millions of claims, none supported. Of the few citations provided, most are dead. Just one example - it says in lead "His Research contributions have immensely benefited the armed forces in particular and society at large" and support this with an article, which is indeed the praise of the work of DRDO where he acted as a spokesperson being the Chief Controller of R&D. Could not find any notable contribution of himself alone that could lead this BIO on WP. Educationtemple (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is it a good article? Absolutely not. Does he seem to be notable? Yes he does. Most of his career can be confirmed by looking at his bio on the DRDO website.[10] -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I learn from other great editor that WP:TNT apply to such articles, which may justify this afd and delete. Educationtemple (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That's an essay. And I don't see how this article is irreparable in any case. Just needs a good edit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kamla Kant Pandey[edit]

Kamla Kant Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kamla Kant Pandey" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Completely unsupported. Only one external link, that is also dead. Talk about some miracle technology of gene transfer that has revolutionized the science but he probably missed the Nobel prize for this discovery! Educationtemple (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1. Fellowship in the Linnean society is, judging from their web site, not a significant honor. This could go either way for me but what turns me against it is the lack of sources in the article and my inability to find sources that cover the subject in nontrivial detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nothing showing up to make him notable in NZ NealeFamily (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Atanu Kumar Pati[edit]

Atanu Kumar Pati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Atanu Kumar Pati" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Not sourced at all. Subject missing notability. Educationtemple (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply and query from all Editors here and Admins: All right. IAS was established in 1934. Since than tii date there are approx 5000 Fellows of this society. National Academy of Science, India has approx 2500 fellows. NASI has equal number probably. Indian Science Congress may have even more. All together, it comes to apprx 10 thousand Fellows. Will it be OK if I create the article about all these 10 thousand fellows on WP, since they all automatically meet the criteria of notability on WP as per above discussions. And I will only provide a single citation on all the articles, the link to the websites or the directory where its is stated that the person is a Fellow. Some times, I will not provide even that (as in this article), which has got several Keeps in ongoing afd, without a single reference whatsoever in place for any of the claim. My question is: Will all the editors here support me to do this. If any of these 10 thousand articles are sent in afd in future, I will give reference to this afd discussion Please let me know (specially the one who has given a keep here). Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The Royal Society has had far more fellows. We wouldn't dream of deleting articles on any of them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I will appreciate a direct reply of my question above. We are not talking about Royal Society here. We are talking about IAS, NAS, NASI, ISCA, NAAS and other similar societies and academies of India. More than 10 thousand Fellows and I dream to create article for all of them, just a single line article and one reference (May be nice Photo too). I am going to use this reply as a reference in future afds. I would consider your indirect reply or 'Silence' on this as your disagreement and then your 'keep' on this article will not have any meaning, I am humble. Educationtemple (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah! A user just posted me this article. She is also FNAS. A notability tag was added on this last month. I will selectively remove such tags from this, and all such articles if this Atanu Kumar Pati article sustain in this afd. I am sure users such as @Anasuyas: would well receive this! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - any other reliance sources that is in Hindi? - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability under WP PROF is based upon the extent to which the person is an authority, and is normally proven in science by the citations to their peer-reviewed contributions to scientific journals. The criteria of society membership is a shortcut (among other possible short-cuts, such as prizes), on the assumption that people who meet the shortcuts always have such recognition, or they would not have been elected, given the prize, etc.-- and that the committees involved in such honours are better judges of this than we are. It is generally considered here that scientific notability is international. and the standard is international. In this case the question is whether the standards of this particular national society are sufficiently high to prove this. I am undecided on this. I certainly think that it is not as high as the Royal society or the NAS US, and that this non-equivalence is recognized in India as elsewhere-- particular in India, in fact, where major foreign awards are considered more prestigious than national ones. That does not prove that the standard might not be sufficient nonetheless. We are left with two very unfortunate choices: either recognizing the lack of merit of certain national societies, or admitting people to a recognized international standard depending on what countries they come from. I would very much like to avoid making such a general determination here, or at any of the individual AfDs. Perhaps we shouldctry to look at whether it meets the basic WP:PROF standard. If it does, that would be sufficient. that will take some further analysis. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Would not be notble by the usual standard. The field of experimental medicine and related fields is one with very high citations. In his case, the 3 most cited research articles according to Google Scholar are 41,39, 27 ,where only the first is in a major international journal. This is not enough in this subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per DGG's excellent analysis and subject is not notable and lacks reliable sources. Now not all the members of every national society or association in the world can be deemed notable merely being a member of a society just because that a member of Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences are considered notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - There are many like this in this batch of afd nominations. Pl have a look at some of them here. Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly meets the criteria of being a fellow of a recognized society. I would love to see many more articles on such fellows. Wikipedia has a severe lack of articles on scientists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jyotsna Dhawan[edit]

Jyotsna Dhawan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jyotsna Dhawan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Notability missing. No coverage in media for whatsoever contribution to Indian Science and Technology. Article not sourced, or sourced with unreliable citations such as PHDTREE. WP is not a replacement for facebook page. Educationtemple (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FAILN, Only references in article are primary sources. Search shows that he has written a fair bit of material but the material isn't notable since it hasn't received significant secondary coverage. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing this content in WikiBios not an encyclopedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bilikere Dwarakanath[edit]

Bilikere Dwarakanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bilikere Dwarakanath" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Merely being Scientist A, B, C, D etc is not a criteria for a Biography on WP. Article not sourced. External links included such as IUSSTF website etc unrelated. Full of Self praise and promo such a mention about some insignificant, so called "recent" editorial written by him. Notability missing. Educationtemple (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have some vandalism there under family (which I'm about to remove), anyway-I'm not sure right now but leaning towards a weak keep at the moment. Wgolf (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You know I like to know how true the 150 publications part is. Wgolf (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. As you can see there are no sources cited whatsoever to support the claims. External Link 2 (about papers) is dead. External link 3 about papers is also dead. External link 4 is unrelated. The last link go to this paper. I however did a quick search in pubmed and other sources using some combination of keys. Results from Europe Pubmed Central is this; and pubmed - this. Educationtemple (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like according to this [11] he has 99 publications (and 1265 citations!) and [12] lists him as working at INMAS. He looks like he usually uses the initials "B S Dwarakanath" or "Bilikere S Dwarakanath" or also "B.S.R. Dwarakanath". 203.202.246.35 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way 1265 citations are not a great number for 100 papers. This figures average 12 citation per paper. A single breakthrough research paper, if any may have several thousand citations. This itself suggest that the person has not a notable breakthrough contribution to justify a Bio on WP. Educationtemple (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FAILN, a search didn't turn up any secondary sources establisihing notability. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend making an article on this content in WikiBios or another wiki, but Wikipedia isn't the best fit for this subject. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Gursharn Singh Randhawa[edit]

Gursharn Singh Randhawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gursharn Singh Randhawa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Not a notable figure. Article not sourced. No significant contribution to Indian Science could be found on google. Educationtemple (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FAILN, a notability search comes up with Dr. Randhawa's work but not coverage on his work, so while worthwhile it isn't notable. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing this content in WikiBios or another Wiki but it falls short of an encyclopedic topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

P. Ananda Kumar[edit]

P. Ananda Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "P. Ananda Kumar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article not sourced with reliable references, person is not a notable figure in India Educationtemple (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete-Per nom. Though often these names with no first name listed are tough to find to be honest. Still not looking good at the moment. Wgolf (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - A user just posted me this article. She is also FNAS. A notability tag was added on this last month. I will selectively remove such tags from this, and all such articles if this article sustain in this afd. I also invite all editors who commented on this article to also join this important afd discussion that will enact a statutes about Fellows of selected Indian Societies on WP. Please dont miss out. Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The person is a well-known molecular biologist noted for his significant research contributions. All citations are genuine. The article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.95.56 (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability under WP PROF is based upon the extent to which the person is an authority, and is normally proven in science by the citations to their peer-reviewed contributions to scientific journals. The criteria of society membership is a shortcut (among other possible short-cuts, such as prizes), on the assumption that people who meet the shortcuts always have such recognition, or they would not have been elected, given the prize, etc.-- and that the committees involved in such honours are better judges of this than we are. It is generally considered here that scientific notability is international. and the standard is international.
In this case the question is whether the standards of this particular national society are sufficiently high to prove this. I am undecided on this. I certainly think that it is not as high as the Royal society or the NAS US, and that this non-equivalence is recognized in India as elsewhere-- particular in India, in fact, where major foreign awards are considered more prestigious than national ones. That does not prove that the standard might not be sufficient nonetheless. We are left with two very unfortunate choices: either recognizing the lack of merit of certain national societies, or admitting people to a recognized international standard depending on what countries they come from. I would very much like to avoid making such a general determination here, or at any of the individual AfDs. Perhaps we shouldctry to look at whether it meets the basic WP:PROF standard. If it does, that would be sufficient. that will take some further analysis. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Looking at the basic standard, which is the number of citations to the scientific peer-reviewed articles, the result is not straight-forward. Analysis of google Scholar [13] is complicated because of other people with the same or similar names. Of her papers, many are review articles, not primary work--such papers generally have much higher citation counts than research articles, and are normally invited papers, not peer reviewed; they are not research articles and not intended to be, Her most cited paper, in a good specialized journal, ids a review, with 111 cites. The second is another review paper, published in a not very important journal, with 106 citation, Her 3rd is a research paper, not a review, in a decent specialized journal, & has 64 citations. Fifth is a review. Sixth, a research paper in a fairly good journal, has 54. I unfortunately do not see any paper in a really internationally famous first rate nonspecialized journal. But plant biochemistry is a field with relatively low citation figures as compared to some fields, and the proportion of review papers is an indication of her senior status. It is possible that her greatest notability is as a scientific administrator. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Correction for DGG's comment. I think the subject is 'He' not 'She' Educationtemple (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

1702 Kalahari[edit]

1702 Kalahari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1702 Kalahari" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Hoping for greater participation this time so we can get a consensus; will inform Wikiproject.This does have mentions in articles and databases, but they do not add up to WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As this has been sitting tagged for notability for over 3 years, it could really do with a consensus being reached. Pinging Tom.Reding, Avicennasis. Praemonitus and exoplanetaryscience also participated in last (very recent) AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - per past astronomy consensus I believe they chose to keep asteroid/minor planets up to number 4000 (or possibly only 2000). This makes it either way. Plus the last discussion on many many such bodies less than two weeks ago was withdrawn. Many had chosen to keep but several had said that dealing with just one or just a few was ridiculous when there are hundreds of thousands of these minor planets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The consensus was not to keep those up to 2000, but to individually assess those up to 2000. Dealing with one or two is not an issue (all of them will eventually be looked at) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in an AfD. The recent discussion you mention (one of many recent discussions, which include those redirected) was withdrawn, it is really difficult to assess that number of asteroids in one AfD, so it was understandabley withdrawn. None of your comments, Fyunck(click) are about how this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to suitable list- this article contains literally no information that could not be included in a table of similar asteroids. This information would be better presented as a multi-column table containing orbital parameters of asteroids. Diluting information over a multitude of microstubs like this is the worst way to present it. Reyk YO! 09:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment List of minor planets/1701–1800 is the most appropriate merge/redirect title, although I think only a redirect is really needed. Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That table does not contain orbital elements, which I would like to see preserved. Though looking at the list now, including all those extra columns would cause it to run off the right edge of the screen. I wonder if it would be possible to include the asteroid infobox, which is now in the article, in the list in collapsible bits for each asteroid? That might be the best way. Reyk YO! 09:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO. I was unable to find any research that provides non-trivial detail about this object. At first I thought there was an entire publication about it [14] but on closer examination it looks like just an entry in a database that someone once saw a need to cite individually. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Redirect per WP:NASTRO: While it was the subject of a light curve study,[15] and is mentioned in a few scholarly journal articles, there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

1467 Mashona[edit]

1467 Mashona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1467 Mashona" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is research using this one as a particular example [16], studying it as one of a small group of asteroids [17], and considering close encounters between it and other asteroids [18]. I'm not sure whether they're enough in-depth coverage of this object to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lateral spin valve[edit]

Lateral spin valve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lateral spin valve" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

a) page provides no information not provided on the wikipedia Spin valve article which is already more detailed and complete. The only source in the "lateral spin valve" article can't be retrieved.

b) lateral spin valves are a type of spin valve and do not merit a separate article. At most they merit a subsection in the spin valve article. There is very little difference between a lateral spin valve and a "regular" spin valve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.40.130 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ray Hefferlin[edit]

Ray Hefferlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ray Hefferlin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable academic, apparently meets none of the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS. Highest Google Scholar cites are 27. He has however written a lot, which taken en masse might help him to qualify. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The citation record isn't very convincing. But we can point to one significant concept that he was known as a pioneer of — Periodic systems of small molecules — and two obituaries in major national Adventist publications [19] [20]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. First, many thanks to EricEnfermero, who added referenced information to the article. When I read that I almost came here to withdraw this. However, I found that the mention in the Scientific American is a brief passage in a long article mostly on the periodic table proper. David Eppstein, may I ask if you are sure that periodic systems of small molecules is truly a significant concept (I'm not questioning its notability, btw)? Because the citation record of Hefferlin's articles on the topic seems to suggest quite otherwise, and to show that take-up has been minimal. Redirection of this page to Periodic systems of small molecules might also be an option here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I didn't vote here because I wasn't sure of the significance, but I figured I would add it and let others judge that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
My understanding of the significance of the "periodic systems" concept is purely based on the obituaries, and not on any personal knowledge of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

University of the Philippines Los Baños Institute of Biological Sciences[edit]

University of the Philippines Los Baños Institute of Biological Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "University of the Philippines Los Baños Institute of Biological Sciences" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No specific notability. This is not a first-order division of the university, but only a single department within the CUniversity'sCollege of Arts and Sciences. No notable faculty or alumni are listed. essentially no third-party references. It's already mentioned in the article on the college, and I see no need for a redirect any more than any other within-college program, especially since the heading starts with the same name--nobody looking for it could miss it. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's "under the direct supervision of its director and the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences," meaning not independent of the academic hierarchy. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge anything that isn't in the article yet - No independent notability outside of the college. Still, redirects are cheap. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (I do not see the need to merge, what should be kept?) A redirect from UPLB IBS to the university page could be considered, but not from the whole title. Tigraan (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1538 Detre[edit]

1538 Detre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1538 Detre" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This one has a bit of an unusual observational history: it was discovered in 1940, but then lost and not rediscovered until 1980 [21] [22]. That's all I found in the way of specific studies of this object, but it may be enough to save this article from being just a name and some orbital elements. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect: per Praemonitus. That the thing was lost and subsequently rediscovered isn't "unusual" at all -- that happens sometimes in astronomy. It's certainly not any measure of notability. Nha Trang Allons! 16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

MTP-II MATER[edit]

MTP-II MATER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "MTP-II MATER" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability since Marasmusine added the tag seven years ago; time for a resolution. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
the link to cordis for this project, given in the first deletion request above does not work. this is the perfect example that links pointing to somewhere on the web, are not reliable. some years ago, i have started to open lemmata of EU-research projects to have reliable links. all were deleted, MATER is the last remain. this ends up in a discussion about the relevance of research projects. the related article in wikipedia says, that a project must be large to be relevant to wikipedia. hard to find the propper definition of "large" for a research project - where is the limit in euro or man power or topics between relevant and not relevant. i am an inclusionist and i am wondering, why there is a limitation for research projects producing new knowledge for mankind. the eu spends billions of euro for its international reasearch and interesting findings are beeing published every year. tiresome discussions. Hannes Grobe (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, can I ask that it is repeatedly relisted rather than closed due to poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The EU Marine Science and Technology program under which this was funded may well be notable. I'm dubious that research grants, even large ones, are really a good subject for encyclopedia articles, but if they are then the Mediterranean Targeted Project may be large enough and written-about enough to be notable. I think it's quite unlikely that a single phase of a research grant (which is what the title refers to) is itself notable. And in any case we have only primary sources. If there were a larger parent article to redirect to I'd say merge but in the absence of one I think we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]