User:Ace111

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

MediaWiki version 1.24wmf16 (4eeb1c6).

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 [[w:ru:User:Ace111|Wikipedia (Russian)]].
Stargate SG·1 symbol 01.svg This user is from the planet Earth. Rotating earth (large).gif
Osaka Castle 02bs3200.jpg This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤


Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.
Picture of the day
Osaka Castle

Osaka Castle
Photo: 663highland
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

The Signpost
13 August 2014

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-ru.gif
Lang-it.gif
Lang-es.gif
Flag of Vietnam.svg
Lang-war.gif
English
Svenska
Nederlands
Deutsch
Français
Русский
Italiano
Español
Việt
Winaray
4,585,297
1,845,116+
1,787,198+
1,748,804+
1,536,663+
1,139,715+
1,138,297+
1,120,073+
1,106,879+
1,073,776+
Total 32,882,127 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 4,416,913 articles.


Russia[edit]

Eleonora Nikolaievna Dostal-Oruç[edit]

Eleonora Nikolaievna Dostal-Oruç (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Eleonora Nikolaievna Dostal-Oruç" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The person is not notable. There are no references in the article which confirm the notability; the only semi-reiable source is the last (unnamed) reference which is about her mother (who is notable), not about her. Additionally, the talk page of the article suggests this can be a hoax. Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that I discussed the issue with Ghirlandajo before nominating it for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The Russian article was deleted in 2011 on the grounds of non-notability. I have not seen reliable sources proving that such a person really exists, but even if she does, I see nothing notable about her. Delete. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (shout) @ 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanatotherapy[edit]

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

No references, since creation, other than to website promoting dubious non-scientific WP:FRINGE claims. – S. Rich (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion is made in this article to indicate that it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Vorota beast[edit]

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

I found no reliable sources for this and the only reference is an unreliable source. This is likely a hoax. SL93 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This may well have been a hoax, but I am not the one who spawned it. --Auric talk 23:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment [1] is unreliable as it appears to be self published. Source used [2] is itself based of a single reference to a 1966 publication, "The Leviathans" which is also of dubious reliability. Does anyone actually have access to the original Russian publication to see if it matches? The amount of coverage seems to be limited to these three possible sources only so it's not particularly notable, Second Quantization (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Reports of a mysterious living dinosaur are WP:REDFLAG and need multiple independent sources. I can find none. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash[edit]

2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:AIRCRASH, IT JUST ISN'T NOTABLE AS ANOTHER CARGO AIRCRAFT CRASH with no lasting consequences or changes to procedures, regulations etc. etc., no notable fatalities, no special cargo, absolutely nothing notable!! Petebutt (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Terekeme people[edit]

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

Another name for Karapapak. We cannot have two articles for one people. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Karapapak - The articles are a little confusing as they reference different locations, but the Karapapak article suggests that the names reference the same people. Anything that I find via Google suggests that the two names apply to the same people.--Rpclod (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge, at least the different image. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge, should merged with Karapapaks.--Yacatisma (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Anything but delete Whatever Terekeme may mean, Karapapak means "black hat", and is the name given them, assuming they are actually the same, by Russians. So really, the article on them, again assuming they are not two different groups, should be called Terekeme, as they call themselves, and Karapapak, a trivial nickname referring to the style of their hats, the redirect to it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Anarchangel's logic is good and we may have general consensus, including the nominator, that the Karapapak article should be merged into, and the Karapapak reference redirected to, the Terekeme article. Can that be done with an AfD for the Terekeme article? Did I put words in anyone's mouth?--Rpclod (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Do whatever you wish, except having two articles for the one and same people. I proposed the last article added. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pavel Volya[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Launchballer 17:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, on the basis my rudimentary knowledge of Russian makes searching for sources slow and difficult. But his marriage, for example, was reported in the Russian media and a search of the 7 Days newspaper archives shows coverage about him going back to 2008 (limits of their online archive?). This leads me to believe there will be other sources that exist in Russian and it would have been better to have made a thorough search for these before nominating for AfD. The English article seems to be a translation of Воля, Павел Алексеевич, which at least has some sources. Sionk (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - it does appear that this person is somewhat notable, but the page is a WP:BLP disaster. If it stays, it's going to have nothing on it if somebody doesn't put in some references. I can't do it, I don't understand Russian at all. XeroxKleenex (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  04:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Requiem for MH-17[edit]

Requiem for MH-17 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Requiem for MH-17" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unable to find any reliable third-party sources to establish the notability of this poem. WWGB (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear WWGB,
Thank you for alerting me. As far as I understand, the main motive for proposing deletion is lack of evidence for notability of the poem, right? Perhaps the reason why you cannot confirm its notability (if you've tried) is that you are looking for it in English. Search in Russian ("Реквием по МН-17" in quotes, I include the link for results below) and you'll see that this - only one week old! - poem returns 54,000 hits, with numerous sites copying it, with radio broadcasts, replies in verse written, some sites closed for commenting it in anticipation of hate statements, some news sources claiming (I cannot confirm whether this correct) that the author's work (not only this but in general) has already been officially banned, etc. etc. It is an important political story developing alongside the MH-17 crash, and attracting in Russia perhaps as much attention (and tension) as the crash itself. It is invisible in the West because of the language barrier, but I don't think such barrier justifies exclusion from Wikipedia. I'd be happy to address other issues as well, but I'd like to hear first whether what I've said makes sense. Thanks, here is the search link [3] Borisovich (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC) BTW, here is a reprint of the poem on an Israeli tv channel page: [4]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Some nobody wrote a poem Andrei "Orlusha" Orlov is not a nobody. He is a celebrity in Russia, and if you follow the link to his page in Russian rhyme, rhithm, tomwikipedia, you'll find (in Russian, of course) a link to the article of Dmitry Bykov where he claims that "Orlusha is the principal Russian poet of our time". (Well, to explain who Dmitry Bykov is, it suffices to say that, among dozens of other roles, he is the author of an award-winning biography of Pasternak.) If Orlusha were nobody, then no one would pay attention to his poem in Russia in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisovich (talkcontribs) 23:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree that the reading by a well-known actress of a poem critical of the government on "the last bastion of free media in Russia" is definitely notable. English translation is horrid at the moment but better ones are in the works. As long as notable developments in foreign countries are allowed, this should stay.Wilanthule (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
What Wikipedia policy or guideline regarding notability do you base this on? --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Wilanthule, a better translation would be great. Could you please make sure it's not a pony, but is respectful to the art form of the original (rhyme, rhythm, tone, etc.)? Thanks! Borisovich (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, for now. My Russian is only rudimentary at best, but Orlov (not the same person as Andrei Orlov, by the way) seems to be a reasonably noted writer, and the reading out of the poem seems to have caused some political ripples. I expect there may be additional sources available in Russian or Ukrainian that would push this past the WP:GNG, but I don't have the language skills to fish them out. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • delete Fails WP:GNG for 3 weeks already. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep added references to translations (now in three languages) and references to establish heated discussions of poem on highly-visited Russian forums. Perevodit (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Note forums are not valid references for wikipedia.Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article does not mention what the Poem is about. As a reader the state of this article is not useful. 78.35.217.33 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Russia deletion review[edit]

Shortcuts:


Science[edit]

John Henry Vaughan[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Created by WP:COI WP:SPA and tagged for notability and no references for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pretty clear Keep a pre-Internet WP:BLP. Does contain claims to fame (Chief Justice of Fiji); in Who's Who [12], and had an obituary in The Times (Apr 19, 1965; pg. 10).

E(38) boson[edit]

E(38) boson (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "E(38) boson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable particle, where most of the "publications" are really arxiv preprints by a small group of people, which have been refuted by the COMPASS collaboration (arXiv:1204.2349) as generally shoddy science (see also http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/my_take_wouldbe_particle_38_mev-93256). Some arxiv preprints were even withdrawn from the arxiv (arXiv:1208.3829). The article ontains utterly sensationalistic nonsense, like suggestion that this could be the Higgs. Even in 2012, this would have been laughable. It's even more laughable now. The alledged discovery has had some coverage in press, but that's mostly ZOMG NEW PARTICLE MAYBE IT'S THE HIGGS!? kind of coverage, more than anything actually establishing notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Airone[edit]

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

This article has been on Wikipedia since August, 2009 with hardly any marked improvement in it. In fact, there have been just 10 edits on this article in its lifetime. A search for sources to establish notability turned up nothing that I could determine.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I expanded the article a bit, finding sources could be hard (especially considering the large number of false positives and the usual difficulties for non Italian-speaking editors) but the magazine is certainly sourcable, and it was and still is one of the most successful and historically important publications on its field in Italy. Cavarrone 19:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. A well know Italian magazine.User:Lucifero4

Faye Flam[edit]

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

I'm not sure about this one and I can't find any notability criteria for journalists. The subject seems to be a busy science reporter for a leading regional paper. According to the article she was nominated for a Pulitzer (but a lot of people are), though I can't find any mention of the nomination in the citation (#8). There's lots of articles BY her but few or none about her. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Keep - There are two basic arguments as far as I can see and none of them stands:
    • Unsourced Pulitzer Prize nomination - the source in the citation #8, page 8 does mention her nomination. It says "the Inquirer's only science reporter, who has been nominated twice by her paper for a Pulitzer Prize."
    • Few or none sources about her - I counted at least a dozen of sources about her. Yes, the article extensively uses sources written by her, but that is not a valid reason for deletion, especially taking in consideration that assertions sourced by her works are not particularly exceptional. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment I see the Pulitzer nom. mention on page 8 of the pdf now, but it's a bit obscure to be really reliable. I tried googling and couldn't find a better cite. Someone else I don't see "a dozen" sources about her, can you be more specific? That said, the Salon article and the New Scientist book review may be enough to establish WP:SECONDARY (that is, significant secondary coverage in reliable sources) on their own. FYI, the etiquette for summarizing your position is Delete or Keep - Saying "oppose" will probably be misread by some readers. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep (comment changed to keep) I completely agree that this article needed some cleanup, which I have attempted to do over the past week. I questioned some of the references also but I think they are in good shape now. The Pulitzer nomination is on page 8 of that reference. I have added an RP template to clarify this. "...the Inquirer's only science reporter, who has been nominated twice by her paper for a Pulitzer Prize." In summary, Flam has been nominated for a Pulitzer twice, and has received the Friend of Darwin award from the National Center for Science Education. This satisfies the notability criterion for multiple nomination of a significant award, and also a widely recognised contribution through the NCSE. This should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Her work in Science Magazine, WHYY, and her Book notwithstanding. -Kyle(talk) 08:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment As I mentioned above, I see the Pulitzer nomination on page 8 of the cited pdf. I tried googling and couldn't find a better cite, but news organizations usually put out a press release listing any Pulitzer nominations in a given year - someone else may know where this can be found. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I see your point. There are many citations that mention the Pulitzer nomination(s) but it would be useful if that organization published an annual summary (which they do not.) I started to list citations here but that is not necessary IMHO. My JSTOR search found hundreds of articles all written by Flam. If we can find additional secondary citations the article can be further improved. I have changed by comment above to Keep.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ropen[edit]

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

Fringe and psuedoscientific rubbish backed by fringe and psuedoscientific sources. Article fails GNG, V and common bloody sense. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete it; all sources are seemingly from the personal websites of the author of the vanity press Searching for Ropens and Finding God book. There are many different domains, but the sites within are all the same. There are few to no additional sources to establish notability / non-rubbishness. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete; it's the personal theory of one guy with a bunch of sock puppets, and nothing else that can be cited as ‘evidence’. --Qef (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, pure rubbish. Get rid of it please. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Calling this rubbish is an insult to rubbish. Flush twice and close the lid so it can never crawl out again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing found in non-fringe sources, not even mention of it as a legend. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: The idea of the Ropen is a famous Young Earth Creationist meme. Hell, there was even an episode of Destination Truth where they went hunting for it. Abyssal (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Coverage from reliable sources? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is any to be honest. Histories of creationism (I've heard of a book called "The Creationists" that might mention it) or histories of the interaction between paleontology and popular culture might be useful sources, but I don't have access to any. Maybe some news venues published puff pieces when the ropen-hunting expeditions happened? It would be a shame for such a famous cryptid to not have an article here just because PZ Myers complained about it on his blog the other day (yeah, I read Pharyngula too, occasionally). Abyssal (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Nor IMHO is Destination Truth which is pretty fringe. And our standard is in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete For failing WP:N. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Pure self-promotion and OR, backed up by sockpuppetry. 79.68.70.197 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: This theory dreams of achieving the stratospheric heights of plausibility (and, more importantly, mountains of supporting evidence) enjoyed by Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Elvis still being alive, and/or Elvis having been the real guy who shot JFK. Groyolo (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I laughed, but the quality of the theory has no bearing on whether or not it warrants an article. Abyssal (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability in reliable sources. Something portrayed on a single episode of a TV show? Some very non RS nonsense, no meat for an article here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No sign of sig coverage in RS. Fails WP:NFRINGE. I've heard my fair share of the claims of creationists, but I've never heard about this, Second Quantization (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as too fringey to have been commented on by reliable sources. Unless, of course, we accept www.laattorneyvideo.com, which does come with a kind of endorsement: "This site is supported by the Whitcomb Family Daycare: Quality childcare in Long Beach, California". Drmies (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • See my comment below: I'm on the fence and encourage other editors to judge the TIME and Smithsonian articles. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fringe nonsense, with no coverage in reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Starting to look like an edit war. The topic is important enough to cover on smithsonian http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dont-get-strung-along-by-the-ropen-myth-78644354/?no-ist and and Time magazine http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1916160_1916151_1916146,00.html. I think it just needs some edits without the edit war to be viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thyrymn (talkcontribs) 23:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmmm--not bad. Not bad at all. The TIME article isn't much of an article, though, but it does suggest that there may be more good material to be found--in fact, I'll adjust my comment and will go sit on the fence for now. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • See, I told you guys there'd be a few sources like this. :P Abyssal (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - having read the sources provided above. My issue with the Smithsonian source is that it basically dismisses any related story as a hoax and refutes a couple of specific claims. The TIME source hedges its bets and notes that some have claimed they exist. I'm not sure those two articles are enough to substantiate notability, though. The TIME source isn't particularly substantive and the substantive part of the Smithsonian sources is, "this doesn't exist". Non-existent things can be notable and hoaxes can be notable too, but I don't think there's enough there yet. Happy to consider anything else. Stlwart111 04:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia covers lots of fictional, mythical, and folkloric subjects. What does whether or not it exists have to do with whether or not we should have an article about it? Abyssal (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My comment wasn't very long but I think you missed the bit at the end - "Non-existent things can be notable and hoaxes can be notable too". Of course they can and I've written about quite a few of those mythological things. Stlwart111 22:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The Smithsonian article doesn't really tell us anything about the Ropen myth - it basically just states that the supposed Video is a frigate bird, not a pterosaur, and that if there were surviving pterosaurs, we don't know what they would look like. Time tells us even less. I'm less than convinced that if we were to remove the obviously unreliable sources from the existing article (e.g. laattorneyvideo.com, objectiveness.com, livepterosaur.com, cryptozoology.com) there would be enough material to support an article. Part of the problem is that there seems to be not one myth, but two - the lumenous flying creature of Papua New Guinea, and the 'pterosaur'. Any proper discussion of the topic would need to distinguish between the two, rather than simply taking the word of the cryptozoologists that they are one and the same. Malevolent nocturnal flying creatures are a common theme in mythology, and the Ropen of Papua New Guinean discourse needs to be discussed in that context, rather than appropriated by Western pseudoscience for its own purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Nature of life[edit]

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

Hard to tell what this is exactly intended to be due to its incoherence. Certainly comes across as a essay-like POV fork of various articles, but in particular life, Meaning of life. A closer examination of the sourcing indicates various randomly selected scientists including at least some who aren't experts in relevant fields (i.e. biologists or psychologists), various physicists talking about biology, including one whackjob who is known for his utterly absurd ideas about anything biological (Hoyle), and one physicist who is so well known that he doesn't have a Wikipedia biography. (A completely arbitrary selection befitting an essay). Furthermore, the start point is also completely arbitrary "Starting in the 1930s, as physics, chemistry and biology were maturing as sciences, a number of scientists proposed thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life"; are we to believe that scientists only really started thinking about these things in the 1930s? Did Darwin not contemplate his tangled bank? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now added an introductory paragraph indicating that there is little overlap in the information presented in Nature of life compared to the topics covered in Life and Meaning of life. The Nature of life article now cross-references articles on these other related topics. Thus I am not attempting to evade the spirit of NPOV, nor is it a POV fork.
I disagree that Fred Hoyle is a whackjob. He is a prominent English astronomer with many awards, and is noted primarily for the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis (see article Fred Hoyle). My inclusion of Hoyle’s ideas on the possible nature of extraterrestial life were not meant as an endorsement of those ideas but were included to make the point that life is not necessarily based on Earth-like chemistry. His ideas, presented in the novel The Black Cloud was described by the prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins as "one of the greatest science fiction novels ever written."
Another criticism was including “one physicist who is so well known that he doesn't have a Wikipedia biography.” The two physicists quoted in Nature of life were Erwin Schrödinger and Fred Hoyle and both of them do have Wikipedia biographies. The criticism may have referred to Henry Quastler who was a physician (not a physicist) with a specialty in radiation biology and information theory as applied to biology. He died at a relatively young age shortly after publishing his book “The Emergence of Biological Organization.”
A further criticism is that I started with the 1930’s. I have now included in my new introductory paragraph an indication that the historical views on the nature of life may be found in the article Life and I have restricted my considerations to the evidence bearing on the current molecular biology perspective. Although I did not discuss Darwin explicitly, Darwin’s ideas are embedded in my extensive discussion of Richard E. Michod’s book “Darwinian Dynamics.”
Chaya5260 (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some obvious local problems (e.g. poor sourcing) but this is fundamentally not an encyclopedia article, but a secondary piece addressing a novel synthetic subject: no secondary sources collect and discuss these guys' notions like this. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:ESSAY WP:OR --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Totally arbitrary collection of opinions, mainly about abiogenesis, which, of course, already has its own article. Some of it appears to be about the definition of life, which is covered in the Life article, to which the title could be redirected. While the article itself is incoherent, much of its content could be used on other articles. An article on Henry Quastler is probably warranted (his wife, the artist Gertrude Quastler, is also notable). Paul B (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are other articles that cover the same topic that are better written. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete': Personal essay, OR, synth. I highly doubt that reliable sources can be found. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Too late. I already co-opted some of it for Henry Quastler. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems to me that this random jumble of opinions is a sort of scrap book of research possibly related to other projects that the editor who created it was working on at the time. I do not think it makes sense to keep this around in article space, but possibly some of the content could be used elsewhere or sandboxed and userfied so that the editor in question can try to produce some content that is suitable for inclusion in some existing article. That having been said, I basically agree that the main articles life and abiogenesis probably would not benefit by the addition of such content, even if it were to be drastically edited and condensed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Essay, no RS has this discussion, OR, no order, no focus, nonsense... - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Carl Gustav Guckelberger[edit]

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

Article does not even assert WP:NOTABILITY, just states that he was a chemist who was the student of notable chemists. No German-language article to get sources from / indication of WP:NOTABILITY. I could not establish his notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep He is mentioned in several biographies as a student of Liebig and as a industrial chemist.--Stone (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Disappearing Glaciers in Glacier National Park[edit]

Disappearing Glaciers in Glacier National Park (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Disappearing Glaciers in Glacier National Park" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article is a WP:NOTESSAY, duplicating information from Glacier National Park#Glaciers with the rest referring to global glacial melt rather than in the national park. ☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I've tagged it as a speedy and left a note on the author's page explaining this and directing them to the main page for GNP (US). Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. It's an essay and an unnecessary content fork. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Nerilie Abram[edit]

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

I prodded this but the prod tag was removed without any reason given. My concern is that I don't believe that she meets WP:NACADEMICS. She doesn't seem to have made a impact as required by #1, she has always been part of a team doing research Gbawden (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep I removed the prod after expanding the article, adding additional sourcing from the Canberra Times, on her involvemnt with Climate change which the article states her research is in direct conflict with the Australian Prime Minister. Additional source http://www.sostariffe.it/news/lantartide-ruba-le-piogge-australiane-116737/ in an Italian newspaper also about climate change in Antarctica show she meets WP:Notability.. Gnangarra 15:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I can understand why this article was nominated because it read like a short CV of a junior academic. However, Abram's recent research has been reported in multiple news sources, which suggests she's having a wider impact. Sionk (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. However, a number of news sources do name her as a lead researcher in a study into climate change. That established Notability. AlanS (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. An untenured junior academic not yet passing WP:PROF, with an h-index of 15. There is very limited news coverage -- not enough for WP:GNG. And she does not seem to be a "lead researcher" -- being "lead author" on a few papers is not quite the same thing. -- 101.117.90.101 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep first author on some very highly cited papers. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep various additional information and sources added to profile, demonstrating suitability for article to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icytimes (talkcontribs) 22:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Angela Freeman[edit]

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

No actual sources given. "Works" do not qualify as sources. Can't find anything on the net. Since this was a "Wikibomb2014" product, recommend draftify for more work. Reventtalk 15:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Draft:ify as unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, I'm afraid (and that's probably true for most of the Wikibomb2014 articles). Freeman's h-index is 5 by my count (being careful not to confuse her with Angela B Freeman, a US cancer researcher). There may be news coverage of Freeman's government work for WP:PROF#C7 or WP:GNG, but I can only find one article ([13]). Essentially, this is an example of someone who does critically important agricultural work, but "flies under the radar" from a notability point of view. Draftifying is a waste of time, since most of the Wikibomb2014 articles were added by temporary editors, and any remaining Wikibomb2014 energy should go to articles closer to the notability borderline. -- 101.117.108.126 (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IP editors comments. The article does not pass either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. AlanS (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Arabic numeral variations[edit]

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: poorly sourced random collections of trivia about Arabic numerals. Duplicates information on other pages.

Previously survived a PROD and a PROD2, hence AfD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep I agree about sourcing, but the information is basically correct and the article is improvable in this respect. However I disagree about INDISCRIMINATE: The collection is not random: the topic is well-defined and quite narrow. Duplication can be handled by normal editing. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Poorly referenced, and all the topics discussed are already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. A better article on this topic would lean me towards "weak keep." -- 101.117.2.217 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - currently this is very weak. A decent article might be written. Rick Steves mentioned this concept in an episode of his PBS documentary, Travel Skills. But a lot of work has to be done, so userfication may be the best option. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment See also Arabic Numerals section of Regional handwriting variation#Arabic numerals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisashiyarouin (talkcontribs) 06:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

New England frog[edit]

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

Nobody would ever search under "New England frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. A valid disambig page, and the grok.se stats counter shows that it gets used. -- 101.117.2.126 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep this and the other frog DAB pages. No reason was given why "nobody would ever search" for this term. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete unlike the members of the dab page "ornate frog", none of the above species are known as the "New England frog". A search of GoogleScholar showed no (zero) frog species known as the "New England frog", similarly a more general search on Google showed no such identification. Anomalocaris's point is well taken, this is not a likely search term, and none of the outcomes are so known. As a result of none of these being known as the "New England frog", this would seem to fall under WP:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. A List of New England frogs would be a very different matter, and a much longer list. --Bejnar (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to agree with Bejnar that there is no indication that there are any frogs commonly having the name "New England frog". Moreover, this disambiguation page introduces confusion. Frogs native to the New England region of the US are generically referred to as New England frog species. I am One of Many (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It is just a Dab page and it has related pages. Frmorrison (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a WP:PTM violation, and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/New%20England%20frog indicates this is not a common search term, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - it's a plausible search term, and the page directs readers to what I suspect they'd be searching for. Presupposing that readers have perfect knowledge of a topic they're searching for in an encyclopaedia is daft; they're likely to make such small mistakes, an to make the encyclopaedia useful we should send them to what they're looking for. WilyD 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - A usefull disambig page, don't see why it should be deleted. --Klp363 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful frog[edit]

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

Nobody would ever search under "Beautiful frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep If there are two frogs known as "beautiful frog", why shouldn't this be a reasonable DAB page?--cyclopiaspeak! 15:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep this and the other frog DAB pages. No reason was given why "nobody would ever search" for this term. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems like a WP:PTM violation. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Beautiful%20frog doesn't really indicate this is a serious search term. Some reliable source examination would be good. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete While many frogs have been called beautiful, notably Odorrana ishikawae, I found no frog species (or genus) known as the "beautiful frog". There was none found in a search of GoogleScholar, and none found in a general Google search. This page is unlike the dab page for "ornate frog", because there species are in fact called "ornate frog" as well as more detailed appellations. Anomalocaris's point is well taken, this is not a likely search term, and none of the outcomes are so known. As a result of none of these being known as the "beautiful frog", this falls under WP:Disambiguation#Partial title matches, as noted by editor Joy [shallot] above. A List of beautiful frogs would be a very different matter, and a much longer, albeit highly subjective, list. --Bejnar (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Bejnar. This is just a disambiguation page of redirects with no indication in Google or GoogleScholar of named beautiful frogs.I am One of Many (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep There are at least three articles with frog names that contained sourced "beautiful". One that was originally on the disambiguation page was not a sourced common name. I edit the DAB page so that it has those three articles as User:DGG indicated below. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It is just a Dab page and it has related pages. Frmorrison (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - plausible search term; I'm not 100% convinced that this is what readers are likely to mean, but I think it's the best we can do. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers find what they're looking for, pre-supposing that they already know everything is presupposing something that's almost certainly false. WilyD 13:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Also see the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser frog. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It is actually part of the common name of several frogs, which should be listed here. It's not a vlaue judment, and the people who think it are--including the nom--must not be reading the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to be annoying here, but you've literally contradicted the WP:PTM guideline - if it's part of the common name, it's not the common name itself, hence disambiguation is not the right tool for the job. A disambiguation page is not a search index. [...] Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. The term "beautiful frog" does not appear on any of the three linked articles themselves, so it's hard to see why anyone would refer to them using this specific term as opposed to their actual listed names. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep As per DGG and WilyD.It is a common name and a search term for frogs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep WilyD is on point here. Even if it isn't a commonly used search term, disambiguation pages (like redirects) guide people to the proper article. Even if it only helps lead one person to the correct page, it's doing its job. Upjav (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

EleMints[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you comment on the four sources cited by a participant in the previous AFD, as to why they may not be reliable or shouldn't count towards establishing notability? postdlf (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No reliable independent sources. Appearing on the app store doesn't constitute notability. And the BW "source" from the last AfD don't even mention this product. -- 101.117.89.21 (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: A couple of positive reviews can be found (amidst more about the mint oil product of the same name) but my view is that for an encyclopaedia these fall short of any of the WP:NSOFT inclusion criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: I found no reliable sources on this subject at all. The sources from previous AfD are not reliable and are overly promotional. I can't find anything to establish notability of this software elsewhere either. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Enzyme localization[edit]

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

This does not expand greatly on the discussion of enzymes in its own article. As such, localization is not a sufficient standalone topic Ciao Mane (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete While the two techniques listed in the article may not be exhaustive of the topic, the topic as currently presented does not add to the Wikipedia, and localization is better mentioned in the Enzyme article. It may be the case, or may not, that the sole purpose of creating this article was as a showcase for the creating editor's scientific paper. The result is an unnecessary article. Wikipedia is not a manual. --Bejnar (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Rod Einspanier[edit]

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

Written like a resume. I don't see anything in here that makes him notable. What do we use for geologists? WP:NACADEMICS? Doesn't meet that IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even aside from the puff-piece tone, the subject does not meet WP:PROF for sure, and cannot find any source that would go towards meeting WP:GNG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think WP:GNG is more appropriate than WP:PROF for someone who seems to be more of a practicing geologist than a scholar of geology. But regardless, we don't have evidence that he passes either criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

28854 Budisteanu[edit]

28854 Budisteanu (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "28854 Budisteanu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Doens't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, not visible to the naked eye, not discovered before 1850, and not in any catalogue of historical note. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

MIT Licoln Laboratory had decided to give this minor planet the name of this young scientist. If MIT Lincoln Laboratory decided this why should wikipedia delete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nod soft (talkcontribs) 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Beside that there is an Italian and a Portugese version of that page, there are thousands of similar pages on Wikipedia.

Except WP:NASTRO explicitly states that the naming of a minor planet is not a reason for notability, and states that such info should go in the article on the person it is named after instead. It doesn't matter that an aticle exists in other Wikipedias; they may have different notability criteria, or somebody else may just have not gotten around to deleting it. To directly answer your question of why it should be deleted, read WP:NASTRO, which was, according to the its creator, designed specifically with minor planets in mind. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It does matter that the topic is covered in other Wikipedias, which is why the mention of such is a part of WP:BEFORE.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing at WP:NASTRO that says that this should be deleted, just the opposite.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind stating which WP:NASTRO criterion this article passes? It quite obviously to me passes none, and the guideline states that a redirect to the corresponding minor planet list is what should be done. For the record, I did try to redirect it first, but was reverted, so I'm bringing it here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Well then interpret my nomination statement as a vote for redirection, which is what is intended anyways. If you had read what I said above, you would notice that I already tried redirecting it, which failed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Interpreting the nomination statement as something other than a deletion argument is covered by WP:SK#1, "nomina[tion]... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging..."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Except other processes such as the two you mentioned have their own procedures and are quite clearly different from deletion. Redirection, on the other hand, results in the deletion of the article's content and replacement with a redirect, which is the same result that would happen if the article is deleted and then subsequently redirected. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete-and-redirect and redirect-without-deletion are distinctly different.  The first involves admin tools, and the edit history is lost to non-admins.  The latter can be done by any editor, and the edit history is retained.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Close  It appears that this can be resolved without AfD volunteers.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect per WP:NASTRO. I see nothing about this one that would distinguish it from past cases with similar outcomes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

74 Cancri[edit]

74 Cancri (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "74 Cancri" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Per http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1987JHA....18..209W&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf , this star does not exist. Without a Flamsteed designation, the star clearly fails WP:NASTRO.StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: whether the article is kept or nor (I leave that to those who, unlike me, actually know the subject), a scientific term that appears in numerous catalogs should redirect somewhere even if it can be shown not to exist. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps all the nonexistent stars listed in that article (and other ones like them, if any) should be listed at (and redirect to) article Hypothetical star#Specific stars. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    As far as I could find, this is the only one that is actually nonexistant that has an article on Wikipedia. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Then redirecting 74 Cancri there is still worthwhile—lists do not have to be exhaustive. Or, someone knowledgeable should create an article about spurious stars, where 74 Cancri et al. (to be created as fellow redirects) can redirect. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    One possible source: [14] (one of the sources mentioned in the article cited by the nominator). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of whether it's the same star as the supposedly-nonexistent Flamsteed one, SIMBAD does return some results for HD 78347. But I'm not seeing the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would pass WP:NASTRO. The five hits I get all are studies of thousands of stars rather than anything specific to this one or to a small set of stars that includes this one. I don't think a merge to Hypothetical star is warranted because there is no reason to single this one out over the many other ones with similar situations. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  04:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't seem notable so far. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Meets Wikipedia:NASTRO Criteria 1. Object noted in 1887: [15] (an also in prior Catalogs) but later lost or misplaced due to error. Perhaps a new catalog of lost stars should be created to include this one plus 80 Herculis, 81 Herculis, 56 Cancri, 19 Persei, 108 Poscium, 73 Cancri, 74 Cancri, 8 Hydrae, 26 Cancri, 62 Orionis, 71 Hercules, 19 Comae Berenices and 34 Comae Berenices: see also Gore, John Ellard (1907). Astronomical Essays Historical and Descriptive. Chatto & Windus.  - Kyle(talk) 07:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Anthropocloud[edit]

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

A merge to cloud is possible, but I'm seeing very little coverage for what could be a neologism. Only sources I could really find are a thesis, and a few other sites that refer to this thesis. There are actually several, several sources about man-made clouds, but not under this name, so whether or not this can be kept, at least under this title, should now be discussed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Failed to make this clearer earlier: the subject of this AfD is the term "Anthropocloud", not the concept of the man-made cloud. As it seems that the word Anthropocloud is a neologism that has not been covered in/used by reliable sources, should this article be kept, it should probably be moved to a different title. Note that Artificial cloud already exists, so I'm fine with a merge to that article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I would say that this is a notable topic in its own right and in several of the environmental sciences "Anthropo" is a widely used suffix to describe human activity, for example the Anthropocene which is a theoretical age used to describe the past 200 years. I am a recent graduate in environmental science. Seasider91 (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If that is the case, I suggest merging this article into the artificial cloud article as the article under AFD seems to be better written. Seasider91 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to Artificial cloud. Yes the topic is notable, but this name is a neologism and is really not used by the practitioners, and we do have the start of an article at the more appropriate term. --Bejnar (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - The only reference available online is a glossary that does not discuss the term. As such, the article seems to be an essay and not appropriate for WP.--Rpclod (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 22:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]