Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:40, 13 August 2014

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Science

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was dePRODded wuth reason 'AfD would be a more suitable venue'. PROD reason was: "Predatory OA journal, not indexed in any selective database (only briefly in Scopus). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Why this need to go to AfD is beyond me, but here we are: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close WP:NPASR Anger management issues. Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? How can we be at "no consensus" before the discussion has even started? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NJournals. There are thousands of these bogus and equally-non-notable "journals" out there; do we really need an article on each of them? An article on its publisher might be appropriate, if the publisher is *notable* for being a predatory open-access publisher rather than merely being included on a list, but even that has not been demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear fail of WP:NJournals. -- 101.117.89.21 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (1) NJournals is not an SNG. (2) Deleting this article altogether, without even a redirect, appears to remove the "warning" that it provides (namely that the journal is a predatory OA journal). Some of our readers and editors might be completely unaware of Beall's list. James500 (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NJournals is indeed not an SNG and was designed to make it easier for academic journals to be judged as notable. So if something misses NJournals, it's basically a certainty that it misses GNG, too. (Note that both the PROD and this nom include a reference to GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable journal lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not in the business of retaining non-notable articles to "warn" readers and editors about predatory journals. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just found and removed four Wikipedia article references based on this journal and three external links to the journal itself. None were wikilinked to our article here. So obviously having an article as a warning that the journal is predatory and unreliable isn't working, even if that were a valid reason to keep (which I don't think it is). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to comment on that, I think I would have to know whether the rate at which citations are being added for predatory journals without WP articles is higher than the rate for those with WP articles, and then determine whether any such difference was statistically significant. I don't think I am in a position to do that. I think that might be a major undertaking. James500 (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC) (It has been a long time since I last studied statistics, and I apologise in advance if I am inadvertantly talking nonsense.) James500 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This journal not notable according to WP:NJournals, and the Beale reference refers to publishers, not this journal specifically. Also, this needs to be deleted because it serves to ~~publicize~~ promote a journal produced by a predatory OA publisher WP:NOTPROMOTION. Please see What Wikipedia is not for further insight. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note: I'll be happy to provide a copy if someone wants to use this as a start for a Wikibook, but there's not much here yet. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Common Latex Equations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list of equations lacking context or any list inclusion criteria. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:OR apply. With sources, the content may be able to be merged to LaTeX. - Mr X 12:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are not even equations, just random LaTeX examples. We have better examples in LaTeX. -- 101.117.2.126 (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per WP:NOTHOWTO. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we're not a webhost. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even as a howto this is indiscriminate and useless. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New England frog

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep It is just a Dab page and it has related pages. Frmorrison (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wily D 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A usefull disambig page, don't see why it should be deleted. --Klp363 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The two species listed have similar enough names (or secondary names) to warrent this disambiguation page. Altamel (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful frog

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there are two frogs known as "beautiful frog", why shouldn't this be a reasonable DAB page?--cyclopia ^speak! 15:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep It is just a Dab page and it has related pages. Frmorrison (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- I've argued against the notion it's a plausible search term, but for the sake of argument, if you're not sure a disambiguation page is actually helpful here, why not leave it to the search engine, then? This line of reasoning is a slippery slope to beautiful horse, beautiful flower, beautiful car, beautiful TV, beautiful woman, beautiful concept, ... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also see the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser frog. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to clearly keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ornate frog

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nobody would ever search under "Ornate frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valid disambig page, and the grok.se stats counter shows that it gets used. -- 101.117.2.126 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep valid dab just like the other frog dab. Nomination based on a mere opinion. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legitimate disambiguation page. There are 47 hits in GoogleScholar for "ornate frog", most of which refer to either Hildebrandtia ornata (South Africa) or Microhyla ornata (India). As each of these frogs may be referred to as an "ornate frog" there is no issue under WP:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. --Bejnar (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser frog

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nobody would ever search under "Lesser frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep "I would never search under 'lesser frog'" doesn't mean "Nobody would ever search under "Lesser frog"".NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think again, people. Lesser here is an adjective modifying words than frog. If this were a page listing, say, "Smith's lesser frog, Johnson's lesser frog, forest lesser frog, swamp lesser frog", this would be a logical disambiguation page. But that's not what this is. This is a page listing "Lesser balloon frog, Lesser banana frog, Lesser Chini frog, Lesser spiny frog, Lesser swamp frog, Lesser swimming frog". It is completely illogical to group them together on a disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlike the members of the dab page "ornate frog", none of the above species are known as "lesser frogs". A search of GoogleScholar showed no (zero) frog species known as "lesser frogs", as did a more general search on Google. There is a lesser frog-eyed gecko which is not of interested here. 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 "lesser frogs", this would seem to fall under WP:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. --Bejnar (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bejnar that that the term "lesser frog" is not an obvious shortening of any of the common names of these animals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a WP:PTM violation, and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Lesser%20frog indicates it's not a search term. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful frog. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EleMints

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- For the record: the actual material is published not in BusinessWeek, but in this blog post. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 (talk•track) 08:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be festering self promotion. Maybe it is a good map, but nothing in searches is saying it's particularly notable. mol uɐɯ 22:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropod

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a dictionary article, which belongs in Wiktionary; in fact there is already an article (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arthropod) The only sources listed are dictionaries, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Llightex (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: actually, as the article makes clear, it is a dictionary non-entry. After deleting, replace with a redirect to Arthropod as a plausible misspelling. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 13:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per David Eppstein's repurposing of the page to a valid disambiguation. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Potentially useful navigation page disambiguating a common spelling error that could plausibly refer to two different articles. The purpose served is similar to the redirect proposed above, but is more useful in the case that the second listed article is the one the user was looking for. Seems logical to me. JulesH (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no legitimate dab entries, so "WP:NODABS" applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two legitimate dab entries (one to the parent article of the meaning discussed in the previous AfD and one to a music album with a track by this name). Two entries alone wouldn't ordinarily be enough for a dab page but I think that together with the two common misspellings it should be sufficiently useful as a dab and too much to put into hatnotes instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Now three entries. All three refer to subtopics of other articles but that should nevertheless be enough for a dab. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now a reasonable dab page. PamD 05:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid page with entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a content issue from the get-go - http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Anthropod shows it to be a fairly common search term. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithm examples

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a mess, and it's hard to see what topic it could cover that would make it worth trying to rescue it. It is the work of one editor, quite idiosyncratic. It is currently subject of a WP:RM with unspecified new name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried prodding it a few months ago with the rationale "This article has no clear topic (the title is very vague), and reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like an excerpt from an introductory theory of computing textbook. Even a complete rewrite wouldn't save it, because what would the rewrite be about?" It was unprodded, but I think the same issues remain valid. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, then merge A related discussion has started at Talk:Algorithm examples#Requested move. At first glance, I agreed with Dicklyon and David that the article has no clear topic. However, the topic of the article would be clearer if it would be renamed Examples of abstract machines. I would agree with deletion if the two related articles, Abstract machine and Model of computation would not be stubs deserving a large expansion. After looking at these two articles, my suggestion is rather to merge the three articles. In any case, as some parts of Algorithm examples could be very useful for a section Examples in Abstract machine, it would be counterproductive to make them unavailable by deleting the article. D.Lazard (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with merging Abstract machine and Model of computation, since the latter includes e.g. lambda calculus and μ-recursive functions, which are not machines, while the former includes e.g. the SECD machine and Warren Abstract Machine, which are not primarily intended as models of computation. -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. It seems like WP:SYNTH (an unpublished paper, perhaps), of mostly good quality, but containing a number of unsupported value judgements about what is "better." -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the idea of having some worked out algorithm examples isn't bad but I don't think this article qualifies. What I was expecting was examples of searching, sorting, etc. So to me the question is, does this article at least represent a start, something that could be reworked to be such an article without the OR and with better references? And my opinion is no, that by the time you reworked the current article there would be nothing left but the title anyway. The current article contains too much unencyclopedic language such as "The Turing machine model is primitive, but not as primitive as it can be. " according to who and compared to what? Or "Atomization comes at a (usually severe) cost". So much of the article is written that way that I don't think it can be reasonably salvaged. Regarding the suggestion to merge with abstract machine I think the same criticism applies, the language of this article is so value laden I don't think there would be much that could really be cogently merged. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unclear what the topic of the article actually is, and it does not seem worthwhile to attempt inventing a topic and shoehorning the content into it Some editors have already made valiant efforts to do just that, with mixed results. I would not be averse to content being farmed out to other articles as seems appropriate, but we should not leave lying around an incoherent mess without a clear topic while we wait for such a merge to happen, and it does not seem like this discussion will engender a solid consensus on how such a possibly complicated merge should proceed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Statistical hypothesis testing. There is clear consensus that this should not be an article. It is less clear whether it should be merged or redirected, and where to. I'm therefore implementing a redirect, which can be changed, and content merged from the history, per any subsequent editorial consensus. Sandstein 09:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical threshold

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No hits in mathworld, no significant hits in ZBL, no mention in the half-dozen statistics textbooks I have at hand. Looks like WP:OR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to machine learning or an area that is not considered as part of statistics. This is not a statistical term; there is such a thing as a threshold in statistics (the most commonly used one would be cutoffs and crossover points in statistical mechanics) but this is not it.Limit-theorem (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested in the article. This term in the world of math is something akin to subconscious in psychology - a misused laypersons' jargon lite. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Statistical significance. Merge would be OK, too, but there isn't much to merge. A simple WP:BEFORE search shows that the term is used as a synonym for "threshold of statistical significance", e.g., in papers like Selection of Statistical Thresholds in Graphical Models, Diagnostic Thresholds of Medical Measurements (starting on the second page), and The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance – a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials (used twice in the body of the paper). That the term is in use in reliable sources shows it to be a plausible search term and so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge please. I've also eliminated some technicalities in the page. Popcorn Sutton (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Statistical hypothesis testing, rather than to the less related concept Statistical significance. Right now this article is more of a dictionary definition, although there is slightly more meat on its bones. More could be said about the process of setting (determining) appropriate thresholds, but that could well fit within Statistical hypothesis testing, or possibly a new Statistical hypothesis construction. Otherwise, statistical thresholds are sui generis within each application. There may be additional comments accruing at Talk:Statistical significance#Merge in "Statistical threshold". --Bejnar (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is just gibberish. Threshold values abound in statistical methods, but I've never heard of anything being called a "statistical threshold"; redirecting to Statistical hypothesis testing doesn't make much more sense than redirecting to e.g. linear classifier. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Statistical hypothesis testing or Statistical significance. There is nothing here worth merging. -- 101.117.31.21 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Technical definition notwithstanding (I am not an expert in this area), it does not warrant a standalone article. 1292simon (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme localization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unit of knowledge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure original research. While there are various uses of the phrase "unit of knowledge" found in books, journals, and websites, the uses appear not to be defined, cohesive topics, but rather unrelated, self-contained uses for the task at hand (even if "defined" logically or mathematically). --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources for the concept or the notation. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 20:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. I had fun writing this article but I am well aware of the moderation that most typically happens under these circumstances. Yes, I did come up with the term and I am somewhat comforted that you guys know that it is original research. It's pretty cool in my opinion and I make use of this concept daily while I'm at work. I'd like to retain this article in its entirety if at all possible. I, personally, don't think that there is anything in there that hinders the ideology behind someone who may make use of the term. If you guys want to participate in building on this I'd like to hear what you have to say. Let's not jump on this and delete it immediately though. I've been writing about this subject since 2009. I've published 3 books by now, one of which deals with this field (see scientocracy).Popcorn Sutton (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I agree that your idea is cool, but it's not necessarily something publishable in an encyclopedia (such as Wikipedia) yet. An encyclopedia is meant as a compilation of prior knowledge, not a generator of new knowledge. Take a look at the policy guideline linked to in the nomination, Wikipedia:No original research. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 21:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm trying to let you guys know that this is not only my own philosophy. This has been a very pervasive concept. I can't tell you the degree of acceptance that a lot of people have towards this area of science and of the occupation that people who have this knowledge can get. This is data science. It's going to be very useful for a lot of people. The demand for this type of knowledge is sky rocketing and I think that it's going to be useful for other people who are interested. Popcorn Sutton (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Wholly WP:OR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Wikipedia is not the place for new ideas; belongs in Wordpress article or elsewhere; was it in Google Knol at one time? I continue to listen to college lecture courses such as from Modern Scholar and The Teaching Company on many subjects including math and statistics, and this is the first time I've come across this unit of knowledge statistical idea, which confirms my sense that this topic is original research along with the statements above and the decided lack of references. Too bad Google Knol shut down. Topic does not meet GNG requirements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but let the writer copy it to his userspace. Since he has published about it, it may very well become a notable concept in time and if so, then there's an article nearly ready to go. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unencyclopedic twaddle but then redirect to least publishable unit. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Save it please. I've seen countless sources where this topic is being discussed and taught to academia. Please, don't forget that I've been writing about this concept (among a lot of others) since 2009. I have 3 publications by this point and have sold/given away well over 500 of those copies. This concept is being taught alongside pattern recognition and machine learning. It's not only my own philosophy (as I have stated above) and since no one else is contributing to the article, I'm taking it upon myself to provide the citations. I had two of them this morning but by the time I got to work I have forgotten all about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorn Sutton (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as classic WP:OR. -- 101.117.89.252 (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is really unfortunate. I've spent so much time on this thought. I've tried to remove any hint of this being original research. I think that we should at least save portions of this for Wikipedia. The term is being used pretty often. No one is giving any suggestion of improving the article. I'd like to hear at least one suggestion of what we should do to the article to make it acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorn Sutton (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. About improving the article. Well here's a thought: I do not understand the first paragraph. Not one iota. While I am only a handyman, I have been educated at the world's foremost institution of higher learning and I therefore am not clueless. Can you please explain to me what the following paragraph means?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term unit of knowledge is often brought up in the study of data science, statistical mechanics, cognitive science, computational neuroscience, artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, and computer science. The term is interchangeable with concept as well as the phrase "bit of information". A unit of knowledge is equal to any sequence of occurrences including no sequence of occurrences. A unit is determined to be a point of interest when it is significant (or above a statistical threshold). A point of interest is then determined to be knowledge when the addition of the next occurrence is above the threshold. In Statistics, a unit of knowledge is one portion of a three part equation. (from current article)

Hmmmm?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:Patent nonsense. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term "unit of knowledge" does get used, but never with the meaning given in this article. -- 101.117.2.217 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a unit of knowledge is equal no any sequence of occurrences including none. An occurrence can be anything (like the earth, a fly, mental verb sequences, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorn Sutton (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still heartily confused. What is a "sequence of occurrences including none"? What does "mental verb sequences" mean? People think of "unit" meaning one thing, a basic building block, so the idea that a "unit" is a "sequence" can be confusing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A basic formula for defining something (derived from Socratic ideas about the definition of a definition) is something along these lines:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A (name) is a (category) that (point of difference).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example: A porcupine (name) is an animal (category) that (point of difference from other animals, that is, it has sharp quills; other animals lack this feature). The idea is to explain a new concept (porcupine) by showing its similarity to existing things (category) how it differs from other members of this category (it has quills), with the sense that the definition combines the idea of ANIMAL + QUILLS in the mind to teach about PORCUPINE. So somebody can learn what a porcupine is. So if somebody did not understand the concept of a porcupine, but knew about animals and quills, they'd get what a porcupine was.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, apply the formula to this subject...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A (unit of knowledge -- name of what is trying to be defined) is a (??? -- category) that (??? -- point of difference).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that I do not understand what the category is -- what is "a sequence of occurrences including none", and I do not understand how unit of knowledge differs from others in this category. Is unit of knowledge a philosophical term in the study of knowledge, that is, epistemology? What branch of knowledge does it belong to? Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor flight dynamics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this topic is notable enough for inclusion. The bulk of the content of this article appears to be sourced only to papers by the creator of the article. (The additional references to prior works solely define the background concepts and do not discuss the topic of tensor flight dynamics.) The article reads like a review of the author's work without imparting any actual information about the topic. Kinu ^t/_c 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable: nothing for "Tensor flight dynamics" on ZMATH, two relevant hits hits on GBooks, three on Scholar. Deltahedron (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Mostly per Deltahedron. I poked around the IEEE Explorer site and did a bit more hunting through google scholar, and there's just not enough there there. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Pouliot

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has numerous issues, particularly notability per WP:N (the article has been tagged orphaned since Jan 2011). There also appears to be a conflict of interest, as the article appears to be about the main contributor (note the second section on the talk page, headed 'Yannick Pouliot has many accomplishments')) Amkilpatrick (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest looking at his publications to see if he meets WP:ACADEMICS. You can see his Google Scholar profile here. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—(ec) Google scholar results show four highly-cited papers and an h-index of 14, which is respectable but a little low for WP:ACADEMIC. His company is non-notable (and likely moribund), so there won't be notability via his being CEO. Not seeing anything else. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the WP:PROF test, unable to find independent sources demonstrating significant impact. benmoore 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Secret ^account 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Boardman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. Subject is non-notable - he is not the subject of multiple independent secondary sources. Of the two references listed in the article, one merely lists his name and contact details and the other doesn't even mention him. Article claims (without citation) that he is a leader in his field, although his publication history pales in comparison to others in his field such as John Pendry, Victor Veselago or David R. Smith. Furthermore, the page was created by someone who claims to work in the same research group as Boardman, suggesting a potential COI. Una Laguna^Talk 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not familiar with the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications or the Institute of Physics, but he is apparently a fellow in both of those societies, and a fellow of the SPIE. If any of these are prestigious, then he'd be notable per criterion 3 of WP:PROF. There are also suggestions that he was the director of some institutes and the "UK Voice" of some kind of international collaboration? I don't have enough knowledge of this area to judge how significant these are, but my intuition would be that he's probably going to be a borderline keep.

Oh, I should also note that this article is kinda terrible and certainly needs to be cleaned up, but WP:DINC. I didn't find anything obvious for him in terms of coverage outside of academia. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and the Institute of Physics passes WP:PROF#C3. A clear failure of WP:BEFORE by the nom. -- 101.117.56.81 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have read WP:PROF - I linked to it at the start of the nom - but if the only verifiable information about the guy is his fellowships, should he be the subject of an article on Wikipedia (see WP:PROF#General notes point one)? Perhaps I'm underestimating the importance of having fellowships, but I'm not persuaded an article that won't get beyond stub-class is worth having on Wikipedia. Maybe you guys can set me straight, but that's the feeling I get, especially when other researchers in the field with Wikipedia articles (see above) have so much more coverage (correct me if I'm wrong). Una Laguna^Talk 11:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the fellow designations named above, he was a named a fellow of The Optical Society in 2006. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with the SPIE fellowship mentioned by Truth or consequences-2 below, an OSA fellowship is the lowest rank occupied by 10% of all OSA members (see here) and so probably not the "highly selective" fellowship WP:PROF#C1 refers to. Una Laguna^Talk 08:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - impressive though the fellowships look, if one digs, it turns out the ones mentioned in the article are as part of U.K. associations, not the international type that would more likely meet WP:PROF#C1. The SPIE recognition is as plain "Fellow member", which is the lowest rank and covers a good thousand people ([see here]). Likewise there is no reliable claim to major editorship; the subject no longer features on the board linked in the article [and here], and the wording of the link implies that what this was for plain membership on the editorial board, not editorship-in-chief. The citation record is too weak to otherwise pass WP:PROF, and the actual "faculty page" [here] is all but empty, signifying an insignificant career in the absence of evidence of a stronger track record during previous employment. Finally, there is no coverage to assert WP:GNG. This is typical of BLPs that look impressive based on big words and fancy-sounding honors, and deflate into non-Wikiworthiness once probed.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IOP is an international society. And even if it was UK-only, being a fellow would meet WP:PROF#C3. National-level societies (e.g. the National Academy of Sciences) are specifically included under that guideline. And he is a full Fellow of SPIE (http://spie.org/x38.xml). Since there are, on average, only 20-odd Fellows elected each year (about 1100 over the past 50 years), that is indeed a "highly selective honour." His blank faculty page does not "signify an insignificant career" -- it just signifies that his energies are elsewhere. -- 101.117.57.51 (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching for "AD Boardman" on Google Scholar finds a h-index of 32, which also passes WP:PROF#C1 (quite easily). -- 101.117.57.51 (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Maybe. Then again, even if one follows the h-index fallacy, searching for his actual name in various combinations finds a GS h-index of no more than 16, which does not pass WP:PROF#C1 for this (very) highly cited field.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but searching for his actual name doesn't find all of his papers, because he publishes using his surname and first initials. It's not reasonable to exclude half his papers and then claim he fails WP:PROF#C1. In fact, he passes WP:PROF#C1, as noted above. -- 101.117.29.137 (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 (e.g. seven publications listed by Google scholar with over 100 cites, with the top one having 776 cites, in a search for "author:ad-boardman"). The society fellowships are also suggestive of the same conclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What are the criteria here, and why? From near-WP:SPA 101.117.57.51, we get that anything with the same initials should be counted, regardless of whether it is the same person, no question asked please. From David Eppstein, we get an arbitrary cutoff of N1 papers over N2 citations, from one source known to be biased towards hard sciences (GS) as mentioned in policy. No attention to field, vintage, authorship (I for one would be more impressed with the single-edited book, though like the rest of the work it is surprisingly low on citations per year)... Never mind "suggestive". Wikipedia can do better, or at least clearer, no?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that all the top 32 "AD Boardman" papers should be counted is that they all have a "University of Salford" affiliation, as you would see if you did the Google Scholar search and looked at the papers. They obviously are all the same person, since there are clearly not two different "A.D. Boardman"s in the Physics Department there. David Eppstein's way of looking at it is also valid: 2500+ citations for the top 8 papers is impressive. As to alleged bias in GS, that is only relevant in considering AfDs for subjects outside the hard sciences. Also, I'm not an SPA, I don't care much for your "no question asked please" comment, and I wonder why you're so keen to exclude from consideration papers that the subject of the article has clearly written. -- 101.117.2.208 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To have a few 100+ citation papers in the field of metamaterials is nothing special. Even less so when some of those papers and textbooks have been knocking about for 3 decades. I do not think his publication/citation record is impressive given the context of the field he is working in. Una Laguna^Talk 16:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have guidelines like WP:PROF for a reason; to get away from subjective assessments of notability. A h-index of 32 is well over our usual C1 threshold, so it's really an open-and-shut case. And, in spite of what you say, 2500+ citations for the top 8 papers is indeed significantly more than ordinary. -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is WP:PROF does is specifically say h=32 and 2500 cites in top 8 papers is significant? It doesn't, because to take these numbers at face value without considering their context is incredibly naive. (It also sounds like an exceptionally subjective criteria to me... is the cutoff at h=30 or h=35? 2,500 cites in top 10 or top 20 papers?) As I have said, citation records such as Boardman's are really nothing extraordinary in the field of metamaterials. I'll repeat that in case you missed it: metamaterials is a very highly-cited field and I would be surprised if a tenured academic in the field had anything less than his citation record. I could quite easily list a dozen academics in his field with similar/superior citation records who definitely fail WP:PROF. Furthermore, you are failing to take into account the flaws of the h-index metric. Boardman is not a young academic, and the h-index is very heavily biased in favour of academics with longer publication histories. h=32, 2,500 cites in top 8 papers is not unusual in metamaterials and even less so when the academic in question has been publishing for 40 years (many of the key metamaterials researchers have been active for less than half that time and accrued even more citations than him). Una Laguna^Talk 06:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved with AfD for many years now. We usually take h=20 (give or take a little, depending on the field) as the threshold. Boardman is clearly well over that. And I note that you provide no support or evidence for your assertions about the field of metamaterials. I also note from your user profile that your own academic field is the same as Boardman's, at another university in the same city, and I'm wondering if there is some less than friendly rivalry here? -- 101.117.88.156 (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch? Please stick to the deletion discussion. (FWIW, his research occupies a very different realm of plasmonics/metamaterials to mine - zero overlap, no opportunity for competition.) I am happy to provide evidence for my assertion that having a few 100+ citations in this field is nothing special: Zayats, Zhang, Qiu, Hibbins, Grigorenko, Wurtz, Oulton, Barnes, Nordlander, Maier, Polman, Garcia de Abajo, Koppens. h=20 is very common in the field, so I would pick a much higher threshold, and in the case of Boardman I would raise it even higher based on the fact that he has been publishing many years longer than most of these guys. Una Laguna^Talk 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we bump the cutoff to h=25 or h=30 (appropriate for a highly cited field), Boardman still passes WP:PROF#C1. And when I look at those of your examples with a higher h-index than Boardman's, such as William L Barnes at Exeter or Peter Nordlander at Rice, they seem to me unquestionably notable, and should indeed also have Wikipedia articles. If your beef is that Barnes and Nordlander are more notable than Boardman, you may well be right, but that doesn't alter the fact that Boardman passes WP:PROF#C1. Indeed, compared to some of the academics that have passed AfD in the past, he passes with flying colours. -- 101.117.2.126 (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So here we are down to the h index from GS as sole argument. (Which h index varies between the 117's and Randykitty's below, too, though that is a matter of course.) Is that the basis for a sound decision?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep I did a (rather conservative) search for "Boardman AD" on the Web of Science and checked the most cited articles for whether they were by this Boardman or perhaps another one. Note that WoS always gives much lower citation rates than GS, because it is much more selective in its sources (GS strives to have everything, WoS only covers the most influential journals). I got a total of 212 publications (I didn't check them all, as that would be a lot of work, but I didn't see any that were not by him in checking the highest-cited ones, so even if there are a few, it won't influence the results very much), that have been cited 3800 times (highest ones: 748, 286, 144, 139, and 96), with an h-index of 28. The arguments above that better-cited persons don't have an article is a kind of inverted WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Whether the nom likes it or not, this kind of citation figures is way beyond what we usually take as indicating that a subject has significantly influenced her/his field (PROF#1). Perhaps these contributions pale in comparison to some other muminaries in this field, but everybody pales when compared to, say, Newton, Darwin, or Einstein. WP's coverage is larger than those shining stars. As 101 says above, if there are people with better citation records than Boardman that don't have an article, the solution is to create articles for those people and not waste time here trying to get this scientist bio deleted. (PS: as an aside, I should say that personally I find a WoS cutoff of h=30 -GS h=34 or so- much more discriminating between "run-of-the-mill" and "above average", but the reality is that consensus in AfD debates has accepted a GS index of 20 as sufficient for high citation-density fields like this one, and indexes of around 10 or sometimes even lower for humanities or mathematics, for example). --Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here I appreciate the greater depth of discussion. But are Wikipedians aware of the horror that is the h-index, in the first place? Not with Randykitty here, but elsewhere it is sad to see the argument boil down to a h cutoff.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must admit I am surprised by how simple the keep arguments based on citations are. Please don't take that as a criticism - I'll admit that maybe I've been over-thinking the application of WP:PROF. But surely the age and nature of highly-cited works should at least be taken into account? Two of his highest-cited works are textbooks, which are likely to be well-cited regardless of his stature in the field. And while the number 748 is impressive, that particular paper was published over 40 years ago, translating to 18 cites per year, which feels less impressive. If one takes publication age into account in this way then most of the works in his "top 10" become much less significant. This is one of the biggest criticisms of the h-index. WP:PROF seems silent on this issue, but in this case it's a point that feels relevant. What do people think? Una Laguna^Talk 19:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "regulars" at academics AFDs are very well aware of the hazards of boiling down someone's career to a single igure (with RL administrators had the same wisdom). In any case, I think the weakness of the h-index is more that a low index does not necessarily mean that someone is not notable, whereas it will be very rare the other way around. I remember a case of a physicist who had a sizable h, but always was somewhere in the middle among dozens upon dozens of co-authors (must have been high-energy physics) and in the end the conclusion was not notable despite the high h. Any statistic needs interpretation and we therefore cannot have an absolute cutoff value in PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Randykitty. But along Una Laguna I will add another glaring weakness of the h index as used here: Any mediocre scholar, given time, will be turned by such a recipe into WP-worthy. Just publish 20+ citation-worthy papers (relative piece of cake in Boardman's field) and let age. Though this mostly applies to authors of the last thirty-forty years (the subject here is smack in the sweet spot). As a light aside: Funny you should mention Newton in a discussion of someone whose main international recognition (albeit one of over a thousand) is by an optics society.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1/ As I said, I think 20 is indeed a bit low. 2/ Nonetheless, I think you are underestimating the difficulty of reaching even an h-index of 20. Over half of all scientific publications are not cited even once. Ever... 3/ Boardman's index is well above 20. The way the h-index works, 28 is not 40% higher, but much more (that is, this is not a linear thing). 4/ Longevity is not all. Rare is the article that still gets cited regularly 5 years after it was published. --Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far from me to disparage academics. But actually it is an urban legend that most scientific publications never get cited, and that is certainly not true in Boardman's meta-field. See here and here. As for short citation cycles, again that's an exaggerated issue (see second source), and certainly less likely in materials science than say in IT.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and religion in Star Wars

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stars Wars is not a country. This topic is unwarranted and un-notable. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous secondary sources that discuss both the philosophy and religious aspects of the Star Wars Universe. The article itself lists the book Star Wars and Philosophy and there are other books: The Dharma of Star Wars, The Gospel according to Star Wars: Faith, Hope, and the Force, Star Wars Jesus, etc. In addition there has bee a good bit written on the mythological foundations of the Star Wars universe; see for instance Star Wars sources and analogues. Jediism is a real-world crossover of the Star Wars religious ideas with some political impact; see the Jedi census phenomenon. The topic seems highly notable. The article has a general source list, but it could obviously be expanded and better sourced. However, these problems are a surmountable problems per WP:SURMOUNTABLE and not reasons for deletion. One may question whether philosophy and religion should get separate articles or a combined article; but this again is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, but not for the nominating reason. While sources do discuss different aspects this topic, this article can't help but become a lot of SYNTH being cobbled together to make an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of sources in the further reading is a compelling argument against the assertion that this topic is non-notable. Any potential problems, such as synthesis, can be corrected through normal editing. Articles shouldn't be kept or deleted based on personal feelings about the subject matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, this will never progress beyond a stub. This is not even worthy of a merge. The entire article can be summarised in a sentence on the Star Wars article. Something like: "Religion in Star Wars includes aspects of Christianity ... and comments on ethics..." Nathan121212 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the massive amount of literature found in Google books. Plenty of scope here for expansion, especially on the links to Zoroastrianism. Some of those making "delete" arguments don't seem to have searched. Niteshift36 makes a valid point, but with care, a SYNTH-free article is quite possible. -- 101.117.89.21 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are now several reliable references in the article, documenting links to several different religious concepts. I also note that the article was once much longer, but was stubbed down due to lack of references. -- 101.117.109.179 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous nominator withdrew, declaring "I deserve a trout" for not finding the large array of available sources. Faced with a much lesser task, of reading what the previous nominator had to say, this nominator still failed. What is next after trout? Anarchangel (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have more than enough sources to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. POV fork Seddon ^talk 12:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of arguments for a young Earth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic WP:POVFORK. Content belongs either on Young earth creationism or on Age of the Earth. jps (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (but rename to "List of arguments used by young Earth creationists" similar to a suggestion elsewhere). Young Earth creationism is a big article covering a lot of ground. It is perfectly appropriate to split off a section specifically for the geological and astronomical arguments and how they are rebutted. See Wikipedia:Splitting etc. Should have "main article" links from creation science and young earth creationism, but it arguably shouldn't even be mentioned at age of earth. On the negative side, we all know that, for obvious reasons, these kinds of articles take a lot of time and manpower to maintain in good condition. So there's something to be said for minimizing the number of articles on this topic, even if it means that some things aren't elaborated in as much detail as one might like. Therefore, if the article is deleted, I don't mind. --Steve (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nom says it's a WP:POVFORK. A blatant one violating WP:PSCI to the max. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Trim into Young Earth creationism... I assume that this spun out of that article... if so, it should be returned. In any case, the proper place to discuss what advocates of a theory say is in the article about that theory. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Merge. I don't quite get the "POV fork" argument, since all the arguments that are presented are also rebutted (if it promotes a POV in its current form, it's the mainstream one). Steve is correct that a sub-article on some aspect of YEC is legitimate if the main article grows too big, but the problem is that this is not about an aspect of YEC, it's a list of scientifically unrelated claims, jumbled up together. In any case, it should be labelled "list of would-be scientific arguments for..." or some such, since the actual main arguments used are predicated on the inerrancy of the bible, and involve the calculation of biblical chronology from the creation narrative. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pure creationist propaganda masquerading as an encyclopedic article. Everything listed in this list has severe logical fallacies that prevent them from being true arguments. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not a reason to delete. The inaccuracy of the arguments is irrelevant, since the article points out that very fact. The article is about the existence of those arguments. The problem is the rag-bag nature of the content, and the fact that it would be better placed within a broader YEC article. Paul B (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename per Steve and my earlier comments at WT:PHYSICS.T R 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Creationism - while some of these propositions may be notable on their own I cannot see how this list of arguments in favor of creationism is distinct from the subject of creationism. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if only because there's barely a topic here, and per WP:DIRECTORY. Our job isn't to duplicate TalkOrigins after all (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html for a very, very throughout list of arguments used by creationists). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork and per Headbomb and others doesn't seem to be an actual topic. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into Young earth creationism, does not belong on age of the earth due to WP:ONEWAY, Second Quantization (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-fork. bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POVFORK. SteveBaker (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Classic POV fork. Subject is not independent of and already existing article. Frankly, I don't see anything worth saving or merging. It's just a laundry list of notable and not notable arguments, and the notable ones are already mentioned in the other article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename. Notable (there are many articles on this subject), NPOV, and well-referenced article. Ma^t_chups 02:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Einspanier

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-existent virus, which appears to be giving deliberately incorrect information. Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis has been shown to be caused by Enterovirus 70 and Coxsackievirus A24, but this article purports to discuss a third causative virus, despite the fact that no source lists such a third cause. It has been suggested that this article should be redirected to acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis but two editors (myself and the article's original author) disagree with this redirect, for diametrically opposite reasons: I because I don't believe this is a valid redirect, because the existence of the redirect still implies the existence of a virus by this name; he because he refuses to let go of the validity of this article (see this reply to my query on his user talk page). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if there is no consensus to redirect) - given what the sources say, summarised accurately by WikiDan61 above, the article would seem to almost be a work of fiction. Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis is a symptom/condition caused by one of two viruses, possibly more. It is not a virus in and of itself. Right? St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question—This 1974 article treats the AHC virus as a distinct entity, but by 1975 this article had made the enterovirus 70 association. Trawling through google scholar I'm seeing a few other cites that would support the hypothesis that, due to a more precise identification, the "AHC virus" name started to be supplemented by "enterovirus 70" around that time. Is that an accurate (albeit superficial) reading of the literature? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Lesser Cartographies: It sounds like you've drawn the correct conclusion. I haven't reviewed the literature as extensively as that, nor am I a medical expert to make the distinction, but I do know that WP:MEDRS generally prefers recent articles to older ones. Where recent articles contradict older ones (with a predominance of recent articles disagreeing with the older ones), we can presume that the knowledge basis has progressed and that the older article is no longer valid. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research or alternatively misunderstood research, with unsupported conclusions. --Bejnar (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis and merge any verifiable material. The fact that the medical profession no longer believes this is a single virus is not cause for eliminating it entirely from Wikipedia. What should happen is that the acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis article should explain the historical medical thinking and how and when that changed. It is a valid redirect, the term was once used and it is perfectly possible that a reader could come across it and look it up. SpinningSpark 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This virus doesn't exist so the article or a redirect have no value. If someone wants to incorporate outdated info about this into the correct article go ahead but this is a delete not a redirect. Szzuk (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khashayar Karimian

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-term unsourced BLP. Article contains little claim to notability as an academic. Google Scholar has several results but mainly as a co-author, and on the most-cited papers not even first listed co-author. Michig (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Unsourced BLP and found nothing about him on the web other than from social networking sites. And some sites claim that he died at the age of 4.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQ Editor (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 28001–29000. Of note is that the nominator also agrees with a redirect in a comment within the discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

28854 Budisteanu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see nothing at WP:NASTRO that says that this should be deleted, just the opposite. Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Redirect without delete is part of WP:Editing policy, not WP:Deletion policy, as it does not require admin tools. AfD is not a part of dispute resolution. Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being reverted is not an argument for deletion. WP:Deletion policy states, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." The talk page link is red. Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Close It appears that this can be resolved without AfD volunteers. Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate place in List of minor planets: 28001–29000. Per WP:NASTRO, this asteroid wouldn't be notable even if its namesake were notable. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a later redirect e.g. to a list of similar items. Sandstein 07:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

74 Cancri

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

One possible source: [1] (one of the sources mentioned in the article cited by the nominator). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem notable so far. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets Wikipedia:NASTRO Criteria 1. Object noted in 1887: [2] (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)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solar cycle 1

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All information contained on this page can be found at List of solar cycles, and is thus unnecessary. Straw poll at WT:Astronomy agrees. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all these AFDs on the Solar cycle pages would be better as a bundled nomination as all the pages look very similar? As it is you are going to have 14 different AFDs where people will likely post the same comments on each one. Alternatively one page could be nominated first to see how it goes and then the rest could be group nominated afterward depending on how the first one goes. Davewild (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realized that a bit late, I'm going through and editing them now.Primefac (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages included in this AfD nomination (for the same reasons as Solar cycle 1):

Solar cycle 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solar cycle 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete: Nothing in any of the articles listed would take more than three table columns to list; in order for these to be kept there would need to be more than generic wording and a generic image. If old observational images (i.e, notebook sketches) from observations at the time can be found, I would reconsider. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Vote changed; see below.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - There are individual articles for all of the solar cycles since the recording of solar activity began in 1755. Some of the solar cycle articles have more information than the table at List of solar cycles (including solar cycles 4, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24, which are not part of this nomination). It is true that the remaining solar cycle articles do not contain much more information than the table. That is because no one has added any information yet. Surely, more information is available for all of these solar cycles, and much of that information would not fit into a neat table. For instance, this source includes an comparative analysis of solar cycles 18, 19, and 20. This information could be added to the articles on those solar cycles, but it could not be added to a table. I don't see any reason to delete half of these articles, leaving us with standalone articles for half of the solar cycles, and no standalone articles for the remaining articles. This would result in an unnecessary inconsistency that creates more potential problems than it solves. Each individual solar cycle is clearly notable per WP:GNG, and there is clearly the potential for adding more material to all of these articles. Per WP:BEFORE, we should be trying to improve these types of articles rather than deleting them. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to do a include a comparative analysis of 18, 19, and 20, it seems like one consolidated article would be the right place to do that. If there's three distinct articles for those three distinct cycles, in which one would the comparison go? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that the comparative analysis itself would go into each article, but the details on each cycle that are included in that source could be added to each individual article. For instance, the source mentions that cycle 18 was "the cycle of 'giant' spots". More detail on the unusually large size of the sunspots during cycle 18 could be added to Solar cycle 18, but wouldn't be something you could easily add to a table. I don't have access to more than just the summary of that source, but I'm sure there is tons of unique information in it that could be used to beef up our articles on cycles 18, 19, and 20, if not other cycles. My point is that there is more information out there that could be used to write something more than a stub. Just because no one has expanded the articles past stub status is not a reason for deletion. See WP:NOEFFORT and WP:RUBBISH. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep all. My arguments are the same as Scottywong, more or less. I don't see one good reason why e.g. Solar cycle 20 and the others could not be expanded to something more substantial than they are now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. The information is notable and important; merging to the parent article would make it too large; and there is still plenty of material for article expansion. -- 101.117.57.200 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, merging to the parent article would take no space at all, since the information present in these articles at the moment is already present there in its entirety. I don't plan on listing an opinion on this debate itself since I have mixed feelings about what should be done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I completely agree that the articles listed could be expanded, but at the moment there appears to be no additional information written on these cycles. In my mind these articles fit in the same category as the asteroid/minor bodies articles that StringTheory11 is currently AfDing/merging - one could argue for keeping them simply because they could in theory be expanded at some point in the future, but they aren't kept. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete all including all cycles before and including 23. I question whether the three most recent cycles are written at an appropriate level of detail, but the others are nothing but entries in a list padded out to an article and decorated with a random picture of the solar disc. Most of the data seems to come from three sources which one suspects also display the data in a table, and contra the statements above I think it's a safe bet that the only way to obtain even some of the same information for cycles that are any much older is to go to primary research data, if it even exists. My impression from the article on the current cycle is that its copious detail is in part enabled by NASA website data availability (particularly the reliance on the spaceweather site) and partly on the more or less permanent presence of monitoring satellites, which data is obviously not going to stretch back into the 1700s. The argument that the huge article on the current cycle justifies all previous cycle articles is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mangoe (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Notable articles, they do contain a little more information than parent articles and there is scope for them to be expanded. These should be improved rather than deleted.Blethering Scot 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the outcome is deletion, then these should all be delete-&-redirect, as they are all viable search terms for entries on the list, so delinking the list entry and redirecting the title to the list would be the thing to do. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that.Primefac (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all - or at least all of 1-21 - into a single article. This would consist of a short lead on what sunspots are and a table listing the detailed statistics. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all of these into List of Solar Cycles, or something like that. Clearly, a significant and notable topic, but this is the wrong presentation. Break out the few cycles about which there's something interesting to say, and lump the rest into a tabular presentation. No longer sure this is the right answer, so striking my !vote and just commenting more below -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on that.Primefac (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EDITATAFD, please don't merge/redirect the article until this discussion has been closed. I have rolled back your edits for the time being. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 18:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong - sorry about that, I read things too fast and thought the discussion was over. My fault for being over-zealous. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into the list or delete perhaps describtion to the solar cycles can be added to the list, but individual articles for each is like having articles on each Pokemon.Forbidden User (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All these article can viably be expanded with historical discussions of events linked to the solar cycle (geomagnetic storms, notable sunspot observations, etc.). Merging to the list make such expansion very difficult. -- 101.117.58.208 (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all there are articles published on the different solar cycles or peaks talking about numbers of sunspots, or their effect on radio communications. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Chiefly per Scottywong and all the others who have made this argument; even in those cases where there is not currently cycle specific information, there is certainly scope for such, and those articles which do have more specific information certainly need to be kept as they are. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue should be whether the solar cycles are individually notable.Forbidden User (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Per Scottywong, there is a lot of work into the various solar cycles and it is notable because of those studies. Frmorrison (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most to list: per a cursory Google search, most solar cycles blatantly fail the general notability guideline and WP:NASTRO. Except for the most recent cycles, most have one or zero sources with anything more than a sentence on the cycle. :@Graeme Bartlett, Scottywong, and Frmorrison: where are all these "articles" and "studies" you keep talking about? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: You've already voted once, at the top of this page. Which way would you like to vote, delete or merge? Please pick one and strike the other. I provided one example source above that has more information on cycles 18, 19, and 20. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to find an example source for every last cycle, but I'm sure they exist. For instance, each cycle could have additional content describing the scientist(s) who primarily made the solar measurements during that particular cycle. It wouldn't take much imagination to expand these articles past stubs. That it hasn't been done yet is not a reason to delete them. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I misunderstood how relisting works. I've struck my old vote. You continue to insist that information is available, but that's not true. Of the cycles before 13, only two - 4 and 9 - have even a single paper largely discussing them, and up to about cycle 17 I don't see more than one paper in Google Scholar. NASTRO holds that "A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects." For each cycle, until and unless proof of notability is established (and notability is individual; one cycle being notable does not automatically make others notable), it should be redirected to the list. For each cycle, as soon as an article with multiple substantial sources is shown to be possible - i.e, anyone offers any sort of proof that your claimed expansion is even possible - then the article can created. Merging with redirects would preserve the history, making it recreation very easy when multiple substantial sources are actually produced. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to look at than just scientific papers on the different cycles. Even though the cycles are primarily of scientific interest, there are other aspects that can be discussed in the articles. For instance, who are the scientists that made the observations in each cycle? Under what circumstances were the observations made? What type of tools and methods were used to observe the sunspots? ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should take a step back and consider usability. I think we're all agreed that the topic is notable, and we're looking for the best way to present this information to our readers. If cycles 1-18 (or whatever) are all boilerplate, and picking up from 19 on we have lots of information, then I think the most useful presentation is one article covering 1-18 in a tabular format, then individual articles for 19, 20, 21, etc. If we end up finding enough material to write full-strength articles about (for example) 6, 8, 9, 14, and 17, it might be a little silly (and hinder usability) to break out just those random ones into their own articles, and have a list covering all the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 August 2014‎

Well you've just talked youself into a keep !vote then. You seem to have missed that some cycles (4, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19) have not been nominated because they already have more information. SpinningSpark 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you're right. I did not notice that. Keep, then. I would also redo Template:Solar cycles to be a lot less verbose. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not even mentioning the articles on 21, 22, 23 and 24, some of which are very detailed. SpinningSpark 18:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep of solar cycles 2 through 20; none of those pages have an AfD nomination notice and thus have been nominated out of process. Keep solar cycle 1 as it is the first identified solar cycle and there must surely be more to say about it than that; such as who identified it, which astronomer(s) made the sunspot observations etc. Without doubt this information is available. Keep solar cycles 8 and 9 as their junction occurs in 1843. What's the significance of that? That is the year that solar cycles were discovered by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe and hence 8 and 9 are of great historical significance. The articles don't currently say anything about this, but they could do. Keep all per User:RoySmith's continuity argument. SpinningSpark 17:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answering my own question, it was Johann Rudolph Wolf and I've now added it the article. There is thus the additional reason for keeping that I have made a contribution to it :) SpinningSpark 18:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Spinningspark if you'll look at the histories of the other Solar Cycles mentioned in this AfD, you'll see that someone (incorrectly) went through and removed ALL of the AfD notices because they didn't see this AfD containing all of them. I mentioned it to the user (Joe_Decker) and they remarked upon it on my talk page; I reverted the edits but it looks like ScottyWong undid my undo. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was unintentional. I only meant to undo the edit you made to redirect each article. We can replace the AfD templates, if necessary. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's necessary. Why does there even need to be a discussion? SpinningSpark 21:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is plenty of material on all these solar cycles; all of them are notable and expandable. Some of this vast array of information is slowly being added to the articles (including some important historical information about solar cycle 1). Why restrict ourselves just to the information in the table? AFAIK, all of the articles now contain more information than what's in the table, which makes the nomination incorrect. -- 101.117.91.154 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And in answer to a point raised by Pi.1415926535, old sunspot photographs and drawings exist for many (possibly even all) of these cycles. Some have been added to the articles. -- 101.117.91.154 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment for cycle 20 I find these two article on Jstor: "SOLAR MAGNETIC FIELDS-LARGE SCALE" ROBERT HOWARD Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 83, No. 495 (October 1971), pp. 550-560; and would you believe: "An Inquiry into the Effect of Sunspot Activity on the Stock Market" Charles J. Collins Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1965), pp. 45-56 ? for cycle 19: P. S. Freier and W. R. Webber, "Exponential rigidity spectrum for solar flare cosmic rays," J. Geophys. Res. 68, 1605 (1963). and "The Physical Characteristics of Solar Flares"

S. B. Curtis Radiation Research Supplement, Vol. 7, No., Space Radiation Biology. Proceedings of a Workshop Conference on Space Radiation Biology Sponsored by the Office of Advanced Research of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America, held at the University of California, Berkeley, September 7-10, 1965 (1967), pp. 38-42. and "Radiation Exposure in Air Travel" Hermann J. Schaefer Science, New Series, Vol. 173, No. 3999 (Aug. 27, 1971), pp. 780-783 . For cycles earlier than 16 it seems this may not be the terminology they used at the time, so we may need to find other ways to search. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, there are modern researchers looking at historical data who study the early cycles by name, for instance 155-day Periodicity in solar cycles 3 and 4. With minimal effort I can find other relevant papers studying a specific time period that refer to the modern cycle numbers (though not in the title). Examples: Two Early Sunspots Observers: Teodoro de Almeida and José Antonio Alzate and On the connection between solar activity and low-latitude aurorae in the period 1715–1860. SpinningSpark 08:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These articles are really container articles for events in a given season and sources that do not directly address the season may still confer notability on the season as a whole. They are to be compared to the "yyyy hurricane season" series of articles. While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is relevant that there has been some testing of this at AFD but the only ones that have been succesfully deleted are articles that are WP:CRYSTAL (eg 2015 hurricane season) or WP:FORK violations. SpinningSpark 08:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work that's been done establishing notability. I've been convinced by the work that's been done - there's enough information there to make redirecting to a table probably wasteful. Please, though - remove the modern image from the articles about old cycles. That's misleading more than it is informative. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for cycles 1 (1755-1766), 3-9 (1775-1855), 11 (1867-1878), and 16-18 (1923-1954)? Better images for those would be good, and they should exist. There should be images of the solar-related events discussed in the articles too. I'd also like to see a small navigation template that can go at the top right, showing start and end month and linking to the previous and next cycle, as well as a plot for solar cycle 4, illustrating the 2-cycle hypothesis. -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your work on these articles. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 02:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help out! -- 101.117.58.68 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on an infobox here, input and suggestions are always welcome.Primefac (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you are withdrawing your nomination? -- 101.117.108.126 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I still think the articles without extra information should be deleted/redirected to the list of solar cycles (e.g. adding the fact that William Herschel observed Solar cycle 3 doesn't improve it in my mind). However, an infobox will be useful for the pages that get kept.Primefac (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the infobox would in general not link to the next/previous cycle, in which case I oppose the infobox. -- 101.117.108.96 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropocloud

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Equations of motion#Constant linear acceleration. If anyone feels there is useful information to merge, it remains in the article history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formulas for constant acceleration

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whatever article you could make of it, it's already covered by equations of motion in much greater detail. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree this not a useful article. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Equations of motion#Constant linear acceleration, since the equations presented in the article appear to be trivial variants of the "SUVAT equations" discussed there. Deor (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. This page is not useful and not needed since there is already a page dedicated to equations of motions.--Steve Quinn (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Deor and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Equations of motion#Constant linear acceleration per Deor, et al. --Bejnar (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Equations of motion#Constant linear acceleration per previous comments & nom. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arid Forest Research Institute. While more discussion here would have been ideal, after two relistings consensus in this very short discussion is to merge. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFRI Model Nursery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 17:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's an obvious merge to Arid Forest Research Institute. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with User:DGG. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's not an overwhelming consensus here, but the weight of the arguments seem enough to call this delete. An argument was made that, As time passes, (14825) will be a significant object of public, scientific, and academic interest.. If that turns out to be true, then I suspect sufficient additional references will surface to establish WP:N, and the article can be re-created at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(14825) Fieber-Beyer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant studies on this object, not in a catalogue of note, not discovered before 1850, and not visible to the naked eye. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #1: Yes, the asteroid is not visible to the naked eye - in fact, no asteroid is. Criteria #2: The asteroid is listed in many significant databases including the external links provided within the article. To date the asteroid has been observed 713 times, for verification please see the IAU link in the external links in the article. Amateur astronomers can and frequently do use these publicly available databases to observe asteroids and gather photometric data to define the rotational period and shape models of asteroids lacking these parameters. Criteria #3: The asteroid has just been named after a disabled American astronomer within the last month who specializes in asteroid spectroscopy that focuses in the region of space in which (14825) Fieber-Beyer is located and is a target of her studies finding main belt parent bodies for terrestrial meteorites, she was interviewed and explicitly stated this - the link to the newspaper interview is listed in the references. The MPC citation for the naming of the asteroid is listed in the references as well as two published new articles. The page was created to document findings of the past, present, and future study of asteroid (14825) Fieber-Beyer as they become newly available. The existing information has been incorporated and new information will be updated regularly. Criteria #4: It is undisputed that the discovery did not take place before 1850. Therefore, notability is met for criteria #2 and #3. SKFB (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

I'm with StringTheory11 on this one, the article should be deep sixed.

Criteria 2 fails because, while it may be of interest to amateur astronomers, it has not been given a designation on any relevant catalog. Also, just because it's been observed a few hundred times doesn't make it notable. WP:NASTRO also makes a mention of not duplicating lists just for listing sake - if it's in IAU and others, why repeat it here?
Criteria 3 fails (in my mind) because I was unable to find a single peer-reviewed article where this asteroid was the main focus (or ANY focus). Also, Fieber-Beyer had not (as of the time of the writing of the article) actually viewed the asteroid herself, let alone published work on it.

I was going to suggest it gets put on the list of notable asteroids in the asteroid belt, but I don't know if it even would fit there... Primefac (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be noted the asteroid is noted on a few different Wikipedia pages and the stub created appends these listings as well. For example, on Edward_L._G._Bowell all 572 of his discovered asteroids are listed. Each that has a given name has a stub attached to it, while the others are just listed with their numbered designations. The stub for (14825) Fieber-Beyer has external links, citations, news articles, etc. much more so than a majority of the objects in that listing. A great many amateur astronomers do follow Bowell's astronomical works and by visiting his page and clicking on each asteroid one can clearly see the breadth of Bowell's contributions in astronomy and inspire others to do the same. Professionals also seek out Bowell and his asteroid finds. The asteroid is also listed in List_of_minor_planets_named_after_people. As of April 15, 2014, the IAU Minor Planet Center reported orbits for 639,091 minor planets, of which 393,347 are numbered minor planets, and 18,504 are named minor planets (IAU Minor Planet Center: http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/ArchiveStatistics.html). Only 5,954 light curves (rotation rates are derived from this) have been determined as of February 28, 2014 (http://www.minorplanet.info/lightcurvedatabase.html). The majority of these can be attributed to amateur astronomers. As time passes, (14825) will be a significant object of public, scientific, and academic interest. Fieber-Beyer has an extensive publishing history in peer-reviewed journals i.e. Icarus_(journal), Meteoritics_&_Planetary_Science, Astronomy_and_Astrophysics, and regularly archives spectral data on the NASA Planetary Data System Small Bodies Node. Removing the stub is a disservice to the planetary science community, both amateur and professional. SKFB (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

Even if an asteroid has a light curve, this does not constitute significant coverage per NASTRO or the WP:GNG, considering the sheer number that have them, while NASTRO explicitly states that naming is not a reason for notability. Sure, the Edward Bowell article you mentioned above may link to stubs, but those should be redirected too; it doesn't matter that other stuff exists. Sure, if Fieber-Beyer gets a Wikipedia page (which I currently have no opinion on as I have not researched that issue), then a note about the asteroid should be included there, but as I mentioned, that doesn't immediately make the asteroid notable per the guideline. As for the journals, can you provide some links to examples of the peer-reviewed sources that are present in these journals? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5,954 asteroids with lightcurves do not constitute "sheer number" considering there are 639091 minor planets. The asteroids with lightcurves make up 0.009% of the population. That's less than 1% of minor planets having a lightcurve. It seems we have come to a stalemate on notability. As far as Fieber-Beyer's publications, she has several.^{[P 1]}^{[P 2]}^{[P 3]}^{[P 4]}^{[P 5]}^{[P 6]}^{[P 7]}^{[P 8]}^{[P 9]}^{[P 10]}^{[P 11]}^{[P 12]}^{[P 13]}^{[P 14]}^{[P 15]} These are just a few of the thirty plus peer-reviewed articles I located for Fieber-Beyer's research which is centralized in the region of space (14825) is located. It is a target body for her research. SKFB (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

That percent is wrong; doing the arithmetic is is 0.9% that have light curves, not 0.009%, quite a significant difference. 0.9% of over 600000 is still quite a large number. Looking at the sources, they again only mention the asteroid in passing or as a comparison, and do not go in-depth on it, which is required for significant coverage. Clearly not evidence of notability, and instead evidence that there does not appear to be significant coverage. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,0.9% is correct. That is still less than 1% of the total number of asteroids having a lightcurve. It is not a large number, that is a minute number. Criteria #2 and #3 are met. The asteroid is listed in many significant databases, has been observed 713 times, and is of interest to amateur astronomers. Furthermore, the asteroid was named after a disabled American astronomer who specializes in asteroid spectroscopy that focuses in the region of space where asteroid (14825)Fieber-Beyer is located and is a target of her studies finding main belt parent bodies for terrestrial meteorites. Citations regarding this have been listed in the article. SKFB (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

Just a note, as of today there are now 646094 minor planets, so that would make the 0.9% even much more less than 1% ^{[P 16]} Also, CalSky is ANOTHER catalog of significance to astronomers amateur and professional further solidifying criteria #2 being met. The citation provided links to asteroids of the 14000s. If you click on 14825 Fieber-Beyer you can generate the ephemerides of (14825), as well as get a graph that reveals when asteroid (14825) will be visible or calculate the date of closest approach or opposition. CalSky is used worldwide by amateur and professionals.SKFB (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

Found a reference specifically stating when asteroid (14825) Fieber-Beyer will be spectroscopically studied providing even more detailed knowledge about this minor planet. A line was added in the article and the citation sourced on the article page (14825) Fieber-Beyer. SKFB (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

We have already established that this asteroid does not pass criterion #2, since it is not in the Bayer, Flamsteed, Messier, NGC, or Caldwell catalogues, and is in no catalogue besides the minor planet catalogue, which contains every single minor planet. CalSky is not a catalogue; it's simply a calculator. 0.9% may seem like a lot by percentages, but we have to remember that 0.9% of over 500000 is still a huge humber, around 5000. Criteria #3 is not met because every link you provided does not constitude significant coverage; but again constitudes simply passing mentions in the article, which clearly is not enough for the WP:GNG, and thus is not enough for WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In terms of its representation in the scientific literature, this clearly fails WP:NASTRO. We do have two newspaper articles about its naming, but they're not really different from each other in what aspect of the subject they cover, and they're both very local. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent sources on the asteroid naming, which might be irrelevant for WP:NASTRO but surely are relevant for WP:GNG. Add to this that there is a lightcurve, and thus evidence of academic interest, and we have a case for notability (That a lot of asteroids have light curves is irrelevant - notable does not mean unique).--cyclopia ^speak! 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bayer, Flamsteed, Messier, NGC, or Caldwell catalogues are for star, nebula, and galaxies, not asteroids. The IAU's Minor Planet Catalog (Minor_Planet_Center) and NASA Planetary Data System Small Bodies Node are the go-to for asteroids. It does meet criterias #2 and #3. Also, found a 4th independent source regarding the naming and future study of the asteroid [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by SKFB (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletet yes, multiple independent sources on the asteroid naming in local papers due to press release, but no significant coverage. It maybe WP:TOOSOON, if the claims about future study come to fruition. --Bejnar (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Deletion Review

[1] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513004648

[2] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PDSS..199.....F

[3] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103511002235

[4] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103511000935

[5] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103510004811

[6] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhDT.......134F

[7] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513004648

[8] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013M%26PSA..76.5124G

[9] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1405.3970M

[10] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010M%26PSA..73.5122F

[11] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013M%26PSA..76.5124G

[12] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014LPI....45.1428F

[13] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PDSS..146.....F

[14] ttp://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewDataset.jsp?dsid=EAR-A-I0046-3-FBIRTFSPEC-V1.0

[15] ttp://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewDataset.jsp?dsid=EAR-A-I0046-3-FBIRTFSPEC-V2.0

[16] ttp://www.calsky.com/observer/dataminor.cgi?page=14

[P 1]

[P 2]

[P 3]

[P 4]

[P 5]

[P 6]

[P 7]

[P 8]

[P 9]

[P 10]

[P 11]

[P 12]

[P 13]

[P 14]

[P 15]

[P 16]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lesser_frog}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EleMints_(2nd_nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/28854_Budisteanu}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthropod_(2nd_nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Algorithm_examples}}