User:Ace111

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

MediaWiki version 1.28.0-wmf.20 (3b2ecce).

Wikipedia:Babel
ru Русскийродной язык этого участника.
en-4 This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.
de-2 Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.
fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.
Search user languages
Crystal Clear action run.svg
This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).
Crystal Clear action run.svg
(contribs)
This user runs a bot, Acebot. It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.
Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (Russian).
Stargate SG·1 symbol 01.svg This user is from the planet Earth. Rotating earth (large).gif
Hôtel des Invalides, North View, Paris 7e 140402 1.jpg This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤


Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.
Picture of the day
Les Invalides

Les Invalides
Photograph: DXR
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


The Signpost
29 September 2016

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wbar blue left.jpg
Wbar blue.jpg
Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
Lang-en.gif Lang-Sw.gif Vlag Fil Cebu.gif Lang-ge.gif Lang-nl.gif Lang-fr.gif Lang-ru.gif Lang-it.gif Lang-es.gif Lang-war.gif
English Svenska Sinugboanon Deutsch Nederlands Français Русский Italiano Español Winaray
5,251,048 3,529,780+ 3,017,809+ 1,981,755+ 1,875,862+ 1,797,037+ 1,344,452+ 1,304,262+ 1,286,509+ 1,261,734+
More than 41,708,972 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 5,388,859 articles.


Russia[edit]

Treaty of Kurakchay[edit]

Treaty of Kurakchay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Treaty of Kurakchay" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

After having digged about this whole matter for a pretty long time I found out and can conclude, pretty safely, that this entire matter is a complete hoax. There was no such thing in history, as a "Treaty of Kurakchay" or "Kurakchay Treaty". I brought the matter up at Doug Weller's talk page as well, not that long ago, asking about the main source that was cited here (Johannes Rau), who turned out to be non-WP:RS as well, see; [1]. Not a single reputable historian or scholar who specifies in the region has ever coined such a treaty. When you type "Kurakchay Treaty" (or any of the two other names) in google, or google books you get either 1) non-WP:RS books/links 2) websites from the Azerbaijan Republic. 3) Wikipedia mirrors. The image added here as well, is not even the Kurakchay Treaty, but a file dating from 1868 authorized by the Caucasian Archeological Commission (in Russian), which thus dates from some ~ 60 years after the so-called "Treaty" was signed. Furthermore, I have all the pages of the other authors put in the article literally laying in front of me as well, by Mostashari (2006), Bournoutian (1994), Atkin (1979), and not a single one of these mention anything even remotely close to the matter presented here, aka a treaty with such a name/such names.

Its pretty amazing how such a hoax managed to linger forth for such a rather long time, just because the whole matter is a low-profile subject. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is certainly not a hoax, per reliable sources found by this search and the same search in Google Books, which I can't link because for some inexplicable reason I can't save this page with that link included. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
These "reliable sources" just copy-pasted it from Wikipedia. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Which of them does that? I certainly can't see any such copying and pasting. One example where that would be impossible (and it's not the only one, just the first that caught my eye) is this book published by Aarhus University Press in 1998, eight years before our article was created and several years before Wikipedia even existed. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Since LouisAragon has had a longstanding awareness of the article he is probably more able than most to spot if current or previous versions of the Wikipedia article's text has made it into any of those sources. But each Google Scholar source is going to have to be individually looked at (though there are not many so it is do-able). Also, a number of then seem on the surface to be non RS, being black propaganda texts produced by Azerbaijan. There is a past edit that placed into the article the actual text of the supposed treaty [2] but its source, a book titled "Sources on Azerbaijani history" published in Baku in 1989, so will be very doubtful as a RS. If this treaty did exist it surely must be mentioned in sources written before the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh began. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Bournoutian is cited as a source in the article, and in the talk page is mentioned as the source for the "Russo-Karabakhi treaty" alternative name. LouisAragon, what does Bournoutian actually say? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
So are you saying that text from the Wikipedia article, on a site that was created in 2001, might have made its way into a book published by a Danish university in 1998? Let's keep the discussion in the realm of the possible. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If you, Mr Anon, are going to continue to make accusations without any substance I suggest you leave this discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Without substance? Do you dispute that Wikipedia was created in 2001? Or maybe you want a reliable source that says that 1998 came before 2001? What substance is missing from my observation that not all of the potential sources are copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article, as stated by KATMAKROFAN? And you don't get to choose who takes part in deletion discussions. Those of us without a dog in this fight are better able to judge notability than editors with a preconceived point of view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
86.17.222.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), IDK why you're constantly bringing up a book that's not even WP:RS. I agree that the content of that book doesn't seem to have been copied from Wikipedia, but nevertheless, its authors are not historians, thus the whole thing plays no role here.
@Tiptoethrutheminefield:, the Bournoutian source cited here, without a page, is a translation of an early 19th century work ("A history of Qarabagh: an annotated translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh"). Bournoutian adds to the relevant passages himself (page 11) that; "His [the writer related to the Khanate] work covers the history of the khanate of Qarabagh from the death of Nader Shah and the appointment of Panah Khan as the khan of Qarabagh in 1747/48 to the signing of the Russo-Qarabakhi treaty in 1805", while on page 3; "Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim Khan and Prince Tsitsianov.[footnote]" In later passages of the journal, Bournoutian always refers back to the same thing as "an agreement" or the "treaty signed with Russia", but never the words "Kurakchay Treaty" or "Treaty of Kurakchay". Mind you, Bournoutian is the sole WP:RS author that even mentions such a word (Russo-Qarabaghi), and even then, throughout his entire euvre, as far as I can see/know, he does so on one mere occassion; only in this translation. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be hung up on the name of this treaty, rather than its existence. Are you doubting that a treaty was made between these parties on the date given? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was not actually called "Treaty of Kurakchay" then there are problems calling the article "Treaty of Kurakchay". Yes, something existed. An agreement was made between the Russian commander on the ground and a local ruler who was dependent on Persia, in which that ruler agrees to switch allegiance if his and his family, and his descendants position is guaranteed within the Russian Empire. The modern back story here is that Azerbaijan tries to inflate this agreement concerning a ruling family into a treaty entered into between two states - the Russian Empire and an independent state called the Karabakh Khanate. If an independent Azeri-ruled state can be made out to have existed in 1805, with its continued existence treaty-guaranteed by Russia, then this can be used to question the legitimacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic. My feeling is that, given the vagueness of its status and its name, the content of this article should be merged into related existing articles. There we can refer to it as an agreement, described in later sources as the "Treaty of Kurakchay" or the "Russo-Qarabaghi treaty". (Providing of course that there are at least some RS sources that do refer to it as "Treaty of Kurakchay") Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that this discussion is a puerile nationalist dispute rather than an attempt to improve this encyclopedia. As I said before I have no dog in this fight, but I have no trouble identifying who does. The legitamacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic is not recognised by any UN member state, so anything other than questioning of that legitamacy is very much a fringe view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You are actually confirming to us your fringe pov. The Nagorno Karabakh republic bases its legitimacy on the self-evident fact of its existence, on the right of its population to have self determination, and of it being historically an integral part of Armenia, ethnically and culturally. However, Azeri historiography, which is not supported by RS, claims that, historically, NK was actually "Caucasian Albania", that its "Caucasian Albanians" over time either became assimilated into Muslim Azeris or assimilated into Christian Armenians, and that any real Armenians in NK are actually post-Russian conquest newcomers. This is why Azerbaijan talks up the status and importance of this treaty. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- the treaty is mentioned in a book by Kaveh Farrokh, Iran at War: 1500-1988, which appears to be RS. So it's not a hoax. It's significance is unclear, so I'm not sure it warrants an article or not; the book devotes several paragraphs to it noting: "The exact nature of the Kurakchay treaty has been disputed".
The book Small Nations and Great Powers mentions that Karabakh was "conquered" in 1805 so the date matches the supposed treaty under discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The Svante Cornell source is non RS propaganda that peddles Turkish and Azeri historiography - I can spot numerous lies and distortions in just that single page. "Russia's stirrings in the South Caucasus soon led to a Russo-Persian war". This is a lie - it was Persia's stirrings, seeking to re-impose its traditional supremacy over the Southern Caucasus, who invaded, causing the local Christian rulers in Georgia to ask Russia for help. And similarly, the "former Persian Lands" were not, they were still officially part of Persia though in the hands of mostly autonomous local rulers. The claim that Russia tried to extend its control over Armenia because Armenians were Christian is ludicrous, and it is a fantasy I have seen expressed in no other source. Russia had no intention during WW1 to "annex large parts of eastern Turkey". W.E.D. Allen and Paul Muratoff, in "Caucasian Battlefields", the definitive account of the military events, makes clear that for the Russian Empire the Caucasus front was always considered a sideline, was always under sourced, and was to be fought defensively. And of course Cornell is an Armenian Genocide denier, even using the stock denialist wording "tragic events" to dismiss it, placing "genocide" in inverted commas, and accusing Ottoman Armenians of being allied with Russia and being a fifth column. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete -- the Kaveh Farrokh source that I found is not sufficient RS for a stand alone article. PS -- I do not quite understand the above comment. Anyway, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge There is content in the Farrokh source found by K.e.coffman that could be added to the Shusha article - currently there is nothing on the Russian occupation of it, the Persian advance, Ibrahim Khalil Khan Javanshir ignoring his earlier treaty and switching back allegiance to Persia, his subsequent death, etc. I think there, and on the Ibrahim Khalil Khan article, and with a mention on the Karabakh Khanate article, is the most appropriate place for the subject detailed in this article. It was not a treaty between nations, but was an agreement with an individual (Ibrahim Khalil Khan) who had been appointed by Persia to govern territory that the Persian empire considered an integral part of Persia. Even though sources describe it as a treaty, giving it various names, I think it does not have the status that justifies an article - unlike an actual named treaty between nations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Denis Salnikov[edit]

Denis Salnikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Denis Salnikov" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete: does not appear after Google search, to meet threshold of notability for NAUTHOR. Quis separabit? 12:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete small time journalist, whose identity is unclear. The latter would not preclude having an article, but there are just not enough sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The show broadway group[edit]

The show broadway group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The show broadway group" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I'm skeptical of the validity of this article. The group won "The Music Award": What is "The Music Award"? It was "nominated" for best jazz single at the Akademia Music Awards: Artists "nominate" themselves for these "awards"—for a fee—according to this. And these "awards", which seem to consist of their hosting a web page for your group, are given out every month. I guess it's what you'd call a vanity award service.

"TOP 20 world's best jazz musicians", according to whom? The author wrote "a 16th place in world ranking"; the source, from which these several sentences were otherwise copied, says 62nd. Either way, world ranking according to whom? And the group certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. No applicable coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, Largos rationale is sound--Jac16888 Talk 19:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. I smell a huge amount of WP:PROMO here: the references in the text are to "The Akademia" - this is the organization that gave the group their "music award", and which states on its home page that its business is helping promote new acts, so it's a marketing agency. The one in-line reference is to a blog site for "mrgorbunoff": a bit of googling brings up Igor Gorbunoff, whose social media accounts are full of references and links promoting the Akademia and the Show Broadway Group, and almost nothing else. Oh, and "Mrgorbunoff" just happens to be the username of the editor who created the article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Russian Futurist cinema[edit]

Russian Futurist cinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Russian Futurist cinema" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable as standalone topic - propose either merging into Russian Futurism or deletion. Mike1901 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Dasha Libin[edit]

Dasha Libin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dasha Libin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

After cleaning up the page, I realize how little this person has to have Wikipedia page:

  • No mention in major media outlets
  • The kettlebell boxing is not a famous martial art
  • The page looked like a resume before I cleaned it up

She's a sports instructor who lives in New York City, she doesn't meet WP:N criteria. --Qwacker (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete This is nothing more than a promo piece (clean-up aside). Non-notable as per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No significant independent coverage in reliable sources, so WP:GNG is not met. There's also no evidence of her being a notable martial artist per WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lindsay Mills[edit]

Lindsay Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lindsay Mills" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

"Dating Edward Snowden" is not sufficient notability to justify a standalone Wikipedia article, per WP:INVALIDBIO. Ms. Mills' brief appearance at the Academy Awards to help accept an award for a documentary about Mr. Snowden, is not enough either, in my opinion, though it may merit a mention on Edward Snowden. agr (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, there was a discussion in 2013 about mentioning Ms. Mills, saved at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_Snowden/Archive_2 (search for her name).--agr (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivia, not notable at all. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete -- utter trivia, including "Newsworthy comments reported from that interview included, "I never got to know her", "I wasn't even aware she was in a relationship"" :-) The rest of the article is not much better. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete notability is not inherited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • keep I was searching for the name because I was reading about the movie and I was happy to find the information in the WP. I suggest follow-up in 3 yrs. J-m.s (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • That suggests redirect to Edward Snowden - look at the sourcing, I don't think it's enough to swing a potentially-controversial WP:BLP on - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Edward Snowden Capt. Milokan (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as first choice, relationships do not confer notability. If Lindsay Mills is going to be mentioned at all in Edward Snowden, which seems quite dubious to me (how is the name of Snowden's girlfriend of interest to Wikipedia's readers, if the name is all there is, mentioned in passing?), then redirect, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC).
  • Keep There are experienced users here !voting for delete without mentioning GNG. I started this article, and it seems clear to me that this person passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Can someone say how this article fails to meet those inclusion criteria? Deletion arguments in Wikipedia are typically based on a determination of whether reputable media organizations have already featured the person as a subject in their own publications. If other publications have articles featuring a person, then the initial presumption is that the person merits an article in Wikipedia. The subject of this Wikipedia article has indeed been featured as the subject of media works including news stories, journalists' commentaries, and a starring character role in a Hollywood movie.
WP:GNG and WP:BIO say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" At first look, Mills should be presumed to merit a stand alone article. She meets this criteria because of the 27 sources cited here in Wikipedia, at least 15 of them are substantial articles which feature Mills as the subject. Wikipedia only requires 2. Consider these for example -
Is there anyone here who will argue any of the following claims?
  1. These works feature Mills as their subject
  2. These are substantial works of original journalism
  3. These works are published by reputable media outlets
  4. This coverage is not temporary and happened regularly over 2013-16
  5. Each of these works has a different journalistic angle
I accept all of the above claims, so I say that Mills passes BIO and GNG. If anyone wishes to argue otherwise then could they please point to the part of those criteria which she is failing or make another deletion argument. I confirm WP:NOTINHERITED and that Wikipedia:Trivial mentions do not establish notability. However, a person who is the subject of articles has established their own notability. Beyond Wikipedia's WP:GNG, Mills meets other notability criteria, including WP:CREATIVE for her blog reviews and WP:PORNBIO for the many commentaries on her shirtless underwear pics and videos. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Mills passes the notability threshold, but I think there may be an overriding BLP concern most closely represented by WP:BLP1E. This is a unique situation in which the subject is only (borderline) notable by way of her relationship to Snowden, and she has tried to keep a low profile. I think she's distinguishable from otherwise non-notable spouses of other famous people, such as Melania Trump. Trump chose to marry a very famous person; Mills hasn't married Snowden, and Snowden was totally unknown when they started dating. She has been thrust into the (dim) limelight unwillingly. Note the quote in this source you cited: "She didn't sign up for the life she had, which is people asking questions, people finding a photo of her and creating a story around it." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
DrFleischman I can understand why someone might argue WP:BLP1E, because it is taboo to discuss the media coverage of this person. The sources cited discuss these things:
  1. This person's relationship with Snowden (everyone sees this)
  2. Mills participating in subversive activities (making treason jokes at the Academy Awards, dressing as a criminal for Halloween)
  3. Mills re-uniting with Snowden to enjoy life, when almost all media suggests that Snowden should be imprisoned or executed
  4. Mills blogging and being emotionally open in her social media accounts
  5. Mills posting and videos pictures of herself in her underwear
Wikipedia is not supposed to pass judgement on why reliable sources report things, but multiple reliable sources are reporting all of these things. There are degrees of separation about the media coverage, and it does extend from a crime that happened in 2013, but the media coverage has been regular and continual.
In some ways Mills meets WP:LOWPROFILE but she also passes all of the highprofile criteria listed there. She did agree to have herself portrayed in a Hollywood movie. She is obviously attention seeking for appearing at the Academy Awards. The Halloween costume stunt is as attention-seeking as a person in her circumstances can be. Also girls who present their public image with underwear photography are hardly avoiding media attention. I confirm that she is avoiding some media attention, but there are lots of other kinds that she is seeking and getting. It would be an unusual argument to make that media coverage on all these points by all these publications over 3+ years is BLP1E of a shy person who fails GNG. I expect that animosity toward Snowden and prejudice to dismiss the value of the reviews of her art is leading people strangely say that all these media sources somehow combine to fail notability. This person seems to have not had media attention before the leaks, but after the leaks, she has gotten both the media attention pushed on her and forced the media to give her attention that only she could have demanded. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You're not suggesting that editors who disagree with you are driven by anti-Snowden animus, are you? --01:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not aware of anyone disagreeing with me yet, but I do think the discussion here has been odd. I see multiple citations that feature the subject of this article as their own subject, and typically when that kind of source material is present people say that the Wikipedia article passes GNG and vote to keep it. Somehow, for whatever reason, the delete votes have come without addressing GNG, and I am sure that is strange. One possible cause of this discussion not following the usual practice could be animus, and I listed several of biases that are known to float around Mills - animus against people accused of treason, fugitive actions, weird art, and erotic art. I hope that no one disagrees with me that it would be odd to delete this article for failing GNG, and I think the lowprofile and BLP1E arguments are not obvious fits to this case either. Still, intuition is a powerful thing, and I expect that many commenters here voting to delete are having a shared experience of having an insight about deletion that is obvious to them but not obvious to me. I have my own biases that might prevent me from having that insight.
I would agree with anyone who said that journalism about Mills originated in her relationships with Snowden, and that her art and views and public image would not have attracted media attention otherwise, but there comes a point when someone gets enough media coverage that Wikipedia considers them their own person. If Mills has not passed that point, then can anyone articulate what is lacking? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You have some valid points, but please try to avoid the ad hominem attacks, which do not advance the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I'm not convinced by the above sources:
  • The Guardian -- largely being snippets of Ms Mills' blog as it relates to her relationship with Snowden
  • The New Yorker -- same, but within a topic of "our lives on the internet" topic rather than Mills as a person
  • The Intercept -- a passing mention.
  • People -- tabloidy coverage
They are not married so I don't think that a redirect is appropriate; so I'm keeping my delete !vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive)[edit]

Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies)/WP:ACTOR requirement. A minor television personality with no in-depth coverage of him, mentioned by the virtue of appearing on as a host on some shows. Bottom line, appearing on TV, even several times, is not enough to be notable, just like not every TV journalist, or journalists/writers in general, are notable. This person is just doing his regular job which involves occasional mid-level TV appearances, but he appears on TV not because he is notable, but because this is his job. PS. I nominated this for deletion 2 years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev), but nobody except article creator commented, and his main argument was WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, neither of which are valid in an AfD discussion. PPS. This is a series of 4 similar articles about non-notable (IMHO) television workers, see Junior_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Organisation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 16:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep appearing on a contest operated by the European Broadcasting Union is extensive coverage and notability. Just like we have articles for Jon Ola Sand and Svante Stockselius. Sand is the current exec for Eurovision and the new exec for Junior Eurovision. Stockslius was the former exec for both contests. And both of those are seen as notable and fulfilling WP:GNG, so why is the rule different for a person who basically was in the same role? Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Alternative option would be to merged all of the articles on BU Executive Supervisors into a list article, perhaps under the title List of Eurovision executive supervisors, and then list them in there. I could see that working just as well, and would avoid the argument of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
We do not combine notable articles simply because guidelines like WP:ITSUSEFUL pr IDONTLIKEIT exists. Notability is based on the guidelines like WP:GNG. and he does pass that.BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep * I see no merit for this nom. He is a television executive and by good sourcing that is confirmed. He was worked on major Eurovision events which as seen by millions of viewers, and have merit. passes WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Nothing in BIO states that television executives are notable by default. Nobody is denying that is his career, but all the mentions of him are in passing. Being on TV, or working for one, does not make one notable. Nor is being seen by millions, he was not the subject, just an organizer of the event that people where watching. Doing one's job, even if it means being highly visible, is not a criteria of notability in itself. All I hear so far is HEISIMPORTANT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary @Piotrus:, but I did propose an alternative solution as well as a !keep rationale. So not everyone is having the stance that "HEISIMPORTANT". However, one could counter-argue that view point and say that you're portraying across a "WP:WEDONTNEEDIT" attitude, which again is something to be avoided in debates like this. Executive supervisors seem to have some significance on Wikipedia, especially when there is a plethora of bios divided by company Category:Executives by company. There is also Geoff Posner, an executive producer who has a bio. By the looks they fulfil WP:BLP1E. Which would explain why the other EBU execs all have bios on them too. This debate needs someone to come along who is fully experienced and knowledgeable in this topical subject, as it may be a case of people misinterpreting policies, which then makes us all guilty of gaming the system. Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and at least Redirect somewhere else as there's essentially nothing else apart from that one executive position, nothing else here suggests other substance or significant information for establishing his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Still have not read anything else but IDONTLIKEIT rationales. and at least Redirect somewhere else as there's essentially nothing else apart from that one executive position,, is one of my favourite rationales here. He is an executive, the article does not claim otherwise, and the user also completely disregard his work for Eurovision events. Do I need to say more.BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Producers and Teevee executives are almost never notable, especially the run of the mill types like this guy, and we've had so many AfD's of these folks that end up being deleted that editors should probably just use the Prod instead. We are not a web host or LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete -- TV executives are not presumed to be inherently notable, and the subject does not meet GNG to qualify for a stand-alone article otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Dmitry Kawarga[edit]

Dmitry Kawarga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dmitry Kawarga" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Considerably lacking evidence of notability, mostly primary sources, appears to be promotional article created in several languages (the others are about this quality too). Not much on the web (except "Dmitry Kawarga is a mysterious artist, who never appears neither in photos nor on video") and zero GNews. A week at PROD did not turn up any improvement in sourcing. Previously CSDed, then recreated at Kawarga; SALTing for both may be appropriate, this is a BLP. David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have filled out the details of the BBC and Süddeutsche Zeitung references which were already there but unclear, and added a Washington Post article as another. However as yet I am undecided as to whether there is enough to meet the rather onerous WP:ARTIST criteria, or whether the controversy about the Yeltsin sculpture sits under WP:BLP1E. AllyD (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep -- using the Cyrillic name I was able to locate this rather substantial article in the Russian version of Popular Mechanics magazine. This publication is licensed by English language magazine so appears to be RS: Dmitry Kawarga and biogenic sculpture. There's probably more out there. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment / Weak Keep -- I feel unqualified to search for and review Russian language sources. I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt, given what K.e.coffman found, above, but is there any way we could summon some Russian/English bilinguists to do a better search? I'd prefer if two articles could be found, not just one. Fieari (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on additional sources:
  • Here's a bit more in English, where he sometimes appears as Kavarga: Black Beast
  • He also has an entry at the web site of the apparently prestigious Kandinsky Prize: Dmitry Kawarga. He was not a winner though. But this is a by-lined bio sketch.
Kawarga appears to be widely exhibited in Russia. Here's a profile from Erarta, "Russia's largest private museum of contemporary art": link (in English). According to the museum's web site, his works are in a permanent collection there.
K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Changing my !vote from "weak keep" to "keep". Thank you for the sources, those are plenty to establish notability. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, clearly meets WP:NARTIST with his works included in permanent collections at several substantial museums. I also found consistent coverage in Dialogue of Arts, the publication of the Moscow Museum of Modern Art, which seems to show interest beyond the "Yeltsin sculpture" coverage: link (in Russian). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Udayanga Weeratunga[edit]

Udayanga Weeratunga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Udayanga Weeratunga" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being a former ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also just because he is the first cousin of a former president does not make him notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Dan arndt (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Ambassadors are definitely not inherently notable, quite a few have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Piotrus as per WP:DIPLOMAT any individual (including any diplomat) needs to meet the criteria under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO and not just be solely reliant on the fact that they were a diplomat (in this case an ambassador). After going through the article there is little there that supports him being considered as notable. Dan arndt (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I read WP:DIPLOMAT and it is an essay, not a policy. In my opinion ambassadors pass WP:POLITICIAN and should be auto-notable by the virtue of their position. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
again you are arguing inherent notability. in fact there was a discussion to give ambassadors inherent notability which gained no consensus. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in being ambassador. Coverage merely confirms he held the role. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep If being ambassador to Russia and notoriety about illegally selling arms in Ukraine isn't notable enough, a quick Google search shows that he passes WP:GNG.--obi2canibetalk contr 17:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
It's an accusation of Arms selling only. Please show us the outcome of actual sources from your "quick google search"? LibStar (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Nearly 30,000 results on Google.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. number of hits does not mean automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Ambassador passes GNG, or it should. We can change the notability rules if that's unclear. Ambassadors exert a huge impact on bilateral relations and their work becomes history.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Ambassadors exert a huge impact on bilateral relations and their work becomes history . Many in fact do very little. do you have actual evidence that Udayanga Weeratunga exerted a huge impact on bilateral relations. I'll happily change my !vote to keep if you do. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A warrant is out to arrest Weeratunga on charges of financial fraud, alleged to have taken place when seven MiG-27 ground attack aircraft were procured for the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLFA). The FCID launched investigation on Weeratunga following a complaint lodged by defence columnist and political writer Iqbal Athas on the financial irregularities that had taken place.
Whether this falls under WP:NOTNEWS or makes him notable, I'm not sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ambassador of any country to Russia is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
here we go again. Maybe you can actually look for sources which you never do in ambassador AfDs . There is no inherent notability of being ambassador to Russia. Several have been deleted including where you have previously !voted.

LibStar (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The unsupported keep comments based on inherent notability of ambassadors have been disputed by other editors... and past Afds have been showcased to support their oppose/delete assertion... The Afd is therefore re-listed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:GNG, per WP:POLITICIAN. Simply because the statements of inherited notability is disputed by deletionists in this case does not mean they are correct. also per fraud relating to purchase of MiG fighters, just as an example of this persons notabilty beyond "just another diplomat".BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. has held no political office. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is this discussion relisted again. It is clearly a No consensus result, or leaning towards keep per rationales for Delete such as Non-notable individual., utterly pointless.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete being an ambassador is not default grounds for notability and we lack adequate sources otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold War II (Ice Hockey)

Russia Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Russia deletion review[edit]


Science[edit]

Kairine[edit]

Kairine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kairine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is simply not a notable chemical compound. Although there a couple of passing mentions in the scientific literature and apparently a listing in a book about the etymology of some chemical names, none of these sources are about the subject of this article. The only report that I can find where kairine gets even moderate attention (Antipyretics of the tetrahydroquinoline series, Bockmuhl, M.; Dorzbach, E. Med. u. Chem. (1942), 4, 179-212) is 75 years old and claims kairine has a different chemical structure than what is described in the article (ethylhydroxytetrahydroquinoline rather than methylhydroxytetrahydroquinoline). None of the references I could find have an author named Fischer, the supposed discovered of this chemical according to our article. Overall, the subject of this article fails WP:Notability and the content fails WP:Verifiability and therefore this article should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Per ChemNerd; neither useful nor interesting. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Industrial laboratory[edit]

Industrial laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Industrial laboratory" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Don't know if this is the right process, but article duplicates content found in Laboratory article and states Edison's Menlo Park Lab was first industrial lab in 1876 (from Time article) when it clearly wasn't. Alfred Krupp had one in 1863 in Germany, and various chemists allied to iron mines built the first prototype industrial labs around the 1850's, in Europe.

[1]

Possible merge with accurate facts or more balanced coverage would be ideal. Scope creep (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ John L. Heilbron (27 March 2003). The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 443–. ISBN 978-0-19-974376-6. 
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Science and the Bible[edit]

Science and the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Science and the Bible" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The article contains too POV problems. Given the fact that it is a religious (hence a bit controversial) topic, it is often reasonable to expect extreme discrepancies in the text. For example, portions of the article reads like:

  • "Panbabylonianists regard the Hebrew Bible as entirely derived from the culture and mythology of Babylonia as it stood during the 6th century BCE, during the Babylonian captivity."
  • "Current mainstream views suggests the possibility that some elements, particularly of the Torah, are independent of Babylonian influence, dating perhaps as early as the 9th or 10th century BCE, but the significant influence of Babylonian mythology and Babylonian cosmology on the worldview presented in the Tanakh is still beyond doubt."
  • "The worldview of the Tanakh (or Old Testament) appears to be that of a flat earth (e.g.Isaiah 44:24 ) in a geocentric universe (e.g. Joshua 10:12-13, Ps. 93:1, 1 Chron. 16:30), a view in line with Mesopotamian astronomy of the period"

On the other hand, the other extreme appears:

  • "The most supportive bible passage of their view was Job 26:7, where Job declares that God "hangs the earth on nothing", which for its time was very close to how modern astronomers would describe the Earth's position."
  • "Biblical cosmology provides sporadic glimpses that may be stitched together to form a Biblical impression of the physical universe."

Furthermore, I do not think a literary criticism article should be here, especially when there are a very wide range of views and interpretation of any text. Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep It's a poor article which needs fixing but a notable topic. I'm not clear which of the reasons at WP:DEL-REASON you believe apply. NPOV issues aren't a reason to delete, nor is your opinion about literary criticism (which should be discussed at the article talk page). Doug Weller talk 09:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. This is an OR fest and should've never been written in the first place. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This is a rather bad ESSAY trying to attack the alleged unscientific nature of the Bible. The tag that it needs to be rewritten is fully deserved. However, TNT is a much better solution. I suspect that all the content is rather better dealt with elsewhere in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - I, too, could have sworn there were already articles for this. Something like "Scientific criticism of religion" and "religious persecution of science" at the very least, but I can't find them now. Could someone share those? Also, to the delete bids, if you're going to call WP:OR or WP:SYN, please provide examples. This article is heavily sourced and (in general) correctly cites opinion in context as a quote from a reliable source. Don't nuke the whole article because of a crappy intro! Jergling (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly many technical problems with the article, but the topic is important and improvement can be made. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Right circular hollow cylinder[edit]

Right circular hollow cylinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Right circular hollow cylinder" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable. Specifically: The subject is a specific example of the use of the formula for a cylinder, using simple arithmetic. If this subject should be anywhere in Wikipedia, it should be a small part of the article Cylinder (geometry). Anita5192 (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Subject is notable and topic notable too. As in cubes,cuboid,prisms,cones and pyramids etc. only formula are used for calculation similarly formula are used in cylinder ,right circular hollow cylinder,hemisphere,sphere etc.
  • More utility of hollow cylinder is found in daily life in comparison of cylinder,more utility is found in various machines,irrigation,engineering etc.
  • cube and cuboid are separate articles with minor difference
  • cuboid and parallelepiped are separate articles having with minor difference.
  • tetrahedron and cube are separate articles with minor difference.
  • Why not cylinder and Right circular hollow cylinder are separate articles?Nagric (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Teacher1943

KeepIs cube,cuboid,prism,pyramid ,sphere,cone are not elementary topic,why are these topics are separate ? Please do not say elementary topic. Without Right circular hollow cylinder solid geometry will be incomplete.Nagric (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: As per Clarityfriend above. This does not add anything of mathematical value; it does not say anything of engineering value either (there could be stuff about calculating the internal volume of a cylinder made from a rectangle of sheet metal of a certain thickness, but none of this is notable, it is just elementary calculations on more or less arbitrary shapes. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Naziyah Mahmood[edit]

Naziyah Mahmood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Naziyah Mahmood" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable - promotional article. This was a contested PROD by the original editor with none of the underlying concerns being met. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete (provisional). Does not pass WP:Prof. I am unable to comment on actress/model notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC).
  • Delete. Google search didn't turn up a single mention in a reliable sources, but many similarly worded pieces of (self?) promotion in non-RSes. Academic career does not come close to meeting WP:PROF. Joe Roe (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hydrogel micropatch sampling[edit]

Hydrogel micropatch sampling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hydrogel micropatch sampling" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Single author is principle developer of technique, search of Google scholar doesn't find coverage in secondary sources, otherwise no indication that the individual method is notable. Its a bit out of my understanding of chemuistry, but very skeptical that its more than his lab's project. Sadads (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

To some extent, I agree with you. It would be best to ask other chemists to comment on this issue, and ask them to compare this article with other Wikipedia articles on new concepts in analytical chemistry. I believe the key issue is "secondary sources". The other part of your comment "his lab's project" is tricky, as there are several references. So, you need to answer the question is it still "a project", or is it already "a technique". In science, we often match a project with a publication (the final outcome of the project). Here there are four references - the newer ones cite the older ones. Can the newer ones act as "secondary sources"? My answer is - yes. But others may have a different opinion. As long as the same standards are applied to all such Wikipedia articles, then it is fine for me, and I support your request to delete the article "Hydrogel micropatch sampling". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talkcontribs) 03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish Notability. All sources appear to be written by Urban and colleagues. P.S. to Natriumchloratum, I almost complimented you as an excellent newbie because your username is redlinked, chuckle. Regarding chemists to comment on the issue, part of the key to Wikipedia is that editors (usually) don't need topic expertise. It's the job of scientists and Reliable Sources to evaluate subject matter and establish notability. Here we just need to evaluate sources and other policy issues. Alsee (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC) (Clarification: I meant I almost missed that you've been around a few years and that you have significant experience.) Alsee (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Dorcas Osei Sarfo[edit]

Dorcas Osei Sarfo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dorcas Osei Sarfo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The standard for notability under WP:PROF is worldwide, and she does not meet it. I support some degree of flexibility, but not to the extent of a chemist whose most cited papers have been cited no more than 11 times [3] DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly a worthy person, but WP:Prof and WP:GNG are not satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC).
  • Delete. Being the first Ghanaian female chemist is something that could plausibly make her notable, but only if there are independent reliable sources that actually note it and cover her in-depth, giving her a pass of WP:GNG. I don't see those sources, and I also don't see evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete no where near passing the notability guidelines for chemists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

3-Methylcyclopropene[edit]

3-Methylcyclopropene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "3-Methylcyclopropene" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is simply not a notable chemical compound. Although there are passing mentions in the scientific literature, the only report that I can find where the 3-methylcyclopropene gets real attention is this one, where the conclusion is simply that it compares unfavorably with 1-Methylcyclopropene (a notable compound) in inhibiting ethylene responses in plants, so this really does nothing to establish notability. ChemNerd (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete in agreement with the assessment above. Also by deleting it, we send the message that Wikipedia is not in the stamp collecting business nor is Wikipedia a dumping ground for random factoids. Articles can be very short but they must be based on some idea of notability. Its not a big deal though. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Martin Sekulić[edit]

Martin Sekulić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Martin Sekulić" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable. Attempt to link this man to Tesla brings just doubts and questions Vujkovica brdo (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The link to Tesla is supported by many of the Google Books and Scholar search results above, and there is a sourced statement in the article that says that Sekulić was a "public representative in the Provincial Assembly of the Croatian, Slavonian and Dalmatian Kingdom", which meets the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a provincial legislature. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment. He was just a provincial politician. The link to Tesla is too weak, bears no significance, no notanility.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per WP:INVALIDBIO. WP:POLITICIAN requires significant coverage in reliable sources, none indicated. Being "the guy who turned Tesla on to electricity" seems borderline notability but there is no solid claim this is that guy. It makes this more of a WP:INHERITED argument. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, WP:POLITICIAN says that anyone who has been a member of a provincial legislature is presumed to be notable. And if you just look at the Google Books and Scholar searches liked above, which I pointed out before, you will see that there is loads of solid evidence that this is that guy, and that there is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources about him being that guy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:POLITICIAN does not say that (item #3) and no source/evidence has ever been provided that this is conclusively "the guy". The "Tesla echo chamber" you are noting is not direct evidence, just a claim being repeated over and over again. The original claim seems to be Ciril Petešic / 1976 and he only gives us a probability, not direct evidence. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Criterion 3 of WP:POLITICIAN is about local politicians and unelected candidates. Criterion 1 is the one for members of provincial assembles such as Sekulić. And the standard used by Wikipedia for including content is verifiability by reliable sources, not your personal knowledge that those sources are "wrong". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Vaguely described as a quasi official in a vaguely described "entity inside an entity" gives us #3. Could be #2, doubt its #1. At this point we don't guess so feel free to cite the more extensive biographical and/or historical sources already written about this past holder (required for all three). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Criterion 1 says "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature", an exact fit for Sekulić. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The source saying that he was a member of the provincial assembly is, as I already said, in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The source is vague, the cite does not say he was a member of the provincial assembly (in fact says nothing, needs WP:NONENG), and its a book about Tesla. Can you cite any significant coverage in an independent source? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What on Earth do you mean by "needs WP:NONENG"? That policy says that non-English sources are allowed on Wikipedia. You are being played for a fool here by an editor with some kind of weird intra-Balkan nationalist agenda. Take a step back and look at who is following what is said by a secondary source and who is performing original research by giving a personal interpretation by synthesis of primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please read entire policy, namely: "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided". Also maybe read WP:TALK Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC).
  • Weak keep. He seems to be primarily known as Tesla's teacher but the legislative post saves him from WP:BIO1E. My keep is weak, though, because it is difficult to find sources that say anything about him other than as Tesla's teacher. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Which particular event saves him? WP:BIO1E=People notable for only one event. The legislative post is not a notable event, rather a status. Shall we now write biographies of all members of the Provincial Assembly of the Croatian, Slavonian and Dalmatian Kingdom?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
And why not? We routinely keep articles about members of provincial assemblies elsewhere in the world, so what's so special about this one that we should treat it differently? The fact you have fooled one editor into following whatever nationalist agenda you are pushing here, and to follow you in making personal interpretations of primary sources rather than go by what is said by a secondary source, doesn't mean that you have fooled the rest of us. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Surely passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the Provincial Assembly of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have just read the talk page discussion about this article, which seems to have prompted this deletion nomination. Firstly I would note that disagreement about content is not a reason for deletion. More importantly it seems that the editors who have nominated this for deletion and supported it have got the idea of original research totally back-to-front. We go by what secondary sources make of the primary sources, not Wikipedia editors' personal interpretations of the primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No time to read anything. I'm off with Wikipedia, this is just ridiculous as it seems an oligopoly. Good luck with this none cooperative project. Oriol20 (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep.¸This person was notable in his time as a physicist. He was member of the Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts. He had his work internationally published. He was also a representative in the Provincial Assembly of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia (WP:POLITICIAN). The article needs to be extended and not deleted. Kavonder 07:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.27.160 (talk)
  • Comment - It should be know we have IPs an IP showing up in this discussion that fall into the range used by an editor who regularly WP:SOCKs on this topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • By your use of the plural you must be including me in that accusation. Please either withdraw it or, if you have evidence that 141.138.27.160 is a sockpuppet, change it to the singular. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "IPs" as in what is showing up on related talk pages. Suspected IP ranges can be found in the SPI. If your IP is not in that group your golden. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You spoke of "IPs showing up in this discussion". Only two editors identified by IP addresses have shown up in this discussion, so I don't see how your "IPs" (plural) can not include me. Once again, please change it to the singular if you didn't intend to accuse me of any likely wrongdoing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not see much biographical data to justify notability. In order to link him to Tesla I do not see much English language sources confirming him being Tesla's influential Physics teacher. One book( Nikola Tesla: istraživač, izumitelj, genij by Tanja Rudež, Školska knjiga, 2006 page 14), in Croatian, says, "U godisnjem izvjestaju za skolsku godinu 1971./72. vidi se da je prof. Martin Sekulic predavao predmete Maschinenlehre (strojarstvo) i Arithmetik (aritmetiku) a bio je i kustos fizikalnog laboratorija u toj skoli". Google translate: In the annual report for the school year 1971-72. see that the prof. Martin Sekulic teaching of the area the Maschinenlehre (mechanical engineering) and Arithmetik (arithmetic) and was also the curator of physical lab in the school. So, not a Physics teacher. --A. Perun (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
His link to Tesla is well sourced and Tesla's article has that stated. If you think that's wrong you are free to start a discussion on Tesla talk page. The talk page of Sekulic article also has a great number of sources. I would say that the link to Tesla is not disputed by any source. We don't have any source that says "Sekulic has no link to Tesla" while a great number of sources do state that he was his professor. You can't be doing original research. The article is a bit short, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Kavonder 22:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.31.91 (talk)

Free-fall atomic model[edit]

Free-fall atomic model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Free-fall atomic model" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This is, I think, a very obscure theory, and as far as I can tell, one that never really made an impact. All citations are from Gryziński, who proposed this, and AFAICT aren't cited by much anyone except Gryziński himself. I'm open to be convinced that the article should be kept, but as of now I just don't see how this meets WP:N. I don't have access to a lot of those articles however, so I don't have access their full citation record. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

These are 20+ papers from the best journals, some have huge amount of citations - according to Google Schoolar: "Classical Theory of Electronic and Ionic Inelastic Collisions" - 446 citations, "Two-particle collisions. I. General relations for collisions in the laboratory system" - 559 citations, "Two-particle collisions. II. Coulomb collisions in the laboratory system of coordinates" - 324 citations, "Classical Theory of Atomic Collisions. I. Theory of Inelastic Collisions" - 1308 citations 91.198.177.113 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but those aren't about the free fall model, just collisions in general. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
These are respected results from purely classical considerations - including electrons, leading to surprisingly good agreement. And so the author has later also seen atoms in a classical way - with electrons falling to nucleus, then returning to the initial distance, like zero angular momentum degeneration of Bohr-Sommerfeld. This falling and drifting away makes atom effectively a pulsating multipole - such picture was used in his later classical scattering models. Anyway, shouldn't Wikipedia notice that trials of classical treatment of atom has not ended with Bohr-Sommerfeld? Gryzinski is definitely the most notable among such approaches. Classical approximation is useful for semi-classical ones. His main coauthor is professor Joseph Kunc ( https://gapp.usc.edu/about/faculty/joseph-kunc ) 83.12.37.198 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Gryzinski has worked in group of hot plasma for nearly half a century (article in Polish: http://web.archive.org/web/20121031093355/http://www.paa.gov.pl/dokumenty/ptj/sadowski10.pdf ), they have stated approach to fusion which is now called Dense plasma focus, he was the head of this group for 18 years. In this energy region classical approximations were sufficient. Now semi-classical approximations are popular, Rydberg atoms are often seen nearly classical. There should be some article about modern classical approximations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.128.48 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I am uncomfortable with all references being a single author who produced a seemingly large body of work on this subject, doesn't' the fact that these are all published in peer reviewed journals carry some weight toward notablity? Also, these are top tier physics journals and the journal Nature. I don't see how anyone can do better than that - other than garner citations from other physicists. Maybe I am looking at this incorrectly, but I am tending toward "Keep". Headbomb, what is your opinion on what I just wrote? Steve Quinn (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The majority of those citations are not related to the FFAM, but are rather general articles about the physics of particle collisions and the like. Yes they are good articles, but they don't support the material, so my opinion is unchanged because the citation that ARE related to the FFAM are very low impact, and very few people other than Gryziński ever bothered with his model. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
All of these papers are about classical considerations, including treatment of electron, which is usually a part of an atom there. The topics of classical scattering and FFAM are integrally connected/interleaved: 1) scattering was used to infer and experimentally test these models (often personally by the author), 2) electron in FFAM performs successive scatterings from the nucleus, 3) atoms in FFAM picture are effectively pulsating electric multipoles (dipole, quadrupole) what is the base of his later scattering papers (since 1975). These impressive 25+ papers nicely show 43 years of evolution of view of a person who was plasma experimentalist and theoretician: from corrections to scattering models, through including magnetic dipole moment of electron into classical considerations, introducing and testing classical atomic model with better agreement than Bohr's, up to a similar view on multielectron atoms and molecules. Sure these are just approximations, but their surprisingly good agreement with experiments may bring valuable intuitions, helpful e.g. for construction of semi-classical models. 188.146.69.8 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Headbomb: thanks very much. I see what you are saying. This clears things up. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I have added (a sketch of?) History section (Free-fall_atomic_model#History) to emphasize integrity of this series of papers - if it helps, I could improve it. Otherwise, feel free to remove it. 188.146.69.234 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
IMO, It adds very little because that series of paper is by far an large not about the FFAM, but rather particle collisions in general. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
These collision/scattering models assume classical electron, and often a classical model of atom - tested by agreement with experimental scattering. For example "Three-body analysis of electron-hydrogen atom collisions": assume a classical model of hydrogen (circular or radial), shoot it with a classical electron, and compare predictions of both with experiment. Or "Ramsauer Effect as a Result of the Dynamic Structure of the Atomic Shell" and "Classical theory of atomic collisions. II. Low energy scattering" see atom effectively as a pulsating multipole, as a consequence of assuming radial electron trajectories. Or "Systematics of spectral lines and classical atom": "It is shown that line intensities and main energy level shifts are directly related to the non-spherical and time-dependent electric field of the atomic core.". 188.146.37.99 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
For example alongside the 1965 paper with 1300 citations, he publishes Phys. Rev. Lett. paper.: "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom” explaining why assumptions made in the classical scattering paper exclude Bohr circular orbits - here are its first three paragraphs:
“In a series of papers on the classical theory of atomic collisions recently published by the author, it has proved necessary, both for the qualitative explanation of a number of experimental phenomena as well as for their appropriate quantitative description, to proceed with certain assumptions which are in contradiction with the prevailing classical notions regarding the structure of atom and, of course, in contradiction with the wave approach to the atom.
First, in order to explain such phenomena as the asymptotic form of excitation and ionization formulas for high energies of the bombarding particles and the absence of a threshold for processes of inelastic collisions with heavy particles, it was necessary to assume a continuous velocity distribution of atomic electrons. Second, in order to account the diffraction pattern associated with the crystalline structures, it was necessary to accept the existence of a strong anisotropy in the velocity distribution of atomic electrons.
Such assumptions are totally unacceptable from the point of view of electrons moving in circular or even elliptic orbits, since the range of variability of electron velocity is too narrow and the anisotropy too low. The assumption concerning the continuous velocity distribution of atomic electrons may be accounted for on the basis of classical mechanics only by the fact that the moving electron exists both beyond and in the immediate vicinity of the attracting center represented by the nucleus” 188.146.72.198 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, that's about the well-known failures of the Bohr model, not about the FFAM. While it certainly may have been a motivation for it, it's still not a paper about the FFAM, and does not succeed in establishing its notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Just look at the title of this paper: "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom”. Radially means along the radius, what is equivalent with free-fall, the third equivalent description used is zero angular momentum. Other close formulations used are just classical regarding electrons, and from first principles (just Newton+Coulomb+Lorentz, without assuming axioms of QM). Let us look at abstract of some later papers: "Collisional ionisation and the atomic model" 29 citations: "...The theoretical results appear to be sensitive to the atomic model used; in the case of the free-fall atomic model, they are found to be in good agreement with the experimental data. ", "“Free-fall” solution of the Kepler problem in the presence of the magnetic moment" 27 citations, it's in title, "A concept of “free-fall” multi-electron atomic model" 24 citations, in title, "Three-body analysis of electron-hydrogen atom collisions" (22 citations): "...The basic feature of the model atom employed in the present work is its zero angular momentum due to the assumption of the radial motion of the atomic electron ('free-fall' trajectory)...". Sure, maybe the list of articles is too long - please point the least connected one. 188.146.146.81 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep There is 25+ articles from top journals (Phys. Rev. class) with ~ 3000 total citations: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski . The author was physicist (experimentalist and theoretician) working nearly half a century in Polish Academy of Sciences. The articles consistently cover classical treatment of atoms, including electrons, focusing on agreement with experimental data - much more citations have the classical scattering papers (~2500 total), but direct consequence of their assumptions was the FFAM (1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom” article), later tested and used for classical scattering considerations (sensitive to assumed electron trajectory) and other phenomena like Ramsauer effect (1970 Phys. Ref. Lett. "Ramsauer Effect as a Result of the Dynamic Structure of the Atomic Shell"), diamagnetism (1987 Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials "Diamagnetism of matter and structure of the atom") or modeling molecular bond (1994 Chemical Physics Letters "Dynamical model of the molecular bond"). The later articles directly applying FFAM also have total of a few hundreds of citations. 188.146.3.91 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Some of what is written in the above Ivote pertains to off-topic material and also ignores the lack of impact this theory has had in mainstream physics. All of the above, and many article references are meant to artificially puff up the importance of this theory. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting obscure theories (see Ivote below). Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
These 25+ articles have been accepted in top journals - do you imply that editors and reviewers of these journals accept obscure theories? The article emphasizes "This model has never been part of mainstream physics.", but it has both coverage and was not ignored. I responded with concrete arguments from the materials in discussion, please also give concrete objective arguments, not just your subjective evaluation. If you find something "obscure" in these articles, please point it, explain your evaluation and we can discuss your arguments. 188.146.133.196 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete This theory has never had a significant impact in the mainstream physics field as demonstrated by the lack of citations by other researchers. It seems to have been ignored. As noted above, most of the article references do not pertain to this particular topic. This theory has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG - including the mainstream press. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting obscure theories per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTFORUM. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Not significant coverage? Lack of citations by other researchers? Here you have access to a list of ~3000 citations for 25+ articles from top journals: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski . Here you have example of Wikipedia article for 1 paper with 13 citations: Statistical Lempel–Ziv. Where is the boundary? 188.146.64.200 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
How about if you stop with the misleading POV assertions. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Before questioning someones objectivity, please finally start with a single objective argument - based on the given historical material. This deletion nomination and discussion currently looks like a witch hunt, far from being objective. The official reason is lack of notability, but if measured in papers and citations, it easily exceeds tenfold notability of many other Wikipedia articles. The only other given reason is being “a very obscure theory” without providing even a single argument for this very subjective evaluation. I have looked closer at some of these papers (I have PhD in physics) and they contain solid calculations (wouldn’t be accepted in these journals otherwise) using just basic classical physics, like Coulomb and Lorentz force, and compare their theoretical predictions with experimental values, getting surprisingly good agreement – please explain what is controversial or obscure here? If you have found some weaknesses of their analysis, missed by the reviewers, please share it. They obviously lack the perfection of quantum predictions, but it is definitely good to know the limits of classical considerations, especially that the discussion about the foundations of quantum mechanics still continues. If your objection is lack of connections between these 25+ papers, there was a specific question above to point the least connected paper - still zero answers. Please respond to the evidence above, which refer to the actual text showing their connection - like the 1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. paper explaining necessity of FFAM electron trajectory for the 1300 citations classical scattering paper. 188.146.144.42 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - this short article might be interesting for the history of physics, but it seems to be relegated, no? Bearian (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a nice 2012 Grujic "Classical theory of atomic collisions – The first hundred years" review, which discusses two schools: semi-classical "Stirling school" and classical "Warsaw school" (Gryzinski's), with nice comment to his classical atomic models: "(...) may be considered a historiographical alternative, which answers the possible question: what would have happened had the QM not been invented?". The number of citations itself suggests theses papers had a real influence on the history of physics. However, these had finally turned out to be an alternative history - very solid work to understand how far can we go with the classical approximation. Understanding its limitation - what is still missing, is one of a natural way to really deeply understand the quantum mechanics. 188.146.68.213 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The topic in general looks relevant, but I'm not sure if the current article is sufficient to give an overview: what are the applications of the model, what are the limits? Is this purely of historical interest, or still relevant? As an example, if the model is unable to reproduce quantized energy levels, this should be mentioned (because it means the model is not useful for atoms at all). If it is, this is a remarkable achievement for a classical theory and should be mentioned. If the atom has a time-dependent dipole, why doesn't it radiate? --mfb (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Applications started with various scattering scenarios, later he has also used it for different topics like Ramsauer effect (as higher state electrons screening the lower ones), calculating diamagnetic coefficient, Stark effect and a few others. Limits? These are pure classical (e.g. no interference) - Bohr plus magnetic dipole moment of electron, plus precession of this spin (also as gyroscope), he has used this precession to explain Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization (1987 "Spin-dynamical theory of the wave-corpuscular duality"). This quantization basically produces energy levels as Bohr. Regarding lack or bremsstrahlung, I don't know his explanation. Personally, I see it through Couder's quantization for walking droplets ( http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515.full ): closed trajectories and Bohr-Sommerfeld condition lead to resonance with the surrounding field. 89.70.181.191 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The banner question for content like this is simple: is there independent reliable coverage? That is, did other people directly address them at nontrivial length? The IP editor supporting retention has provided a lot of links to scholarly discussions of particle collision physics in the general case, and a lot of citation counts for Gryziński's works. But neither of those approaches illuminate whether this model is itself notable. For example, a couple of Gryziński's flagship papers that directly address this theory are in Physics Letters A: "A concept of 'free-fall' multi-electron atomic model" and "'Free-fall' solution of the Kepler problem in the presence of the magnetic moment", each with a couple dozen citations. However, the bulk of those are self-citations from Gryziński's other papers, and none of the independent citations seem to give significant coverage of the topic. Indeed, papers like this Physics Reports article look promising, but are primarily concerned with his 1959 work, which predates the free-fall model. Honestly, I think the best solution here would be to redirect this article (merging appropriately given due weight) to an article on Gryziński himself; he's done some fairly significant things and, overall, has been pretty well-cited, and I think there's a case that he's notable. But currently, Michał Gryziński redirects to this article. In the absence of a viable redirect target, and given the lack of independent reliable coverage of this model specifically, I can only support deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Lots of people have been working on classical considerations in this scale even after QM, and Gryzinski's half century of tremendous work is definitely the most notable among them: based on agreement with many different experiments, published dozens of papers about it in top journals, got thousands of citations. An ultimate argument against Bohr's picture, which is taught in schools, is electron capture - which requires electrons to get to femtometer scale distance so nuclear force can start acting (as in FFAM). The FFAM has been the base of his papers since the PRL in 1965, which introduced it as requirement for his classical scattering papers with 2000+ citations. These later 20+ papers have about 500 total citations - if it is not sufficient for a separate Wikipedia article, change it to Michał Gryziński, modify the order (FFAM after History, I can help), and redirect from FFAM. Also, there should be a section about his classical scattering papers. 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.64.242 (talk)
  • Keep: This is an alternative theoretical formulation which is tested experimentally in scattering experiments. It is not the only alternative theoretical formulation present on Wikipedia, there are many others like , for instance, non-standard cosmology, so the argument re mainstream belonging does not really hold.--213.233.84.3 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]