User:Ace111

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

MediaWiki version 1.31.0-wmf.17 (d8c8c31).

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 (in Russian).
Stargate SG·1 symbol 01.svg This user is from the planet Earth. Rotating earth (large).gif
Edgar Degas - Waiting - Google Art Project.jpg This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤


Firefox Logo, 2017.svg This user contributes using Firefox.
The Signpost
16 January 2018

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wbar blue left.jpg
Wbar blue.jpg
Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
Lang-en.gif Vlag Fil Cebu.gif Lang-Sw.gif Lang-ge.gif Lang-fr.gif Lang-nl.gif Lang-ru.gif Lang-it.gif Lang-es.gif Lang-war.gif
English Sinugboanon Svenska Deutsch Français Nederlands Русский Italiano Español Winaray
5,553,770 5,383,110+ 3,786,776+ 2,144,614+ 1,948,498+ 1,921,222+ 1,447,883+ 1,411,308+ 1,382,607+ 1,262,759+
More than 47,319,487 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 6,071,144 articles.


Russia[edit]

Roman Vyahirev[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. I can find no evidence he actually played in the KHL as the article claims. Joeykai (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete: Given Dolovis' long history of shenanigans, for which he was community banned from new article creation, and that I can't find any record of any such player at ANY level of European hockey, I'm comfortable with a G3 speedy as a hoax article. Ravenswing 22:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Most likely what has happened is he used a different transliteration of the name. He has done that a few times and I have had to redirect articles because they got created twice. -DJSasso (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually I see that 18abruce found him. Dolovis has done this a few times too. Call the MHL the KHL when it is in fact not. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Burn it right away. Flibirigit (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete; The player profile is here. Definitely a real player but he never made it out of Torpedo's development system.18abruce (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not seem to have played in KHL and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't meet GNG or NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Project Baikal[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (the Russian Science Citation Index strives to include all Russian-language journals, ROAD is not selective either), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Zoltav Resources PLC[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability. Possible merge/redirect to ARA Capital. Meatsgains (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Spike (Russia)[edit]

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

No independent notability for the Russian network. No references to support its development. Article is mainly a TV guide list of programs and the infobox television network. Another option is to redirect this to Spike (TV channel) and add a section about Russia, provided there is something to write about. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) updated 06:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge to Paramount Network. It can be covered in the international versions section. I don't see how this network is significantly different from its parent.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum on exiting the European Union[edit]

Russian interference in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum on exiting the European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Russian interference in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum on exiting the European Union" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This article is entirely based on rumors and political speculation. Not encyclopedic until something concrete emerges. — JFG talk 01:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep- I think this is as much of a hoax as a lot of the other Russian interference garbage out there. However, given the *article is sourced and this has gotten media coverage, its a legitimate topic. Of course guidelines in WP:FRINGE must be followed.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Article appears reasonable and sourced, no applicable criteria given for deletion. Artw (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per JFG. No reliable sources have claimed that Russia interfered.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable issue, and many reliable sources, including US Senate report, multiple published academic articles, numerous journalist sources. Wikidea 07:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or *Merge There really is not all that much here, sure its sourced, but there is just not that much of a story. Really this is too minor to be anything more then a side show to the Brexit page. And it is not a US senate report, it was by one parties members.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • delete sourced speculation and suspicions are still just speculation and suspicion. There are a lot of people here who need to learn that, in the short term, news reports are not reliable sources by our standards. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. This stuff might be worth a mention at Foreign electoral intervention, but there’s not enough yet for a full standalone article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This story is only beginning to come to light and should be given more time to see what develops. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to Russian interference in Brexit or Brexit and Russia. Informally speaking, there is no doubts that Russian interference to influence Brexit had indeed occur, and the only question is about the scale of the operations. But regardless, the subject/controversy was widely covered in reliable sources (see here and Google search). It was also covered in Russian language sources. Just a few examples: comments by informed people immediately after the Brexit, a denial by Putin (making an official comment shows significance/notability of the subject), and the recent UK inquiry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Stanislav Shekshnia[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill academic. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing even close to showing the passing of any notability guideline for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

TEMA (group)[edit]

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

Potential WP:BLP problems galore and bar primary external links, unsourced. Don't seem to pass muster for WP:NBAND either. Mattg82 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  10:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Muslim society №3[edit]

Muslim society №3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Muslim society №3" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No notability asserted, no sources found. A7 declined for no reason Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 15:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment there are some English sources, e.g. [1], and quite a bit of Russian language sources in the Russian wiki page. A7 should've been declined - there is a definite assertion of significance (a few hundred terror victims).Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cunard: You seem to have confused the AFD for the article. IF you find sources, put them in the article, not in the AFD. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @TenPoundHammer: Cunard said The article lists two external links. Try again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union[edit]

Struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This appears to be a POVfork of Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, and the differences are WP:SYN. It is a monograph by a WP:SPA with numerous dodgy or self-published sources, so I think deletion is the correct response rather than an attempt to merge. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep a fascinating article, well supported by a large variety of sources. Whilst certainly could be improved - eg for POV or weasel words - it is definitely salvageable. I believe the topic is notable and the article should be kept. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
See WP:INTERESTING. You do not address the issue at hand, which is that this is a WP:POVFORK. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
You mistake me, JzG. As I state above I believe this is an independently notable topic, ie. more than a POV fork. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
And I see that most of the edits - almost all, n fact, are by a user:Psychiatrick, and I see POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is sub-section of this page included in main page: Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union#Struggle_against_abuse. The summary is very brief, and I do not see any significant overlap. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quick examination shows that the page includes a number of sections ("Soviet psychiatric abuse exposed", "Congress in Mexico City", and so on) that are not present on main page, Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Hence this is not a content fork, but a subpage specifically on the subject of "struggle against abuse" rather than abuse itself. Moreover, the entire current content of the page is indeed on the subject of "Struggle against political abuse...", rather than abuse itself. Just another proof this is not a content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
In addition, both pages are properly linked (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
No, user Psychiatrick is not an WP:SPA, and he made good significant contributions to the project [2]. Telling that page should be deleted because it was created by him is unreasonable. Yes, he created a number of reasonable pages on related subjects because this is area of his expertise and/or interest. This is not a content fork, and not a POV fork. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep This article has valuable information and sufficient sources, may be references style change required. Glycomics123 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Glycomics123 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to the general article on the use of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. I have to admit that I question the violation of NPOV rules both in this article and in the more general one on the topic. "Abuse" is a red-flag word for NPOV application. Saying the treatment of a person was abuse is justifiable, saying the use of an academic idea was abuse, to me cheapens the power of the word. Lastly, the whole name furthers the notion that the use of psychiatry for political goals in the Soviet Union was an aberration, ignoring that psychiatric commitment was used to further the goals of some religious groups against others in 19th-century America, and many other questionable uses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not see any reasonable way to add such huge amount of non-redundant content to main page on the subject. This sub-page has maybe only ~10% overlap with main page if anyone bothers to check.My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've struck a sock's vote above. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Roman Kartsev[edit]

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

Per WP:NACTOR. Insignificant coverage of work in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's enough in Google Books to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort, but think those are peripheral references and insufficient to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Others[edit]

Draft[edit]

Draft:A._V._Boldachev This draft article has been proposed for deletion a few times, but it looks like there could be something here, but it is not my subject or speciality, so i cannot assess it. If anyone would like to edit it and move it to mainspace, or not. Feel free. Egaoblai (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


Science[edit]

Tropical marine climate[edit]

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

Overly specific topic. The exact term returns only 198 hits, and only false positives on Google Books. I was unable to find any sources covering this exact term. If anything is salvageable, merge to Tropical climate. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Discussed in details in academic book Principles of Geography and per XOR'easter's additional sources. There are also sources right in the article. And this is nomination on false premise from the beginning. Number of google hits is not what shows notability. I just hope there will be solution to this wasting of people's time soon –Ammarpad (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Recognized and universally used climatic division, Scholar is your friend. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ammarpad and Elmidae Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep we should not delete articles about official climate designations, nothing could be more encyclopedic. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Value of Earth[edit]

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

This article is entirely WP:OR and cites no references. There are some pages that discuss this topic, but they don't seem particularly credible. [17] power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC).
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just an essay/WP:OR, taking serious topics such as ecosystem valuation and natural capital accounting to an interesting theoretical extreme, but not worthy of this encyclopaedia. I did find this reliable source in the WP:DAILYMAIL. Oh, no, wait... Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - mainly original research. However, Gregory P. Laughlin did create a formula to measure the value of Earth for comparison of 'nearby' inhabitable planets. Any salvageable parts may be appropriate for ecosystem valuation where the article should probably redirect to. Although that only considers the ecosystem of course. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, as nom noted, this is a major and glaring case of OR. There are no sources and this is essentially an essay, or experiment in expository writing. It is rather incredible, though, that it's been here for 14 years. Chetsford (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with the above points. Also yes, amazing how this has slumbered in an unventilated corner since 2003! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit[edit]

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

No indication this one time event received significant coverage in any sources, journalistically or academically, so fails WP:GNG & WP:EVENT. Additionally, there appear to be WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE issues, which I'd appreciate any editor with experience in those areas addressing. If there are issues in those areas, that is only going to re-enforce my nomination rationale John from Idegon (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • delete fails GNG; this is a hijacked page to record the conference. Not what WP is for. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Garden variety conference summary. As such it belongs in the newsletter of the appropriate professional society, not here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just corporate PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC).
  • Delete It's an uphill climb for any single conference to be notable, and this one doesn't even start. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Topic may be notable, but hundreds of conferences about notable topics happen every day of the year all around the world. No evidence of this event having any special significance to the world order. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - No major breakthroughs or notable issues raised at this particular event so it doesn't need to be singled out. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Even then, it would be the breakthrough that was notable, not the conference it was announced at. Natureium (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sue Pearson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG: I found no coverage in reliable secondary sources. The author moved it to mainspace after an AfC draft was rejected due to lack of notability. Rentier (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Move back to Draft. Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST. A single appearance on a game show where the article focused more on her opponent doesn't constitute significant coverage. Magazines she edits in aren't significant bodies of work. The programme in which she presents isn't Wikipedia notable. Note, you should just boldly move it back to Draft next time. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly fails notability, is ORPHAN, likely a vanity page, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Kenny Biddle[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Article is a vanity advertisement for subject. References are brief mentions or articles written by subject. reddogsix (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Note that I am the original author of the article. Let me copy what has already been entered on the article's talk page (without response there) by myself and another editor (@JGehlbach:) in response to the initial addition of advert, notability, and BLP sources and refimprove banners so this all does not get lost:

---(start of copy)----

New article published

I am publishing this article now which I created in my user-space. I believe I wrote this in as neutral manner as was possible given the references available on the subject. I specifically looked for criticism/critiques of Biddle as I was worried about the appearance of the article having a Biddle-positive POV, but can find NOTHING. If anyone can find any such material, please feel free to add it! RobP (talk) 11:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Objection to proposed deletion

I take issue with the proposed deletion, and with the advert, notability, and refimprove tags:

advert The article's author stated above that no criticism could be found despite a search, and explicitly left the door open for other editors to contribute some. If there are NPOV problems, please provide examples.

notability Established through the subject's mention in notable publications including: Popular Mechanics Atlantic 10 News Tampa Live Science People/Celebrity Conventionally published books by at least two notable authors.

BLP sources and refimprove Article is well referenced and does not rely excessively on primary sources. I'm removing all the tags discussed above.

JGehlbach (talk) 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)


Thank you. After seeing with great surprise that Biddle's notability was in question, I researched the topic and found this on Wikipedia:Notability (people):

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded[1]"

I bolded the part that I believe is, without a reasonable doubt, applicable to the subject. Biddle is significant, interesting and unusual in that he has not only walked both sides of the paranormal divide, (can you find ANYONE else in this category?) but is now an active participant in the scientific skeptical movement, detailing for the world how his former paranormal-enthusiast peers are off-base. RobP (talk) 6:33 pm, Today (UTC−5)

---(end of copy)----

  • Also, what does "non-trivial support" mean? Don't you mean you think there IS just trivial support (meaning references?) for the article? Of course, I strenuously disagree with that assessment. And, can I vote? RobP (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Rp2006: Of course you can. Since the importance of votes is considered by their arguments according to policies, if doing so, I recommend highlighting the independent sources demonstrating notability. —PaleoNeonate – 11:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 05:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that he just slides through. I personally do not like tagged articles so I will clean up the article so that all COI and AD concerns are met. As for sourcing, I think that they are sufficient, barely so. Elektricity (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on how he slides through? I see basically no strong references.104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The reflist contains many instances of Facebook and Youtube as sources. Most others are sketchy site, self published or Amazon! The one good ref (Atlantic) was a minor one sentence mention. Fails GNG.medicine104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You are cherry picking and mentioning only the low hanging fruit. Once notability is established, such sources are permitted. What about Popular Mechanics, 10 News Tampa, Live Science, People, Skeptical Inquirer and the books Biddle was mentioned in? RobP (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding the solitary Facebook source, that page is the article subject's chosen primary web presence. In the present context with no alternative available and notability arguably established, I dispute that it's a problem. JGehlbach (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please specify which source sites you consider "sketchy". JGehlbach (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • First, that point is made out of context.... The lead in to the WP:ANYBIO subsection clearly states: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
  • Second, what is GROUP self-promotion? You just invented a new category for COI out of whole cloth. I am a proud scientific skeptic (as it says on my user page) and noticed that the subject active in that area had no article, but I thought should. Is that a COI now? Can a doctor not write an article on medicine, or on any famous person in medicine?... Where would THAT end? Should people only write about what they don't care about? Only people disinterested in sports write about baseball... Good luck with that policy.
  • Third, why is no-one addressing the points made by JGehlbach, or my point above that Wikipedia:Notability (people) includes the condition "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", and that the subject clearly fits THIS notability criteria? The entire pertinent part reads as follows: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." As I said above, and which has not been countered in this discussion: that Biddle is significant, interesting and unusual in that he has not only walked both sides of the paranormal divide, (can you find ANYONE else in this category?) but is now an active participant in the scientific skeptical movement, detailing for the world how his former paranormal-enthusiast peers are off-base." RobP (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
With respect, you're WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion.104.163.153.162 (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Plus what RobP cites are just references to potential definitions found elsewhere. This article needs to meet at least the Wikipedia basic and biographical criteria. The example containing "unusual" is merely a reference to an Encarta definition.--Rpclod (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - My objections to the original proposed deletion (posted on the article's Talk page and pasted above in this discussion) remain unanswered. I fail to see the rationale for going to AfD without responding to those objections in the Talk page. I will also echo Rp2006's call for a definition of group self-promotion. JGehlbach (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, self-promotion backed up by a raft of non-independent references and trivial mentions. Melcous (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete--Per Melcous.Winged BladesGodric 06:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - This person's biography is based on citations from notable publications like Popular Mechanics, The Atlantic, People Magazine and 3 non self-published books, 2 of which are written by notable people. He is in the unique position of having supported paranormal ideas and is now considered an expert in countering paranormal ideas. This seems to pass the test for a person of note deserving of a Wikipedia page.KoKoCorvid (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. a mention in Popular Mechnics is not enough to support notability, and essentially everything else here was either written by the subject. And a self-published book tends to indicate lack of notability , not notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @DGG: You may have misread the previous keep-vote. It notes the three books as being non self-published. JGehlbach (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
his only book is eelf-published. I should have worded it , "and that the person has written only one book, which is self published, tends to indicate a lack of notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@DGG: I imagine everybody here would agree that any author with an elf-published book would be automatically notable ;)
  • Keep. Some of the points aren't earthshattering, eg a skeptic being inspired by skeptics, but overall I feel that founding PIRA, co-founding USPA, setting up ARS and other bits meet criteria for: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" as described above by more than one person.  Joolzzt (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with the points made above. I do believe the article meets the criteria of notability. He certainly is "interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention." The numerous citations support this--particularly the Popular Mechanics and People Magazine articles. He is a skeptic commentator of note. Dustinlull (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not to further "bludgeon" this... But I was not sure I could vote as the author's originator, but now THINK that I can , so I will cast mine officially now for a (duh) Keep. Let me reiterate my main point as to why I decided Biddle was notable enough that I spent a good portion of my week off writing an article on him. And I think NONE of the Delete advocates have addressed this point (which I previously made): Wiki notability includes people that are "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". (See above for quote in context.) When I learned of Biddle's transformation from one of the innumerable paranormal advocates (a ghost hunter who formed paranormal groups!) to someone now firmly and vocally on the other side of the fence, I was intrigued. I had never heard of anyone in that position. (I think that qualifies as "unusual"!) Then I found out he is one of the rising starts of the scientific skepticism movement. He not only just had a coveted speaking spot at last year's CSICon (his first as such a prestigious event), but discovered he has been mentioned in a variety of recent books by already notable and respected skeptics including Sharon A. Hill and Ben Radford, and more are on the way. (I had added text to this affect - now deleted for some reason - about a Ben Radford proclamation on his podcast that Biddle is discussed in another, upcoming, book he wrote). The reference I found like People and Popular Mechanics and Skeptical Inquirer to me seemed a sufficient start. And there were plenty of others refs as well (yes - of lesser note - but once notability was shown, I though that was OK). So all that - for me - sealed the deal, and I put in the time to create this article for Wikipedia. I am sorry some of you think I wasted my time. And if it gets deleted I certainly did. RobP (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. 9 photos credited to Biddle in the Book "Scientifical Americans". Also cited in People.com/celebrity online article "stanley-hotel-ghost-photographed-at-hotel-that-inspired-the-shining".

ScienceExplains (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is not much to add as I think as all keep voters do, there are a good amount of citations which are not by any means small mentions or done by the subject themselves. The objections seem to be done towards a certain citation without taking in count the rest of them. An example is saying that the books are self published, when only one of the cited is self published. Objectors are focusing on one or two things when there is a wealth of citations to take in count. Walkiria Nubes (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All "keep" opinions are by editors with few editors. Could experienced contributors weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I dispute that all Keep votes are by editors with few edits. (Assuming the relist comment had a typo, and this is what was actually meant.) I have over 4,000 myself. Also, did you check on the edit history of those making Delete votes to compare? And, perhaps most importantly, what is the magic number considered "few"... and where in WP policy is the number of edits in the history of voting editors stated as a valid reason for a relist, instead of just considering the soundness of the arguments presented by any editor no matter what their vote, and making a determination based upon those arguments? RobP (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure you are getting your point across. Can you say 5000 more words on this?198.58.168.40 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep That's really not a bad line-up of sources. A big proportion of web-based material should not be taken as an indicator of lack of notability when a) some of it is quite high-profile, and b) it is combined with a fair number of more "standard" sources, as here. WP:GNG seems satisfied. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I waited to see if new sources would be added to this discussion. The notability is not strong, but I see no cause for removal. Kyle(talk) 03:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment A lot of trashy, unreliable sources are used to pad out this article --- Ghostvillage.com, Spooktator.co.uk, adventuresinpoortaste.com, barrytaff.net, hayleyisaghost.co.uk, anomaliesresearchsociety.wordpress.com --- not to mention Facebook posts, Youtube videos and non-notable podcasts. Get rid of all these (and the material cited to them) and we'd have a better indication of this individual's notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Biddle is mentioned on 5 seperate occasions in Ben Radfords's latest book 'INVESTIGATING GHOSTS: The Scientific Search for Spirits' ISBN 978-0-9364-5516-7. His expert analysis on ghost detectors and ghost photography analysis is relied upon to support certain arguments. I consider this to support the argument that Biddle is notable. I have not updated Biddle's page, however it is my intention, unless someone beats me to it. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

UK Molecular R-matrix Codes[edit]

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

This article is a technical nightmare and has no value to the general Wikipedia reader. Is it a project? A group? A code? If this is notable, someone please TNT this so it can be understood. Also, can it meet WP:GNG based solely on coverage in extremely technical journals? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) updated 02:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep I'm not aware that a topic needed to be of use to a "general Wikipedia reader" (whatever that may mean, but I assume here you meant a non-technical-minded person) and that something technical would disqualify it. While there are guidelines on how technical article should be written per WP:NOTJOURNAL, it is about how a technical article should be presented, not whether such an article should be deleted. It is therefore an odd reason to nominate an article for deletion. I see many references to it in book, e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21], etc., suggesting it has some notability. If an article is hard to comprehend for a general reader, then the approach would be to try and improve it, not to delete it, otherwise a huge number of articles currently in Wikipedia would be deleted. (I can understand most the article BTW, so I don't see it even as a problem under WP:NOTJOURNAL, it just needs some adjustments). Hzh (talk)

The books you cited are more technical journals. But if there are textbooks that introduce the concept or more general news articles and websites (outside of the official website) then cite those. The wording needs to pass WP:NOTJOURNAL AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything significantly wrong with the wording at the moment. It clearly describes what it is. Can you let me know what the issue is now? Also do cite any relevant policy or guideline where it says that technical books/journals might not be valid sources. We assume some basic level of competence with the language in the reader, and if the "collision of electron" or "computational quantum mechanics" are problematic to the reader, there is little we can do. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Comprehensibility per WP:TECH-CONTENT in any case is a different issue from notability and deletion criteria, and this AfD should be discussed in terms of WP:DEL-REASON and other relevant policies. Please do that when you nominate another article for deletion. Hzh (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the first paragraph is clearer than what it had been. The article really should have been drafted and put through AFC first so that it could be made comprehensible like that.
If it's a set of algorithms, shouldn't it describe the algorithms? The other approximation articles have math and physics formulas and such. Instead, there's a Software section that has a list of features from Quantemol-N. Shouldn't it go into more of the history of the codes, as it is briefly mentioned in the lead and not anywhere else. As with research, the codes should be trying to solve a problem that hasn't been done before. It should go into how it is being used. There's a line saying it speeds up setup time? Great, how much does it do so? What about processing in general? What used to take (time duration 1) to compute can now be done with these codes in (time duration 2)? Or perhaps what was never done before can now be done with the codes? Is it something only the Quantemol company uses in its product? Is it being adapted by other research groups? If this were a media piece like a film, what is the equivalent for Reception in the scientific community?
If there are some physics and computing-oriented folks who can determine notability for this. That's why I was asking about other sources besides journals. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
There is really nothing wrong with journals and technical books, so I'm not sure on what basis you are basing the argument on. There are plenty of software used by the scientific communities that you would not have heard of but are nevertheless significant. As long as there are non-trivial description of this in journals and books, I'm fine with it. The rest are just about how the article may be written and not about notability, therefore are not relevant here. Hzh (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep following improvements to article by XOR'easter. Arguments above by Hzh are cogent. —Gpc62 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]