User:Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.43.0-wmf.18 (38066e5).

Wikipedia:Babel ruРусский — родной язык этого участника. en-4This user can contribute with a near-native level of English. de-2Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse. fr-1Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français. Search user languages

This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).

This user runs a bot, Acebot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.

This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (in Russian).

Википедия Я вношу вклад в русскую Википедию. I support the Russian-language Wikipedia with my contributions.

This user is from the planet Earth.

This user enjoys the Picture of the Day.

This user contributes using Firefox.

Picture of the day

Hoher Göll

Photograph credit: Jörg Braukmamm

• Archive
• More featured pictures

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias English Sinugboanon Deutsch Français Svenska Nederlands Русский Español Italiano Polski 6,870,311 6,116,962+ 2,936,005+ 2,630,161+ 2,592,760+ 2,165,345+ 1,995,298+ 1,973,871+ 1,878,190+ 1,626,257+ More than 63,548,132 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,202,433 articles.

Russia

Access road to Zhukovsky

Access road to Zhukovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. Uncited for 11 years and fails WP:GEOROAD. Oppose redirect as unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Russia. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unlikely to be a useful redirect. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Nom and user LibStar. An unsourced article since 2013 of an access road! A search might be hampered by location bias but creating such an article on an "access road", in and of itself, would have zero notability and certainly fail WP:GEOROAD. The article is little more than a dictionary entry that doesn't even reach barely notable. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2nd nomination)

Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It is with a heavy heart that I propose deletion of this page.

The reason is simple: the scope of this article is untenable. When this page was originally created in 2014, it attempted to provide socio-historical background information for readers of the article 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which covered then ongoing protests in particular regions of that country. It primarily served as a sub-article of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, because that article had got too long. The scope of the article at the time of its creation was a product of that time, and the limited sources that were then available. As the conflict evolved, it became apparent that the article was no longer functioning, leading to a previous deletion discussion in 2022. The result of that discussion was 'keep', despite acknowledgement of concerns about the article's content, including potential WP:OR analysis of primary sources.

All of the existing content has been systematically deleted from the article this year, and the article moved and rescoped. Now, this article purports to provide the historical background to the multi-faceted geopolitical conflict that is the Russo-Ukrainian War, and yet completely fails to do so. In fact, it is unlikely that it will ever be able to do so, because its scope is too broad, with much of the relevant content provided in other articles, such as Russo-Ukrainian War. At present, it seems to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK for miscellaneous history, without any clear narrative or connection to the actual topic it purports to describe: no link is established between the article contents and the war that began in 2014.

Is the whole history of Ukraine within the scope of this article? The whole history of Russia? These could both legitimately claimed to be 'historical background' to the current conflict, and there may be reliable sources that establish such a reality. However, an article with such a scope could never actually function on Wikipedia as anything other than a WP:POVFORK of other better articles on this subject, such as Russia–Ukraine relations. Unfortunately, I think my dear friend Iryna, ever the wisest, has been proven correct by the test of time. She warned me and others that this article would become 'the biggest coatrack Wikipedia has ever seen', and that there was little hope in creating anything of value to the reader with an article scope this broad. Ah, the naivety of youth. If only I had listened...

Fundamentally, the deletion of the existing article content without community consensus is concerning from a procedural point of view. However, I agree in principle that the removed content no longer has an encyclopaedic purpose. For this reason, I suggest this article be deleted. 'Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War' may be a notable concept, though I note that no other war covered on Wikipedia has a similar article. I caution, as Iryna did so many years ago, that any such article is liable to become a WP:COATRACK. However, even if such an article is deemed viable for creation, in content, concept and scope, it would still be fundamentally different from the article the existed for ten years from 2014, and therefore I believe 'Blow it up and start over' applies. I propose a clean start. Who is with me? RGloucester — ☎ 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The article is based on books by highly renowned historians, e.g. Andreas Kappeler and Serhii Plokhy. Those books were written explicitly to provide the historical background of that war. I don't see any of our guidelines supporting deletion. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a poorly written essay that heavily focuses on the Old Rus' question, while only briefly mentioning the other historical contexts of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. It almost completely omits the modern history of both countries. Additionally, some statements are of questionable neutrality. For example: 'The legal and bureaucratic traditions of Kievan Rus' were inherited by Lithuania, but not by Muscovy,' which, as far as I know, has no basis in historical fact.Marcelus (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I would also think creating a draft or starting over may work if it is considered viable (assuming there is no longer the problem with WP:OWN here). Mellk (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The article has been marked as a stub since June 2024. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#Deletion_discussion_at_WP:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War_(2nd_nomination) Rsk6400 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the article could clearly use some work, but it does cite credible sources, of books that do focus on the historical background of the war in question no less. It should stay. Brat Forelli🦊 22:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli: If the whole history of Russo-Ukrainian relations is to be considered the 'historical background' of the war, how will this article ever serve as anything other than a content fork of Russia–Ukraine relations? RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason it serves a different purpose is because the Russian-Ukrainian relations do not provide a complete backgroud into the war, as there is also the Russian domestic developments and its relations with NATO that would be within the scope of this article. Brat Forelli🦊 01:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This article does not provide a complete background into the war. No single article can ever provide a complete historical background of the war, because that would need to include the totality of Russian history, Ukrainian history, Nato history, &c., all of which are already covered in existing articles, which are already linked and described in the 'Background' section of Russo-Ukrainian War. For example, note Russia–NATO relations. Across Wikipedia, no other war has a 'historical background' article. What makes this a special case? What will this article achieve that is not achieved by the existing articles?　RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are at least two books by excellent, academic historians which we can follow when working on the article, see my "Keep" comment above. This war is special because Putin himself goes back all the way to the Middle Ages to justify the war, e.g. Putin's text On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The content in the article now, while referenced, does not indicate its connection to the subject it purports to describe, and is, at this time, merely duplication of content existing in other articles like the one you just referenced. 'This war is special', you say, but I can think of many other geopolitical conflicts involving mediaeval historical claims, for example the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or the current war in Gaza. And yet, none of these have a 'historical background' article. RGloucester — ☎ 07:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. The scope is unclear (should we start from 1169? 1648? 1918? 1991?). The argument that there are books about this topic is untenable. Kapeller's book is about the relationship between the Ukrainians and Russians (Unequal Brothers: Russians and Ukrainians from the Middle Ages to the Present). We can and should use information in these sources to improve existing articles. Alaexis_¿question? 09:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We start with Volodymyr / Vladimir the Great, because that's where Putin starts his narrative and where Kappeler and Plokhy (and Snyder and Jobst and possibly more historians) start. Kappeler's preface to the 1st edition mentions Russia's occupation of Crimea in the very first sentence, his preface to the 2nd edition mentions the Russian attack of February 2024 in the very first words. Plokhy's book title is "The Russo-Ukrainian War". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment, Iryna's metaphor of a lamb tied to a tree is well said and correct, if kept the article would need a high level of protection in order to avoid vandalism and excessive bias Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Moscow Water Dog

Moscow Water Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe that this 18-year-old article is, in fact, a very long lived hoax. The article itself features no sources that even mention the "Moscow Water Dog". The article for, and every source regarding, the Russian Black Terrier (which this article claims is in part derived from the Moscow Water Dog) do not mention the Water Dog at all. I conducted a review of online sources; the only sources I can find that mention this supposed breed are purely AI-generated slop that has combed from Wikipedia, and a work of fiction that uses this article as inspiration.. There is as far as I can tell absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the MWD or any attempt at breeding it, so I believe the article is an intentional hoax added to Wikipedia when quality control was much lower (2006!) which has somehow survived until now. CoconutOctopus talk 17:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Russia. CoconutOctopus talk 17:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment this subject appears in other languages on Wikipedia, such as the country of origin. Can you check the Russian Wikipedia for potential sources? I am not opposed to deletion or keeping but I am opposed to speedy deletion. The creator for the article also was a prolific editor in animal-related articles, which makes me think it is unlikely to be a hoax. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, an intentional hoax for this editor is most unlikely. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll be honest, I completely forgot to check other languages. The Russian article does feature a few sources that seem to confirm the water dog's existance so that takes hoax off the table!

  Regardless, I'm not convinced there's enough evidence to support the article remaining, as as far as I can tell the dog was never a registered breed and there's very little coverage of it, and even less in English. The sources that do mention it purely mention it in passing when discussing either Red Star Kennels or the Black Terrier.

  Russian wikipedia source one

  source two CoconutOctopus talk 18:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  CoconutOctopus, in honor of Yoman, would you mind striking the hoax text from the intro? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks CoconutOctopus for striking. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks from me, as well. Yomangani wrote FAs Laika and Beagle (among many others), so he seems to have loved the critters, and wasn't the sort to create a hoax; he knew dogs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning Keep: search books.google.com, scroll past the first page of results (those are mostly all Wikipedia mirrors), and there are scores of legit books discussing this breed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaning Keep these sources seem to be enough to support existence and some notability: [1] [2]

I can look further if you want to see if more sources exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do Traumnovelle. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

[3] mentioned here, might just be trivial.

[4] mentioned here, not a notable mention but a good source to show this isn't a hoax and the Kutepov source it mentions might be good coverage of the breed.

[5]

I presume there will be greater coverage in Russian sources too. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk · contribs), I see on this page that you speak Russian; might you have time to see if there are usable sources in the Russian article, for a save for our old friend and FA writer, Yomangani? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• AKC Gazette has enough in the viewable snippett to indicate AKC took it seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Sandy, the sources on the Russian Wikipedia page are largely mediocre. This one from The National Kennel Club on the Black Russian Terrier seems authoritative: [6] Google provides a reasonable translation of the page. The breed (московский водолаз) is mentioned in the first paragraph. Graham Beards (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of proposed and potential sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrey Rudoy

Andrey Rudoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO. The Russian sources on this person's activities presented in the article are either blogs or very insignificant media. The conformity of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SINGER criteria are also failed. Dantiras (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Nostalgames

Nostalgames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:N. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this game developer. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Skazi (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The company is probably not notable, but e.g. Crisis in the Kremlin was reviewed by igromania.ru. IgelRM (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Science

Hani Al-Mazeedi

Hani Al-Mazeedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see that the person meets the notability criteria; I couldn't find reliable sources that talk about him.-- فيصل (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kuwait. فيصل (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Life origination beyond planets

Life origination beyond planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is WP:FRINGE of the highest magnitude. I mean, come on, extraterrestrial life in stars? I may finish the deletion proposal right here... but, just in case, let's go on.

Life in the sun? A 1774 rant may have a place elsewhere, such as in History of the extraterrestrial life debate, but only if placed in context (meaning, detailing the notions held at the time that allowed it, and the way they were eventually refuted), or contrasted with the actual knowledge we have of the sun that forbids such nonsense.

Life within other stars? According to Science alert, yes, it may be possible... if a proposed arrangement of particles can actually exist, and if we change the definition of life. Neat. But what if we don't? What if we stick to our current definition of life (which is flexible enough already) and the chemistry that we know for sure exists? Then this is just bullshit, a sensationalist clickbait article... and according to their article, Science Alert is already known for sensationalism.

Life elsewhere. I can't check the source (I already passed the quota of free articles per month), but the way it is written, it seems as just an Argument from authority. Has Drake provided an idea of how or why life on neutron stars may be possible? Or was it just a hasty generalization or a wishful-thinking argument?

Not even the "In fiction" section is salvageable. Just "some works of science fiction", with no specific examples. And we follow the link, just 2 obscure novels (life on neutron star systems does not count, and neither does "Star-Trekking" around neutron stars). Even for TV Tropes that would not be enough. The idea of life on stars is so absurd that not even the suspension of disbelief required for works of fiction can cope with it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• • A 1774 rant may have a place elsewhere - this 1774 rant was noted by a notable modern astronomer. --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Life within other stars? According to Science alert, yes, it may be possible. This article was seriously discussed in several reliable sources. I cited only one because I am a lazy writer and I didnt want just to refbomb, but I can readily do it. --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Just "some works of science fiction", with no specific examples, do you want me to copy the text from the wikilinked articles? Sure I can easily do this, but I didnt wasnt to bloat this section. (Added some refs just now.) --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • WTH is "Argument from authority" doing here? If you question Drake, read it first. Not to say that Drake's hypothesis was discussed by serious sources. Againg, I didn want to refbomb, but I added one more, from the Astronomy magazine --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• keep Nomination without merit. Several reliable sources are cited. Yes, it is a speculation, but it is a notable speculation, and there have always been many bold scientific speculations. That's how science evolves. --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Much better than many of the articles I read on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call this article "fringe of the highest magnitude", but I would call it "fairly unbothered speculation". I mean, Frank (RIP) was fairly notorious for this kind of extrapolative excitement over the possibilities of life out there in the Universe, but unlike the actual fringe-y characteristics of certain present-day actors, he wasn't claiming empirical basis that was not actually there. This is akin to the rest of the speculation included in this piece. If it is a problem, it may be because it is WP:SYNTH rather than it being WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • WP:SYNTH means "to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". If you see any of them, I am happy to rework the text. --Altenmann >talk 19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    If there is any indication that these examples were identified by third-parties as being relevant to each other, I'd like to see it. Preferably more than one source on identifying the compendium. jps (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, there is a certain WP:SYNTH concern here. Has anyone pulled together these particular bits and pieces before? Are fictional speculations about sentient black holes really the same topic as ruminations from the 1700s about sunspots? XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  In "Stellar Graveyards, Nucleosynthesis, and Why We Exist" Clifford A. Pickover does discuss the topic of various weird aplanetary lives in the universe. Other authors question the conventional wisdom that any plausible extraterrestrial form of life must resemble the life on Earth. I dont think that to cover a topic in general by "pullin together these particular bits and pieces" without drawing extra conclusions is SYNTH. And assigning "a bit" to the topic is just a common sense, I believe commonly used in Wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 20:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is the chapter in The Stars of Heaven? Unfortunately, I don't have access to it. Which of the examples does Pickover include in that chapter or is it just a recounting of the general critique that, really, the question of "life beyond Earth" is perhaps malformed? jps (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  I got access to it due to a weird Google Books bug: it showed the content of Stars of Heaven instead of Shades of Freedom. The author had a multipage speculation on non-planetary life forms I mentioned in the article. He also discusses Dragon's Egg, ventures into metaphysical/religious musing on why God created life, about one in 10¹⁰⁰ chance of life, and Cosmological Darwinism, and other cabbages and kings. --Altenmann >talk 21:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that what you describe is speaking to the topic of this article. It's a collection of novel, obscure, and even wacky astrobiological proposals, but it isn't "life origination beyond planets". jps (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Tentative keep: the concept of Panspermia is also considered fringe science by some, but it still gets studies in astrobiology. I don't think we can completely rule this out, so it seems like a valid topic for an article given suitable sources. I'll also note that there is also a paper on the topic of life in a cool brown dwarf atmosphere, so technically not a planet either.[7] Praemonitus (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thx for the dwarves; it turns out there was a wider discussion of this. I added a bit (three bits :-). --Altenmann >talk

• Keep. I see enough independent coverage of the concept to meet WP:GNG. New York Times, Scientific American, Astronomy. I'm unfamiliar with many of the others to evaluate how reliable the others are, but it's possible that more of them add to GNG, and I haven't bothered to independently search for sources, feeling that there are already enough to meet GNG. The "in a nutshell" summary of WP:FRINGE says, "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." (plus one more sentence which I don't think applies here). This isn't an article about a mainstream idea, so the second sentence applies, which I think is met, so I really don't see FRINGE as a reason to delete. From what I can see, the rest of the nominator's statement appears to be complaints about how the article is presented as well as a complaint about the validity of the concept itself. Yeah, I get that, and they are all valid points, but it's still not a reason to delete an article about what others have written on the subject. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep though covering a heavily speculative topic—as do pretty much all articles covering extraterrestrial life as well—this is still notable speculation with appreciable academic coverage, and FRINGE alone is usually not grounds for deletion. Of course, this article has multiple potential issues (possible SYNTH, organizational and prose issues, and what about small Solar System bodies? There's some interest there.), but these are also not grounds for deletion. ArkHyena (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think at the very least we need a new title for this article and a better identified scope. This might serve as a place to include the most speculative proposals about life in unusual contexts. Might I suggest something like "Life outside the habitable zone? which is perhaps a better framing? jps (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The point of the text about brown dwarfs is the extension of the traditional "habitable zone", not to say the title will be an oxymoron. In any case, article scope and title must be discussed in the article talk page, not here. --Altenmann >talk 16:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Non-planetary biogenesis. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

    Whether the life is on planets or something that is not a planet is largely a semantic game. The more interesting question is whether life can arise in environments that diverge substantially from Earth with its solid surface, liquid water, primarily stellar energy source, and protective atmosphere. A brown dwarf is just a wacky as life in the atmosphere of Jupiter from that perspective, and that's the real categorical. jps (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify as WP:SYNTH. This article is not yet ready for prime-time, and I'm not convinced that it is framed correctly. jps (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

FBI Victims Identification Project

FBI Victims Identification Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect into FBI Laboratory. One of many projects within the FBI Laboratory with a dearth of secondary coverage in WP:RS that don't establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Merge rather than delete or redirect. Agree with the lack of coverage. There is at least one citation and a nice image. I can start the process. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I done did it pet WP:BOLD. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:BOLD isn't how AFD discussions work, though, it's easier for everyone if you just wait Mrfoogles (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge: Very little coverage, makes sense to list under Projects in the FBI Lab article. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Goki Eda

Goki Eda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability issue. Xegma(talk) 09:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Japan, Singapore, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I am concerned that this editor (Bulklana is just copying and pasting uncritically from university websites, on this and other articles.) In this specific case, I don't believe the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and heavily-cited research publications. This needs cleanup to remove or better source the promotional description of his research and make the rest look less like a resume, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PROF. I know the article is not perfect, but I am sure it deserves to be on wikipedia Bulklana (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note - this editor is currently blocked for undisclosed paid editing/COI. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PROF. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Normally an Associate Professor is not considered as notable, but he clearly is an exception because of his very high citation record.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Question - those citing WP:PROF - which of the specific eight criteria do you believe covers this associate professor? David Eppstein mentions WP:PROF#C1 but that subheading/link doesn't exist. Genuine question. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your browser must be broken. It works for me. Criterion 1. The one that applies to someone who has "heavily-cited research publications". As I said in my !vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Russell Humphreys

Russell Humphreys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF among others. All sources seem to be to those non-compliant with WP:FRIND. Moreover, quite a few of them are to the subject himself. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Science, and Astronomy. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The only case for notability appears to be as a fringe theorist. But per WP:FRINGE and WP:V, we need reliable sources in mainstream sources to provide a neutral mainstream view on these theories, and I found none. If we had enough reliable (mainstream) reviews of his book we could retarget this as an article about the book with a redirect from his name, but I didn't find any of those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment YEC isn't "fringe" in any meaningful sense, and Young Earth creationism doesn't label it as such; it's a religious perspective, and WP:FRINGE directly addresses this: For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus, comments on his scientific ideas by theologians would be addressing the topic directly and potentially count towards notability, and the search can't stop with scientists. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Being at odds with pretty much all sciences it touches" is a meaningful sense of "fringe". So, yes, YEC is very much fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism... all are at odds with pretty much all the sciences they touch. But they're not fringe because fringe is science absent religion, rather than religious perspectives on scientific topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:FRINGE is not science absent religion. I promise you. If you disagree, go ask around and see if there is consensus for your position. jps (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ fringe? The parting of the Red Sea? The direct divine revelation of the Quran or the Book of Mormon? If you think any of them might be, that's an intellectually honest but encyclopedically useless answer in that it would require religious topics be described as if they were not. If none of them are, then how do you articulate an intellectually consistent differentiation between FRINGE and unproven (and arguably unprovable) religious claims? Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. Claims that Jesus Christ bodily rose from the dead or that the Red Sea literally split apart as it is depicted in, say, Hollywood blockbusters inasmuch as such phenomena are claimed to have occurred in an empirically verifiable way are fringe claims. That is, they are not verified by the relevant academic scholars in the field and it is only cultists outside of the academic WP:MAINSTREAM who claim otherwise. That it also happens to be an article of faith is irrelevant. When there are empirical claims being made, the domain of interest are those academic subjects which study empirical claims. The "divine revelation of the Qu'ran" is not an empirical claims as far as I can tell. Unless there is some person arguing that such a "divine revelation" was done by some empirical, measurable means. jps (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Jclemens: YEC, presented as a scientific theory in the 21st century, is unquestionably fringe. There is nothing in the article in question presenting the subject as a theologian or a fantasy novelist or as any other type of person for whom this might plausibly considered as non-fringe; the article frames his work purely as science, and as such it is fringe. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  You keep saying that as if repeating it will make it true. It's a theological stance, derived from a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, trying to present itself as science. It's not; it's religion. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Where in our article do you find any hint that this is religious in nature? And in what sense does having a "theological stance" but "trying to present itself as science" make it anything other than fringe? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Um. Why except for a literal reading of Genesis would anyone look at the world and say "Man, this looks like six days of divine creation six thousand-ish years ago"? Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete There just isn't enough to go on here. He wrote one book, Starlight and Time, which did not get sufficient recognition in reliable sources to count as notable by itself. (The CEN Technical Journal cited now is just the old name of the Journal of Creation, i.e., not reliable.) Everything else is even less substantial. I can't see a pass of WP:AUTHOR or any other relevant standard. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Science Redirects for discussion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate