Jump to content

User:Ruud Koot/Feed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science

[edit]

Articles for deletion

  • 26 Dec 2024 – Computational human modeling (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Fgnievinski (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 02 Jan 2025; see discussion (4 participants)
  • 26 Dec 2024 – Marco Trombetti (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Richard Yin (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 02 Jan 2025; see discussion (6 participants)

Proposed deletions

Good article nominees

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(9 more...)

AA: Computing

[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(13 more...)

Proposed deletions

(1 more...)

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Miscellany for deletion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(15 more...)

Articles to be split

(22 more...)

Articles for creation

(36 more...)

AfD: Computing

[edit]

Computing

[edit]

SenzMate

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
SenzMate (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)

An article on an IT firm, which was soft-deleted a couple of months ago and then WP:REFUNDed on request of a new WP:SPA. I agree with Alpha3031's previous nomination rationale regarding the article references. Aside from the given sources, there is an Economy Next interview about the founders' AI aspirations "SenzMate: Enabling A Global AI-IoT revolution from out of Sri Lanka", 22 August 2022), which is effectively a primary piece insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a firm going about its business, marked by local awards, but I am not seeing evidence that it has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Georg C. F. Greve

[edit]
Georg C. F. Greve (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)

Tagged for notability for over 4 years, seems to have been (self?) created for promotional purposes. -- Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article entirely lacks secondary sources. If there is any notability here, it would appear to be exclusively around the subject's involvement in FSFE and a separate article is not warranted. Brandon (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

SLUBStick

[edit]
SLUBStick (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)

No indication of notability. Could be merged elsewhere. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Julian R. Day

[edit]
Julian R. Day (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 am unable to find any news articles or publications about Julian R. Day (though it was hard to filter out results for the Julian day). This is a similar situation to User:Allykmac's other article, Graeme Brosnan (AfD here).

Almost all the citations are primary sources, ie. company/conference bios written by Day himself; the sole secondary source, "How $115 led to over 200 court appearances", is a review of his book on someone's personal blog. I don't believe Julian Day meets notability requirements. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Samsung SPH-i700

[edit]
Samsung SPH-i700 (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)

No indication of notability displayed since 2012. In addition, does not cite any sources. Could possibly be merged elsewhere. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

IREDES

[edit]
IREDES (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)

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment. A search on Google news and Google scholar shows the standard is in use by multiple equipment and mining companies, and the website is live. It turns up in a mining glossary, and is mentioned in articles about mining robotics and smart mining. We have few articles about tools for data capture or analysis because it is hard to find independent in-depth information about them; even harder for a tool such as this used in industry rather than academics. It would not be an orphan if we had articles about some of the current modern methods in mining. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    We don’t keep articles on the basis of trivial mentions or appearances in directories. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
A glossary is not a directory but indicates it is a term in the literature. Finding that literature is a problem. I was hoping someone with access to the industrial mining literature would find something. All I can find is unpublished master's theses and a presentation at an industry symposium not in libraries. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - Found some coverage in some papers. Here [11], which Oaktree b also found, and here [12]. I fail to see how ZimZalaBim found that the first paper by McBain and Timusk had no significant coverage, when there is a section of the paper for just the standard (B. International Rock Excavation Data Exchange Standard) and another section for using IREDES with condition monitoring (V. IREDES AUGMENTATION FOR CONDITION MONITORING). This is more than just passing mentions, if sections of a paper are given for the topic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

AfD: Science

[edit]
Shortcuts


Science

[edit]

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery

[edit]
Living Textbook of Hand Surgery (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 cannot find any indication that this specific work passes GNG or NBOOK. However, the "Living Textbooks" as a platform (which this was the launch of) might. If there are sources for that this could be turned into an article on that, but I am not sure there even are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Alan S. Kornacki

[edit]
Alan S. Kornacki (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)

BLP shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Muhammad Sadiq Malkani

[edit]
Muhammad Sadiq Malkani (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:PROF. This guy is mostly known for naming dubious species of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals in predatory journals like SCIRP. Looking at his scholar citations shows extensive self-citation and very few citations from independent researchers for the vast majority of his paleontology research papers (with the notable exception of "Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan" published in Science in 2001, but he is only 1 of 5 authors and is not the corresponding author). His research is in general widely ignored by paleontologists and has had little impact on the field. His geology-related citations look very run of the mill and not enough to pass PROF either. Also fails WP:GNG as no significant independent coverage. This story in the Pakistan Express Tribune [13] seems like passing coverage to me and not enough for notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

List of inorganic reactions

[edit]
List of inorganic reactions (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 article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopiaspeak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
There are lots of academic sources dealing with inorganic reactions as a whole: e.g. [14], [15], [16] etc.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  • delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not just sure how much is inaccuracies vs. it just being subjective and ambiguous what you want to consider to be inorganic. The coordination chemistry with the nickel-phosphine complex feels inorganic, even if the reactants are all organic molecules. Do we want to consider organometallic chemistry to be inorganic? I noticed our Template:Branches of chemistry lists organometallic chemistry under inorganic, rather than organic chemistry, but it really is a mixture of both. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it possible to bring this list up to par with List of organic reactions? And are they comparable in terms of scope, notability and "helpfulness"? YuniToumei (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Having looked at the issue more closely, I find it hard to set a clear limited scope for this list. This conversation might be of interest, as it discusses this list's purpose, relation to the other list and why it was previously decided to not limit this list to purely inorganic reactions.YuniToumei (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a completely pointless and useless list, infinitely expandable. What about a List of Novels that include the Word "and"? Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Why do you think there is infinitely numers of inorganic reactions [types]? Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of books covers inorganic reaction (types) and/or mechanism (same thing). E.g. search on google books with 'named "inorganic" reactions'Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep This clearly only lists notable reactions and mechanisms, so it's certainly not infinitely expandable. There are plenty of articles and textbooks about inorganic reactions so this may be an appropriate navigational list that complements List of organic reactions, especially if perhaps made into a table to explain reagents and significance. As much as I dislike basic bullet point lists, there isn't a related category. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. The lack of citations is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Frankly, I don't think it needs citations given its a list of things (most other lists of the ilk do not have citations.) It follows the same principle as List of organic reactions. A lot of inorganic reactions are legitimately used in organic synthesis & that doesn't detract from their inorganic nature. Organometallic reactions (e.g. Suzuki/cross-coupling, Metathesis, metallation etc) are very organic, but they're also very inorganic. Organic chemists may find them to be useful tools used occasionally to achieve an end, but the inorganic chemist treats them with respect as their own unique grouping - not just occasionally dragged out the shed for their utility - and understands how and why they occur. This encyclopedic grouping is important and shouldn't be lost - something supported by the numerous books on the topic. See M.J. Winter's 'd-Block Chemistry', R. Whyman's 'Applied Organometallic Chemistry and Catalysis', Jenkin's "Organometallic Reagents in Synthesis", Henderson's "The Mechanisms of Reactions at Transition Metal Sites", R. Bates "Organic Synthesis Using Transition Metals". The list is theoretically infinitely expandable, but it shouldn't include every single reaction under the sun - and it doesn't. Keep it to the important ones, and the list is a wholly manageable and useful encyclopedic tool to help people navigate the field, and find the various tools at their disposal. - EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I think there might be an assumption that some are making that this article is about every reaction between any given inorganic chemical with any other given chemical. But this article is about general kinds of reactions (oxidation, amination, dehydration, etc.) of which there is a finite and manageable number of notable such reactions. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Remake from scratch or delete. As identified by @YuniToumei, this list was created in August 2011 to be an inorganic parallel to the "List of organic reactions" page. The creator suggested it should be reasonably selective, but include all common general classes of reaction that rely on the action of inorganic compounds. The list has since ballooned out to 129 reactions. Most of these reactions are also covered in List of organic reactions, which is unsurprising as the organic list holds 790 reactions (i.e. it suggests ~10% of organic reactions involve at least one inorganic catalyst or reagent).
    As an encyclopedia reader, I would expect a list of inorganic reactions to link to reactions whose primary topic is inorganic chemistry, rather than re-covering organic reactions. To fix this, I suggest we:
    1. Create a category Category:Reactions using at least one inorganic compound (a subcategory of Category:Chemical reactions) to hold the reactions currently listed (as suggested by @Mangoe), then
    2. Remake the list to cover only inorganic reactions (i.e. those in scope of Category:Inorganic reactions). For example, the list should cover the various metallothermic reductions, e.g. Aluminothermic reaction, Calciothermic reaction, Silicothermic reaction, and the Kroll process (magnesiothermic reduction), none of which are currently listed.
Preimage (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: it is surprising that editors with little or no track record in chemistry editing are voting with such confidence. We're not talking about Taylor Swift or pop culture here, but hard core chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't make too many assumptions about people's backgrounds from their editing history. I have a degree in biochemistry, even though I primarily joined to add my photos of Japan. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Hard core chemistry? Inorganic chemistry is taught in high school, you don't even get big into the organic until post-secondary levels of schooling. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are evenly divided here between editors advocating Keep and those supporting Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep base on the title, this can be a useful and informative list so it's satisfy WP:LISTPURP. Though the article is in garbage shape as of now. Someone whose familiar with chemistry should fix it. Deleting this is a bit of an overkill, an alternative to this is draftfying it until someone fix it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete for providing no value beyond Category:Inorganic reactions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I agree: there can be an overlap, and improving the navigation would help. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep and repair. (reinstated) Rambling comments: I contributed to the article, so I am biased I guess. The list has an organic or organometallic-homogeneous catalysis slant. As others imply above, even the definition of "inorganic" is debatable. As I have explained before, there are very few card-carrying inorganic editors, so few are qualified to build it out. The list doesn't hurt anyone. It has some questionable and ambiguous classifications, but that is true for many lists. Having a crude article makes it easier clean it up. There are lots of books on inorganic reaction mechanisms (Wilkins, venerable Basolo and Pearson, Hartwig, etc), and these provide a framework to build on. We might even transform the article into "inorganic reaction mechanisms". --Smokefoot (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
(note: this was originally in reply to a comment that has since been removed) seems like you've voted above already, would you like to strike the old one? Cheers! has been revised YuniToumei (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC); edited 20:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion

[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Deletion Review

[edit]

AfD: Academics

[edit]

Academics and educators

[edit]

Ryan S Sultan

[edit]
Ryan S Sultan (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)

The subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics or professionals. I cannot find independent, reliable coverage about their work or achievements Cinder painter (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. New to this. What is required for independent reliable coverage? I see links to edu and gov websites and NBC news. Please help me understand what our criteria is. I am deeply interested in supporting wiki. Infoseeker89 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Director position at a large institution is not enough for WP:PROF#C6 (head of whole institution) nor #C5 (a step above full professor, such as distinguished professor). Psych is a high-citation field so the double-digit citation counts I found on Google Scholar do not appear to be enough for #C1. No other evidence for notability is apparent. Infoseeker89, you appear to be asking the wrong question, "how can I get this person to appear notable". The correct question for this discussion is "is this person already notable by our standards, or not", and sadly, it looks like the answer is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as expressed clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
  • Delete: As per the comment of David Eppstein. Taabii (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Geoff Tabin

[edit]
Geoff Tabin (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Fairweather Foundation is a small non-notable foundation. Risker (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep :I don't see how Fairweather Foundation is relevant to Geoff Tabin's notability. It is just the funding source of his current chair position, which seems relatively minor when compared to other things that make him notable such as him co-founding the Himalayan Cataract Project (the other founder has a page), being the fourth person to reach the top of the seven summits, and helping invent bungee jumping.
I believe Geoff is very notable based on the guidelines I have read. Beyond what I said above, there is a book about him and Sanduk (second suns), he himself is a published author, and there are articles written about him in magazines such as national geographic (ie https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/restoring-vision-for-south-sudan-dispatches-from-the-duk-lost-boys-clinic). Moreover, he was on the cover for the now defunct National Geographic Adventure magazine, who's Wikipedia page uses his image!
If there are other ways in which the article fails to pass notability thresholds, please let me know what I am missing, but again, I think the Fairweather Foundation is totally irrelevent. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Adding on to this, using the news button ont the nominated for deletion box shows articles about Dr. Tabin from CBS, The Economist, and Outside magazine. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I find I cannot agree with the nomination. Subject appears to have a named chair at a major institution, and evidently has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity per [17]. ResonantDistortion 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. The case for both WP:PROF#C5 (the named professorship) and WP:GNG (the media coverage of his cataract work) is clear. He doesn't appear to have made an impact in scholarly publications (PROF#C1) but he doesn't need to when notability for his medical outreach work is present. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Geoffrey Tabin has an endowed professorship at Stanford, which required a multi-million dollar donation from a donor. Other than being chair of a department, an endowed chair is arguably the highest honor that one can achieve as an academic physician. Having an endowed chair at a prestigious university (Stanford) is a strong indicator to having achieved the highest level of success an academia.
As for his accomplishments, Geoff Tabin will go down as one of the most impactful ophthalmologists of all time. Through his NGO, Cure Blindness Project, he has directly financed 1.6 million cataract surgeries (a mind boggling number in Ophthalmology)—and when factoring in the surgeries performed by the trainees that CureBlindness hospitals have trained, that number likely exceeds 10 million. To give a comparison point, there are about 3 million cataracts performed in the entire United States per year. He has established five tertiary teaching hospitals (e.g. built an entire Eye Department in Nepal, Ghana, etc) and funded subspecialty fellowships for hundreds of physicians, ensuring that multiple low- and middle-income countries now have their first retina, glaucoma, cornea, oculoplastics, and pediatric ophthalmologists.
When considering the cumulative impact of his work, he will likely have more impact than almost any Ophthalmologist in the history of the world. Furthermore, he will be one of the more impactful physicians in Global Health (not just Ophthalmologists) of all time based on the scale that his operations have reached (and continue to grow).
His other accomplishment (climbing, mountaineering) are also exceptional, but I will not delve into those details as the original concern was just for WP:NPROF. Arthurbrant21 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Robert Tang (teacher)

[edit]
Robert Tang (teacher) (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)

Does not meet WP:NPERSON. Only sources on him are from the school district he works in and an interview. A before search yields no results. I do not believe this educator should qualify for WP:TEACHER, since according to the award's page, it is alloted to 1,500 teachers, making it not a "highly prestigious academic award", since Canada's population is only 40 million. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Coverage of the award is strictly local; the award is only a $5000 prize. While still a nice amount, not a large award on the level of a Nobel. Outside of the one award won, nothing for notability for this teacher. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Award is not sufficiently notable. Subject does not satisfy WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Alan S. Kornacki

[edit]
Alan S. Kornacki (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)

BLP shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Cristian Ciocan

[edit]
Cristian Ciocan (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)

BLP with no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

James McEvoy (teacher)

[edit]
James McEvoy (teacher) (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)

Not clear why this biography was created. Career as a teacher does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia per WP:BIO Seaweed (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Erich Volschenk

[edit]
Erich Volschenk (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)

Normally published, commercially employed (non-academia) zoologist with a number of described taxa. There is nothing here that says encyclopedic notability - no WP:GNG coverage, no honours or prestigious positions, no recognized exceptional contributions to the field. A productive arachnologist but not encyclopia material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Stéphanie Alenda

[edit]
Stéphanie Alenda (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)

Delete or Modify Wikipedia is not a Scholar Profile website, It denotes an advertising campaign scheme that the same user has three articles around the same author in different wikipedias, and at least it must be revised with critical focus. Fitmoos (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  • @Fitmoos: It is illogical to say that there is a publicity campaign scheme, since various reliable sources are used to prove the relevance of the biographee, that is, her sociological analysis of one of the main political spectrums in Chile, which has even caught the attention of progressive media that have consulted her.
You also claimed a few days ago that the articles about the biographee and her book were definitely deleted, when this is currently being discussed due to how controversial your request for speedy deletion was. If it was to be deleted, it must at least go through a discussion phase that you obstructed (apart from that, the fact that its deletion is being discussed in one language does not automatically mean that it should be the same in a Wikipedia in another language, since they have their own rules). Carigval.97 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: The biographee in question has a substantial number of reiliable sources and has been referenced in multiple academic publications and literary works (see this). The user who posted the template has not given any reasons for why he did so. --Igallards7 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: The reasons for deletion are arbitraries, because Alenda meets the following reasons according to the criteria of "Wikipedia:Notability (academics)": 1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources –There are authors who study the right or extreme right according to their guidelines–; 3) The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics) –in this case, Alenda has been member of the ISA or the IPSA–; 6) The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society –Alenda is a founding member and head of the sociology program in the Andrés Bello University (UNAB)–; and 7) The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity —She has influenced in politicians, the Chilean press and other scholars—. --Carigval.97 (Carigval.97) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per WP:PROF, Professor Alenda, in addition to being an encyclopedic contribution due to her academic position, is a member of important sociological organizations and founded a school of her discipline -- 6UNK3R (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Fitmoos: it looks like you started the nomination for this page, but never completed it. Can you please complete the process, including adding your rationale for deletion? If this isn't done, it should be speedily kept as an invalid AfD. pburka (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Fitmoos: I've moved your comment into the deletion rationale. I'm going to fix this AfD for you, but next time you must carefully follow ALL of the steps in WP:AFDHOWTO. pburka (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, France, and Chile. pburka (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment The nomination advances no valid deletion rationale. Wikipedia does indeed include biographies of scholars and academics, the existence of articles in other-language Wikipedias is beside the point here (each language has its own inclusion standards and one editor being involved in multiple languages does not prove WP:COI), and an unsupported assertion that the article needs "a critical focus" is not grounds for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per XOReaster. No valid argument had been made to delete. It's irrelevant for notability here whether other Wikipedias exist, or have agreed with notability. I made a couple of copy edits; it certainly could use some more work, but it's not really that bad. An argument could be made that her citations are low, but that is a recurrent issue in both Spanish-language academia and amongst academics in political science, who boycott each other (insert sinister laugh here). Bearian (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep per XOReaster. I don't object to a speedy renomination by another editor who's willing to conduct a thorough WP:BEFORE and present a legitimate deletion rationale. pburka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Soner Baskaya

[edit]
Soner Baskaya (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 to satisfy WP:NPROF. Very low h-index and no indication of WP:SIGCOV (alternative criteria when there's no indication of notability per WP:NPROF). TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Nawa Raj Subba

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dr. Nawa Raj Subba (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)

Not meeting WP:BLP. Not a single in depth coverage of the subject in any neutral source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Mitch Kern

[edit]
Mitch Kern (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 appears that this Calgary-based photographer and academic does not meet NARTIST nor GNG for inclusion. It has been almost entirely edited by single purpose accounts that have only edited this article along with a series of WP:SPA IPs from Calgary that added unsourced personal/professional content (now largely cleaned up). The sourcing is almost entirely non-independent primary sources. The article was recently PROD'ed, then de-prodded by one of the IPs. Then IPs from the same range twice removed two maintenance tags (notability, primary sources) without fixing the issues. There is one article on him in the Real Estate section of a local lifestyle paper which is largely an interview (primary). This leaves one good independent source in McCleans on a pinhole camera he uses with his students. I can't find anything to substantiate NACADEMIC, zero hits on Google Scholar. Basically the article shows that he is a photographer with an MFA degree, and a teaching job WP:MILL, but is he notable per WP-criteria? Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad Sadiq Malkani

[edit]
Muhammad Sadiq Malkani (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:PROF. This guy is mostly known for naming dubious species of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals in predatory journals like SCIRP. Looking at his scholar citations shows extensive self-citation and very few citations from independent researchers for the vast majority of his paleontology research papers (with the notable exception of "Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan" published in Science in 2001, but he is only 1 of 5 authors and is not the corresponding author). His research is in general widely ignored by paleontologists and has had little impact on the field. His geology-related citations look very run of the mill and not enough to pass PROF either. Also fails WP:GNG as no significant independent coverage. This story in the Pakistan Express Tribune [22] seems like passing coverage to me and not enough for notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Alketa Spahiu

[edit]
Alketa Spahiu (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:NBASIC and WP:NPROF. (NPP action) C F A 16:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Albania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would suggest draftification as an unsourced BLP, but that's already been done once and contested, and I can find no evidence of academic or author notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was in draft for a while. Not only is it completely unsourced (and I found no coverage on a search), but it is totally lacking in specifics that would indicate possible notability. Seems to be a WP:MILL professor, and nothing encyclopedic would be lost by deleting this. The author of the article knows so much about this person's personal life that it is very likely COI, if not the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Delete — agree with the above and even with the benefit of doubt to the author, there is no notability at all, no sources, no coverage at all of the subject anywhere to be found. Nyxion303💬 Talk 20:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources and apparently a total of 2 cites on GS. We normally expect 100s if not 1000s. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC).

Peggy Batchelor

[edit]
Peggy Batchelor (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)

Contested draftification of an article on a non-notable actor. There is no reliable source for the WP:OR claim that she was the oldest-ever actor who had appeared in Doctor Who (not that that is even a claim to notability). The source for this claim appears to be a Doctor Who wiki. She fails WP:NACTOR as her handful of roles appear to be minor parts, and they are sourced to IMDb, an unreliable source. She fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are a couple of articles in a hyper-local village newsletter ([23], [24]), another WP:SPS ([25]), and a self-published as-told-to quasi-autobiography. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, I looked into her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Arts, but it's not a rare honor (there are 31,000 active Fellows) and can be acquired by online application and payment of a fee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Hello. I understand. However, what I do not understand is how some articles such as this one are accepted but not others. This seems like discrimination. There are people as notable as Peggy Batchelor or less notable than her who have pages. Please explain. Spectritus (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not discrimination in any way. It's about independent, secondary, reliable sources. IMDB isn't a reliable source. Wendover News is not likely an independent source. Peggy Batchelor's as-told-to, self-published autobiography is not a reliable, independent, or secondary sources. Pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make Batchelor any more notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: Doesn't the fact someone wrote a book about her make her notable enough? Also, may I ask how users are supposed to find sources if Wikipedia condemns almost all of them?
The author wrote a book "as told to" her, which means it's basically Peggy Batchelor talking about herself, and thus not independent. And the biography was published by AuthorHouse, which is a vanity press and thus it's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and not reliable. English Wikipedia does not condemn almost all sources; it has specific standards, and the ones you used in this article don't meet them. If you have questions about individual sources or sourcing more generally, please visit WP:RSN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual, acting roles are minor, would not pass notability for actors. A voice role in Doctor Who isn't the stuff of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete She was featured in only 1-2 episodes of each TV show she was in and played relatively minor roles in films. The article itself seems to be fixated on the (likely original research) trivia of her having once been the oldest person who had been a cast member of Doctor Who, which as we discussed in this AfD, isn't particularly relevant or notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Note I agree this would be better in draft space. She also had a stage career, which has not been included in the article yet. I am sourcing and adding references and information, and will then consider whether she meets notability guidelines. If she is, the article needs editing, as it reads more like a eulogy than an encyclopaedic entry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Having found and added sources, I think that she does meet WP:BASIC. There are multiple, independent sources, some substantial, some less so, but they add up. There is coverage across her life in both national newspapers and local papers around the UK (around England, and also Northern Ireland and Scotland). The article could still use some work - I'll work on the lede and info box. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I cannot view the many British Newspaper Archive links you added since I don't subscribe and it's not available through the Wikipedia Library. However, I looked at a few of the other links you added and they don't seem to add up:
    None of these adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Can you better characterize the British Newspaper Archive sources so editors can properly evaluate them? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I wrote, I think that she meets WP:BASIC - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The number of times a source is referenced gives an idea of the amount of detail in the sources - the profiles of her published in newspapers in Tyne and Wear and Cambridgeshire are particularly detailed, while the Belfast source has a bit less. There is more detail in The Stage article about the drama school she founded in Essex that I have not included. There is coverage over many years - 1925, 1938, 1947 all deriving from her appearances at the Wembley Tattoo; 1946-1966 in stage shows; 1970s-1980s as founder of a drama school and as a nationally recognised adjudicator.
    You mention that being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is not a rare honour. Being a Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama is - information online [26] states "The Guildhall School offers the following honorary awards for distinguished services to the School and to the profession: the FGSM (Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded to distinguished professors, examiners and past students and the Hon GSM (Honorary Member of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded for services to music or drama and to the Guildhall School. Limited to 100 holders at any one time." That is an indication of her professional standing, in addition to the news coverage about her.
    I am not suggesting that all the sources contribute to notability - 3 of those you link to provide evidence of facts in the article (her appearances in two radio programmes; the date she left the drama school she founded; the facts that she taught at drama festivals as well as adjudicating, and that she worked at drama festivals in Wales as well as England and N. Ireland). RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Maya Kornberg

[edit]
Maya Kornberg (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)

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Ally Louks

[edit]


Ally Louks (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 like a WP:BLP1E candidate - "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", the individual does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and as such seems to be otherwise low-profile, and going viral on social media is not per se a substantial event. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Literature, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep I see that this article borders on WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON (this only started one month ago). But the coverage is from a large variety of sources, and they aren't just paraphrased carbon copies of one article. Multiple articles discuss her at length as the subject of the article, not just a passing mention of "Hey, this person did something newsworthy, thanks for the click." The article is well sourced and is as WP:NPOV as can be when discussing a divisive topic. Angryapathy (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Echoing Angryapathy, there is a large variety of reputable sources (some not even referenced in the Wikipedia article). She even has a fair amount of International coverage; a quick google search shows her being mentioned in Newspapers from Ireland, India, the United States, The U.K., and more. This wasn't the kind of virality that's just a tiktok video of someone saying something salacious that gets big and then dies down - she went viral because of her body of work and research, which has now spun off new discussions and even more coverage of Dr. Louks outside of the initial moment, and into far more mainstream and traditional media sources than one would expect for something that is a mere viral moment. Additionally, I don't believe Dr. Louks will be otherwise low-profile because she's gained over 120,000 followers on twitter, and has already had other tweets about her research and opinions (not directly related to the original viral tweet) go viral in their own right; I think we're just at the beginning of her notability, not that it's already over. I can understand the idea that we may be bordering on 'too soon,' but I think there is enough substantial coverage talking about her as a person and a researcher, not just one moment, to justify keeping the article. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: per Special:Diff/1265752204, the article creator accidentally commented this from her boyfriend's account. Assuming good faith and noting for the record. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
hey @Darth Stabro, I've been staying out of this discussion because of the mistake you noted above. I don't want anything to get any more confusing, or to get in anymore accidental wikipedia trouble. Also, I know I'm reasonably new to wikipedia with really not that many edits. (I clearly may have bitten off more than I can chew signing up purely to be like 'I'm going to get more women on wikipedia!' not understanding all the work that entails, and all the nuances and details of wikipedia articles, which is why I, at least currently, don't plan to be getting in super deep or doing a ton more edits - but that's kind of irrelevant to this particular discussion, so, anyway...)
All that being said, I have been reading some of these links people have been leaving with wikipedia policies... and I'm wondering if this discussion ends up in delete (which I can't totally tell right now if it will or not), but if it does, is there a world in which - since people seem to keep discussing whether this is about an event or about Dr. Ally Louks herself - is there a world in which instead of deleting, this could become an article about this event i.e. 'the backlash of Ally Louks PhD graduation' or like, I dunno, whatever title made the most sense?
It seems everyone agrees there was tons of coverage in mainstream, reputable sources. And in Notability - events, it says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." This was covered in numerous articles across many countries in plenty of diverse sources. As far as I can tell, those wikipedia rules also seems to argue events coverage is more notable with "thematic connection or contextual information" and I think many of these sources have themes and contextual information - whether it's positioning this within a larger conversation about sexism in academia, or whether it's bringing in elements of Dr. Louks' thesis itself with talk about olfactory ethics and what that means.
I know that not every event that gets coverage gets a page. I also recognize I may not fully be understanding the rules and therefore perhaps unable to apply them correctly. But I'm just trying to make sense of all the points of view and see if that's a possible compromise for the group? (Unless the consensus ends up being keep, at which point, you can ignore this idea/question, because I really don't want to make anything more complicated than it need be). MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E issues. Arguments that there are "a large variety of sources" or "international coverage" do not counteract the demands of WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:
    • Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all independent sources in the article are only about her going viral.
    • The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, the article subject has given a few interviews to news outlets about her viral post, but otherwise remains WP:LOWPROFILE. This Washington Post article makes it clear that she does not seek media attention: Ally Louks could be considered the antithesis of “extremely online.” The low-key literature scholar is generally more focused on her research and supervising undergrads at Cambridge University than on growing her once-small social media following or posting on X more than a few times a year.
    • The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, going viral on social media may be a significant event in a person's life, but not significant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Astaire (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, nor BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Subject does not as of today have the sustained coverage over a lengthy period of time to meet the WP:GNG, and as of now is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I lean towards keep and disagree with the argument that she is unlikely to continue being in the public eye. Academics typically increase their notability over the course of their career through publications etc, even if they're fairly low profile, which I'd argue the subject is not at this point given her continued vitality beyond the initial moment. At most, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. – Starklinson 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • EDIT: Let me re-word as my point is being misunderstood – an earlier post mentioned WP:LOWPROFILE, my point was that even notable academics are often not very high profile, despite this one being unusually high profile for her position as a result of her thesis' vitality. Starklinson (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    What "continued vitality"? All the coverage is from a <1-month period, that's nowhere near the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED. She's also explicitly stated she wishes to be low-profile, that's exactly what BLP1E covers. And we don't even have any evidence that she's staying in academia at this point—simply defending a thesis doesn't mean she will continue to do research or that that research will be impactful. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is WP:CRYSTAL reasoning and there are no sources demonstrating the subject has "continued vitality" beyond her initial viral post. While academics usually become more notable over time, most academics are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and there is no indication she meets any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep When the Washington Post, the Economist, the BBC, the Independent, and even Forbes are writing about or interviewing you about your thesis I’d say you’re a pretty notable academic at that point. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, in the context of WP:BLP1E the number of sources does not matter as they are all covering her for a single event; that is mostly what is at debate here. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
What I’m saying is, they’ve determined that she is notable in the WP:NACADEMIC realm. I didn’t say the number of sources contributed to it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Which of the 8 criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC does she meet? Astaire (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
How have they determined she is notable as an academic....? They are interviewing her strictly because her thesis went mildly viral, which definitely does not meet the standards for NPROF C7. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: WP:BLP1E is not applicable here anymore because she is no longer WP:LOWPROFILE given the number of high-profile interviews already given. Her case is very similar to Rachael Gunn. Contributor892z (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Keep Yeah, actually, I think this is a great point. I agree in the similarity to Rachael Gunn. I also agree with the comments about the breadth of coverage and Ally Louks' general level of notability at this point. After reading through these comments, I have been convinced with the keep side.
    Additionally, while I know random tweets can't be included in an article and don't fully make an argument, I searched tweets about her and numerous people are talking about the idea of how her work has opened up a whole new framework for people, and it's added talk of smell into the discourse in a way that people seem to feel hasn't really been done before. With such strong public opinion, it's hard to imagine this is a flash in the pan type of thing that won't continue to get coverage on some level at certain points?
    I also think, to the person who said Ally Louks wants to be low-profile, her actions don't seem to state wanting to shy away completely from the media, public etc. She has a lively twitter presence for over 100,000 followers and consistently comments on many things where media and smell interact. Yeah, maybe she's not going to live directly in the public eye, or give out a lot of personal information, but I think she is still engaging with the public re: her work in a way that does not detract from her (publicly) notability, especially as an academic who wouldn't really be expected to do much in the public eye except engage with the public re: their work.
    Lastly, Ally Louks recently put out a tweet begging people to stop requesting her thesis from her university because she's getting hundreds of emails a day about it. Again, I know we can't rely on social media, but if someone's thesis is being requested that much... she seems like a notable academic to me. (And I know 'notable' doesn't just mean popular, and to wikipedia standards it's more about coverage in secondary sources, but I think she crosses that bar, as she does have the mainstream coverage to back up notability, as far as I can tell.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    You seem to be deeply misunderstanding what "low-profile" means for BLP1E... All of those arguments are exactly why we do not evaluate notability based on "popularity" in unreliable sources and absolutely do not gauge whether someone is low-profile based on their Twitter followers. WP:SUSTAINED requires sustained coverage for all topics anyway, and this burst of activity does not qualify. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    On WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high profile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator." As we've seen from the links in the Ally Louks article and the links Contributor892z's listed (and other links online), Ally Louks has actively given interviews where I think we could argue she has been a "notable commentator" because she hasn't just talked about the event. She has mentioned areas of her thesis, what it's about, and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia, sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.
    Additionally, in the promotional activities section of WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high-profile individual "and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." I would personally argue that having a twitter account where she tweets (publicly to an audience of over 100,000) a number of tweets making jokes, making valid points, or sometimes even sometimes 'dunking on people', - tweets that nearly all center on smell and her thesis topic of "olfactory ethics" - tweets that she knows keep going viral and getting quote tweeted, all in light of the fact that she's already gone viral off a tweet, so she clearly is aware that's a possibility, especially in the strong opinions she shares, I would think an argument could be made that she does do 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause', especially because she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article. So, it seems to me she is clearly actively seeking a wider audience.
    Do I think either of those arguments of being high-profile are an absolute slam dunk? No. But do I think they're potentially reasonable and something a reasonable person could argue? Yes. I also don't think there are any absolutely slam-dunk arguments that she's low-profile, given the information above.
    Even within the "sustained" section I see on WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." May not (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation. (And Contributor892z's point about Rachael Gunn still seems valid to me.)
    Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). But point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual and I've already argued why I don't think that's true. And point 3 says the event was not significant or the individual's role in the event was not significant. Clearly, Ally Louks' role was significant in the event, as the event revolved around her and her work. And I would argue 'the event,' aka the virality around her thesis, was also significant in that there was TONS of coverage, some fairly in depth, and it has ignited international conversation. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral (from 0 to 100 on google's chart). So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Interviews are not "high-profile" or "low-profile", people are. And WP:BLP1E already addresses this: Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. In other words, giving interviews about the single event for which she is notable does not count toward her status as low-profile or high-profile. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, she would be considered more high-profile if - for example - she gave interviews to media outlets about other topics unrelated to her social media post, where she weighed in as a "politics of smell" expert. Astaire (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Astaire and that’s exactly what she is doing here and here (scroll all the way down). And both outlets are reliable sources. Refer to the note about WP:THECONVERSATION (The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts). Contributor892z (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Both of those links involve her explaining her thesis in the context of going viral, and not providing commentary on other events as a subject matter expert, as I said above. Astaire (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The CBC has literally nothing indicating her interview was about anything other than going viral; in fact, it doesn't even have enough secondary independent content to qualify toward GNG. And her article in The Conversation has literally no relevance to notability—giving interviews and writing articles are utterly routine in academia and do not establish someone is high-profile. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Regardless of whether BLP1E is met, the subject still must meet WP:SUSTAINED, which she emphatically does not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do we have a clear cut definition of sustained coverage? Jim Redmond is an extreme case (from the event in 1992 until his death in 2022, coverage for a single event continued). Do we have an example of what is the shortest acceptable coverage length for it to be deemed sustained? Contributor892z (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep As others have noted, her notoriety has surpassed the original incident and therefore does not meet WP:BLP1E criteria. On twitter she is frequently mentioned as the de facto expert on the interaction of smell and media. Mad Mismagius (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    How has her notoriety surpassed the original incident? Every single article is related to it. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Being mentioned on Twitter a lot does not prove notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm still on team keep [I won't bold it since I've already gotten to do that once] for the time being.
I don't mean to overpower this convo at all. I know I'm a bit loquacious and passionate (and if you feel it is a violation to say similar things more concisely in a less buried spot, feel free to delete. I want to follow the rules of civility/wikipedia, but also don't want my arguments to be lost above, or be too hard to navigate through because of me not being concise enough above (my bad).
So for anyone interested in a more concise re-cap of my current arguments for the re-listed discussion):
1) I think Ally Louks isn't a low-profile individual WP:LOWPROFILE under 2 different spots:
A) She's given interviews as a 'notable commentator' (mentioning what her thesis is about and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia while sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.)
B) (even more so this one, I think): Promotional activities. She does do activities in an "attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." Consistently daily tweeting, from the account that went viral in the first place, to over 100,000 followers, with nearly all her tweets expanding on "olfactory ethics" (her topic) in some way does seem like 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause' (of seeing smell in a specific framework and getting more people to think in/engage with that framework), especially as she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article.
2) Within "sustained" in WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation.
3) Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). And I don't think we can say that all 3 of been met. Here are 2 I question:
A) point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual (which I argue against above).
B) Point 3 says the event was not significant. I would argue 'the event' was significant. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral on google trends. So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.)
Additionally, a new addition to this post that wasn't in the one I just recapped: if it matters at all, I found an article published just 2 days ago in which a paragraph about her is the jumping off point: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/premium/3272832/eric-hoffer-the-true-believer-trouble-with-academia/ So, she hasn't disappeared from the zeitgeist. (I know that mention in and of itself would not be enough to make her notable, but since people seem to be concerned she's a sort of flash in the pan... here she is being mentioned again (technically the following year after going viral ;) that's a little tongue-in-cheek since we just had New Year's, but I think hopefully the rest of my points stand :)).) Wikipedian339 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly a violation of WP:BLP1E. Going viral on Twitter and getting coverage because of it does not make a person notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a WP:BLP1E atm. If this coverage was like in 2014 or 2006, it would be a very obvious BLP1E. I simply think it's too soon for a standalone bio on this individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the large amount of SIGCOV, including international news reporting. However, if it is too soon, I would recommend Redirecting and merging to Sexism in academia, to not only preserve the article history but to retain the information, which is important regarding sexism in academia. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ruud_Koot/Feed&oldid=807663388"