User:Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.44.0-wmf.3 (b4aac1f).

Wikipedia:Babel

ru

Русский — родной язык этого участника.

en-4

This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.

de-2

Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

fr-1

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

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

Machado de Assis

Photograph credit: Marc Ferrez; restored by Adam Cuerden

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Русский	Español	Italiano	Polski
6,913,245	6,116,901+	2,960,708+	2,648,271+	2,597,804+	2,172,154+	2,010,684+	1,990,558+	1,891,963+	1,635,375+

More than 63,975,887 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,259,208 articles.

Russia

Natalie Tychmini

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Some brief mentions in various websites, but they all seem to have about the same level of coverage here, woman fought as a man, was found out and went home. Without much more, this isn't what we are looking for, notability-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Women_in_the_military#Russia, where some other WWI examples are mentioned. Or create a new List of women serving in the military disguised as men, perhaps including fictional (ballads etc) as well as real examples. PamD 08:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ralph Lysyshyn

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2013. A search for sources found only 1 google news hit, and 1 line mentions in google books. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Russia, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete it’s a poorly designed resume, not an article. Bearian (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Occupation of Lazistan Sanjak

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

As some ISBN numbers seem to be invalid I am not sure this is notable enough to be a separate article. No objection to merging into Lazistan Sanjak or elsewhere as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Mccapra. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Americanoid

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

Delete or possibly merge with Okunev culture. The first paragraph is about a "discounted" theory which probably doesn't deserve its own article. The second also is not deserving of its own article and can be merged if it isn't already in the Okunev article (I only skimmed it). PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Archaeology. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Based on searches this was a theory regarding Siberian and other northern ancient peoples that was promulgated in the early 20th century, specifically by Russian anthropologists. As it is no longer an accepted designation, a few sentences in an article for the subsequent theory should suffice. I did find one article that criticized the term and attributed it specifically to Russian racism, but that perhaps could be a marker of scientific enmity and distrust of Russian science. Lamona (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Igor Pavlov (programmer)

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to the 7-Zip article may be a suitable alternative to deletion - the subject of this article is mentioned there. Pavlor (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Pavlor that redirect to 7-zip is a good idea. ServiceAT (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Sergey Golovanov

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

Lack of notability. I looked for sources in both Russian and English and was unable to find anything about this person specifically, and the page has been tagged as lacking sources for two years. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Russia. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Rather common name that comes up with many individuals, none appear to be a religious figure... Article now is sourced to primary sources. I don't see notability, this appears rather to be a CV. Lack of sourcing and unclear notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP: SOAP. This entire page is about how the Pope refused to promote him to bishop, exarch, or Monsignor. He’s exactly the sort of careerist that Pope Francis preaches against. We’re not here take sides in religious matters. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ekaterina Ovcharenko

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Tennis player who has never won a main draw title, never played in a Grand Slam tournament main draw, never been ranked in the top 250 in the world and no significant coverage of her is included in the sparse references. Shrug02 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! The player She won Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon 42 ITF W75 Tournaments. As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. SlowPokesB (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Is she saved by WP:NTENNIS? Let's see:

1. She is not a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. 2. She has not won even one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments. 3. She has not won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments. And 4. She does not hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, or WTA.

Hence, not Wikinotable. For a compendium of tennis players I look elsewhere because Wikipedia is not a directory of tennis players. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

As has been pointed out earlier, her title at the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon 42 is of a high enough level to meet NTENNIS. Has anyone here looked for Russian language sources which could meet GNG? Iffy★Chat -- 11:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The previous link to the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon is dead. (It's actually the 75, but it's not important.) I found a source that shows she has indeed won there, and placed it in the article, so the article qualifies. Changing my suggestion to Keep. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The reference you added is just a scorecard. That's not significant coverage. It's like saying every soccer player you can find listed as playing in a professional match is worth having their own page. Shrug02 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The link takes us to a scorecard that testifies that she has won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, as denoted in WP:NTENNIS. -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete While Ovcharenko won 1 W75 doubles tournament, WP:NTENNIS is a part of the global sports notability guideline and its FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" (so what The Gnome said about GNG still initially still stands). WP:GNG requires multiple independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see that, either in my searches or the article here. Everything that comes up can be categorized either as passing mentions in the scope of something else or just routine match recaps (often getting hits on other people with the same name). Generally, it's very tough to get significant coverage based on just winning low-tier doubles tournaments in a sport that's predominantly popular in singles. As of right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
This is the key point. Like so many of these tennis articles there is no SIGNIFICANT coverage so they fail to meet the overarching Wikipedia criteria. Just having a scorecard saying someone called J Bloggs won a tournament that the Tennis Project deem noteworthy but the real world and even the WTA see as minor, does not meet the required standards. Shrug02 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - failing GNG is far, far more important than passing NTENNIS by the skin of your teeth. Score summaries and database sources might well verify an NTENNIS pass but they have no value in a GNG conversation. Also note that WP:SPORTBASIC #5 clearly states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Note the word 'must' is used here not 'should' or 'could do with'. Significant coverage is not a mere suggestion or an afterthought but an actual requirement of every sports biography article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:NTENNIS per above. WP:SNGs do not replace WP:GNG but GNG also also does not replace an SNG. They are two separate and both valid pathways to proving notability. The delete votes ignoring NTENNIS are simply wrong and boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. We don't ignore WP:NTENNIS just because you don't like it.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
If you look at this article it fails WP:SPORTBASIC as it has only 3 references all of which fall into the category of trivial coverage. This is nothing to do with "I don't like it", it's to do with following the guidelines. Shrug02 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:SPORTSBASIC is only one portion of WP:NSPORT. Someone passing a specific criteria at WP:NTENNIS doesn't have to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC as well. That's not how our SNG guidelines work. At the 2022 RFC on sports we weeded out a lot of the poorly written criteria in the individual sports SNGs; what little is left is still applicable and each guidline is not dependent on the others. If one pathway is met, its met.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4, WP:NSPORT's FAQ (which WP:NTENNIS is under) that I linked to in my vote is pretty clear. NTENNIS is there "only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." Thus, the subject must pass WP:GNG under NSPORT guidelines, which is not the case here - despite searching in-depth about Ekaterina Ovcharenko, where nothing changed weeks after this AfD started. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are totally misinterpreting that bolded paragraph which states “they are intended to stop quick deletions” in a good faith belief that sources can be found in time. That’s exactly what I am arguing. I believe the sources exist but they are in Russian and likely behind pay walls. Why have NTENNIS at all if everything just goes back to SPORTSBASIC which is essentially a regurgitation of GNG? We should just delete NSPORT all together if that is the attitude. And truncate WP:N to a single paragraph. We have SNGs for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

But it's not a "nonsense", I'm exactly offering you what it says - and you are ignoring the "Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline" part. NSPORT itself is a guideline that shows what is likely to have significant coverage and pass GNG. It's not supposed to be a workaround when GNG isn't met - never was. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Flying Days

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

References do not prove the significance of the film. There are no references at all in Russian Wikipedia. There are also no awards or professional reviews.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: WP:NFILM indicates that a film can be considered notable if it is considered a major part in the career of a notable film personality; this is, as one of the sources on the page indicates, one of the most notable roles of Vera Alentova in her acting debut; it is also a noted role in the career of Nikolay Olyalin (again, a source is on the page); it is also, it goes without saying, a work that features significant involvement of its director, Nikolai Litus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I just don't find coverages or even critical reception that suggest passing of WP:NFILM. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. This exactly is the problem with this entry, there's just nothing to write about this film that would require a standalone page, whether it features significant involvement by a notable person or not. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you but, in this case, are you opposed to a redirect and merge to the page about Litus? And don't you thing adding the cast and the plot there would clutter up the biography? If you think that's OK I can support that solution too. But allow me to insist that the film is noted as an important part in the career of the 2 actors mentioned above as well. Also, coverage related to Alentova in Страсть (2009) (Эксмо) and Вера Алентова. Москва слезам не верит.... (2017) (Алгоритм) and a whole entry about the film in Жизнь замечательных времен: шестидесятые. 1966. Том III. (2022) (ЛитРес), p. 487 (2 paragraphs) At least. Mushy Yank (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank I am not opposed to a redirect (targeting Nikolai Litus). But I don't think merging contents from this article with any of the actors would make sense, so I am opposed to that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks (but then I suppose you agree that merging would "clutter up the biography"... which makes the concerned NFILM criterion rather more valid imv.). Mushy Yank (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Given the age of the film, I would expect sources on this work to predominantly be offline. In searching in Russian and Ukranian, I'm getting hits in google books in film reference works, but unfortunately they aren't viewable. It could be there is significant coverage in those materials. I would imagine that Soviet era media would have covered the film, but accessing newspaper archives of the Soviet Union era is difficult. Given that both the director and star of the film are independently notable, I would hesitate to delete an article on the film. I think its likely SIGCOV exists offline.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I see that 4meter4 hasn't gone so far as to record their argument as a keep !vote, but I find it persuasive enough, along with Mushy Yank's comments. If there is some reason why this would be harmful to keep around -- eg, if we don't have any content that meets WP:V -- then I think we could argue for deletion, but seeing none I don't see any strong reason not to keep this stub. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Asilvering. I only vote keep at AFDs when I actually have located significant coverage which is why I am abstaining from voting in this discussion at present. Let's just say this in not an article I would have brought to AFD.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete First, I don't see it covered anywhere as "flying days" - it's Dni lyotnye in IMDB, and I suppose the article creator did a translation. It does not appear to have been issued as "flying days" anywhere in the West. Second, famous actors/directors or not, if there are no sources that we can evaluate, then there isn't much for this article to stand on. I do note that the article for Nikolai Litus doesn't mention this film, and if someone reads enough Russian to find a suitable source it could be listed here. Note also that the article on Vera Alentova, while it names this film in her filmography, it does not say anything about it in the body of the article; it does not call this a "notable role." Lamona (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
FYI, the books mentioned here (by me) and the article quoted on the page say that it is one of Alentova's best-known roles. (Yes, it's in Russian). But you are, I find, correct regarding the fact that the article should be renamed Dni lyotnye The article about the director does not mention the film, again, that's correct (hence my mention of a merge). -Mushy Yank. 01:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Others

Draft

Shortcuts

Science

Working load limit

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

Wikipedia is not a guide and not a dictionary. While this term is clearly popular on Wikipedia evidenced by pageviews, I was unable to find two sources to establish WP:GNG.

Sources I could find:

[1] - anonymous author and appearance of a blog.
[2] - blog.
[3] - blog.
[4] - potentially reliable for supporting factual claims but is not clearly a reliable source for establishing notability.
The listed citation in the article refers to [5] which appears a primary source (although I do not have access to a copy). Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Lifting equipment, which is already a very short article that could use substance of this type. BD2412 T 15:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Chin Gouk

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Most of the sources are articles by her rather than third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Low citation count as well. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Not seeing much grounds for encyclopedic notability here, looks like a meritorious but not unusual career so far. Plant pathology citations are generally fairly low in my experience, but there's only a single coauthored paper with moderate citations (59) that I can see. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanun Pyriadi

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced BLP about an academic and chemist, and have added one reference. I cannot find other coverage, however, and on the basis of what I can find, cannot see that notability is demonstrated. I accept I may be missing coverage in Arabic. Please see the commented-out section headed "Additional contributions by professor Thanun Pyriadi since 2006 up till now": I do not think that anything listed there pushes the article into notability (and it is unreferenced anyway), though would be pleased if other editors can demonstrate otherwise. I do not think there is an obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Iraq, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Tacyarg (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: There certainly are a lot of claims of notability, but a lack of reliable sourcing verifying those claims. No prejudice against recreation should such sources appear in the future, but we cannot sustain the article as is. Ravenswing 23:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Americanoid

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

Delete or possibly merge with Okunev culture. The first paragraph is about a "discounted" theory which probably doesn't deserve its own article. The second also is not deserving of its own article and can be merged if it isn't already in the Okunev article (I only skimmed it). PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Archaeology. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Based on searches this was a theory regarding Siberian and other northern ancient peoples that was promulgated in the early 20th century, specifically by Russian anthropologists. As it is no longer an accepted designation, a few sentences in an article for the subsequent theory should suffice. I did find one article that criticized the term and attributed it specifically to Russian racism, but that perhaps could be a marker of scientific enmity and distrust of Russian science. Lamona (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Kanawha people

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

WP:TNT, this doesn't appear to be about a notable topic, and I can't find any scholarly literature discussing the subject. The idea that the Kanawha people are the ancestor's of Native Americans appears to be fictitious, or at least incredibly fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Piscataway people per sources like [6], which indicate that "Kanawha" is used at least in part as a synonym for the Piscataway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete the original Special:PermaLink/229303722 shows this was an essay titled "Kanawha Valley's Prehistoric people", that has been mojibaked into its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'm suprised an article as bad as this one has stuck around for this long. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I'm not saying the current text is accurate, but I have a big problem with deleting an article on a Native American people group. That would be participating in erasure which is morally problematic in light of the history of Native American genocide in the United States. The answer is to trim out unsupported content and validate what we can with the sources we can locate. Stubifying it would be better than deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
When people are writing "Kanawha people" are they referring to a distinct ethnic group, or a general term for Native Americans inhabiting the Kanawha area? If the latter, I hardly see how this warrants a standalone article. The sources you mention are passing references that are completely inadequate to construct any kind of meaningful article about the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sources better than this are needed. However, it is clearly a people group as they are being referenced as living in New England in one source, and Kentucky in another at various points in history. It's not attached just to the Kanawha Valley. I'll see if I can find anything in JSTOR or EBSCOE that gives a better defined definition.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The first four of those sources appear to be referring to white settlers in the Kanawha Valley. The only mention in the Cotterill source, in a passage about a surveying party in Kentucky, is in the sentence, So many of the Kanawha people had joined the expedition that there were now thirty-three men in the party, although four of the original members had returned home for fear of the Indians. The Stealy source is talking about the cost of hiring slaves in Kanawha County, and the only mention of Kanawha people is in the phrase, I discover that the people of this country don't like to hire to the Kanawha people, it is a long distance & near the state of Ohio. The Davisson source is about the Union army in Kentucky during the Civil War, long after Native Americans had been forced out of Kentucky, and the only mention of 'Kanawha people' is in the sentence, I propose ... to induce the Kanawha people to take a more decided course. The Engineering and Mining Journal source, from 1910, says, The New River and Kanawha people have been busy in New England territory this spring, offering coal at very low prices. I think it is quite clear that those sources are referring to white settlers/residents of the Kanawha Valley, and not to any group Native American people. Donald Albury 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It could be, but the Scoggins source below clearly is referring to a Native people group that the Kanawha Valley is named after (not the other way around). That people group lived in several places according to that source. That source is enough to establish that deletion is not the answer here and WP:ATD at the very least is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

And it would be a sub-stub, unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. Better to be a redirect to an article that can provide context. I understand that you are concerned with Native American history being covered in Wikipedia. I am too. But, if there is next to nothing reliably sourced to say about a group, it is better to put what little can be sourced as a section or sub-section in a larger article, or even as an entry in a Boldlist. Donald Albury 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think this is referring to St. Albans Site. Haven't looked through all the "Kanawha people" links above but the appear to have been misread. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
This old article on the history of Kanawha County from West Virginia University political science department says that the Kanawha were a people who lived in the area during the early British colonial Period, but this honestly this isn't a great source and I haven't been able to find anything better, so maybe a redirect to Kanawha_River#History would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the existing article there wood be Adena culture. oops colonial period, will look for more. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This tribe, a branch of the Algonquin family, was closely related to the Nanticokes and Delawares who resided in what are now the states of Delaware and Maryland. During the seventeenth century, the name of this tribe was variously recorded by early English settlers as “Conoys,” “Conoise,” “Canawese,” “Cohnawas,” “Canaways,” and ultimately, “Kanawhas.”
— KANAWHA Michael C. Scoggins

Conoys redirects to Piscataway people

looks like a museum bulletin but by a published author. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok, that's definitely an improvement. Looking at other sources, they seem to agree on the synonymy between Conoys and Piscataway, so I would support redirecting to that article (though I am unclear if as to whether the term "Kanawha" has been applied to multiple distinct Native American groups). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much forward we are here. Scoggins looks to be from Hale, John P. (1891). History of the great Kanawha Valley. p. 63. That's this John P. Hale. I'd like to find something more recent and more affirmative than the author's "probably derived by evolution from..." fiveby(zero) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [12]

The fourth member of the Wapanachki was that nation variously called in the old records Conoys, Ganawese or Canaways, the proper form of which Mr. Heckewelder states to be Canai. Considerable obscurity has rested on the early location and affiliation of this people. Mr. Heckewelder vaguely places them "at a distance on the Potomac," and supposes them to have been the Kanawhas of West Virginia. This is a loose guess. They were, in fact, none other than the Piscataways of Southern Maryland, who occupied the area between Chesapeake Bay and the lower Potomac, about St. Mary's, and along the Piscataway creek and Patuxent river.

The Indian wars of Pennsylvania (1929) p. 53 states [13]: The Conoy, also called the Ganawese and the Piscataway, inhabited parts of Pennsylvania during the historic period. They were an Algonquin tribe, closely related to the Delawares, whom they called "grandfathers," and from whose ancestral stem they no doubt sprang. Heckewelder, an authority on the history of the Delawares and kindred tribes, believed them to be identical with the Kanawha, for whom the chief river of West Virginia is named ; and it seems that the names, Conoy and Ganawese, are simply different forms of the name Kanawha, though it is difficult to explain the application of the same name to the Piscataway tribe of Maryland, except on the theory that this tribe once lived on the Kanawha.

The 2022 book chapter "Tribal Collaborations and Indigenous Representation in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes, and Suggestions for Attaining the SDGs" states: The Piscataway Rico Newman, Piscataway elder and MIHEA participant, relays some history of the Piscataway people: The Piscataway-Kanawha (Piscataway) are the “People Who Live Where Waters Blend Below Rapids.” Prior to colonization, the Piscataway developed well-orchestrated lifeways that sustained them for centuries.

Reading the literature. "Kanawha" also appears to be used for a stone projectile point type produced in the early Holocene, long before the colonial period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Based on Scoggins, it seems like it would be possible to keep the article if it were substantially rewritten. However, it would be equally plausible to incorporate that content into the Piscataway people article and redirect it to that page. Either would be fine, but I do think closing this AFD is going to require someone to step in do the work of either recrafting the current page, or writing a bit in the Piscataway people article so that a redirect is appropriate. That article currently doesn't even mention the Kanawha people.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is really anything to say in any article yet. Appreciate your view on erasure but in my opinion worse would be getting this wrong and creating some fiction about a people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence between the journal article presented by the nominator above (who is advocating for a redirect) and the Scoggins source to put something into the Piscataway people article at the very least. Scoggins is after all a published historian. At some point, we just have to trust subject matter experts and their judgement. Worse in my view would be to ignore these sources as a form of WP:Systemic bias; something wikipedia struggles with when it comes to marginalized people groups (which has been researched).4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete and redirect per nom. oncamera _{(talk page)} 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to an appropriate article. - Donald Albury 13:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Wait for input from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or Keep and start a renaming or merge discussion on the article talkpage. The article was originally titled Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) then moved to Kanawha valley people and then to Kanawha people. The intent here was clearly to describe a prehistoric people known from St. Albans Site and probably others. I don't think the content is very good and may be including description of the later Adena culture. The article is misnamed, probably has the wrong scope, and not very high quality but i think the original intent of the content is completely appropriate for WP.

The confusing name has led us down the path of looking at the colonial era Conoy tribe and whether or not Kanawha is a synonym. There was some dispute about the name in sources since John Heckewelder's suggestion that Kanawha was from Conoy but i think in our recent sources that has been accepted and not really questioned. Redirects from Kanawha to Piscataway are appropriate but then we have some additional confusion to work out. That is the difference between a 'tribe' and a 'people'. I think there is widespread confusion as to peoples and subdivision such as 'tribe' or 'band' and how they are recorded and named throughout history and how they might be organized or recognized today. There were both a Conoy tribe (the Conoy proper or Piscataway) and it seems a Conoy people.pp 125-6 I think this is represented on WP as Piscataway people (Conoy people) and Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland (Conoy tribe)?

I don't really have a whole lot of confidence for much of this, so i think input from some more knowledgeable editors is necessary. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That is much better content, and now i see you suggested that as a target above and i missed it distracted by the Conoy. My confusion is probably more due to distaste as to how WP titles and scopes people and tribe articles in general. The closer might have a tough time with all the confusion and redirects involved but i think you have the best plan here so Note to closer: consider my vote what Hemiauchenia says. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Piscataway people: per the reasoning given by Hemiauchenia. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Piscataway people per Hemiauchenia.Bcbc24 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mechanics of planar particle motion

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

Original Research Graphitr (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is based on original research, as was originally pointed out on the talk page in 2012 ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Mechanics_of_planar_particle_motion#c-Flau98bert-2012-09-09T15:53:00.000Z-Brews_ohare-2008-10-14T01:41:00.000Z), and does not appear to have significantly change in that regard since then. It appears to have originated from a edit war (also pointed out in the linked comment), rather than being started to elucidate a topic which deserves a full article in its own right. Graphitr (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Question Original research, maybe, but where exactly do you find this "Original Research"? I see a handful of sources and no ^{[citation needed]} ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment, leaning Delete I read the talk page message, but I do see a few problems- an NPOV violation is stated. I see that there still can be original research with the sources- however we will have to double check to make sure it hasn't been fixed. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Aside from the direct quotes, the computations and expositions appear to be original (and, although this does not appear relevant to wikpedia policy, I should say incorrect). I did read through them myself: they were not fixed. The section on "Fictitious forces in polar coordinates" and "two terminologies" is pertinent: the article claims that there are two separate definitions or uses of the term "fictitious force", in particular the centrifugal force - one related to coordinates and the other related to non-inertial frames. More specifically, it argues that centrifugal force terms arise in polar coordinates *in inertial frames*. The citations do not back up these claims. Even if this were edited or flagged for editing, this viewpoint propagates through the entire article, and the numerous uncited computations/expositions. Moreover, it is not clear that this topic requires its own article. Graphitr (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TNT. There might be an encyclopedic topic here, but the page as it stands is a lengthy exercise in POV-pushing and advocacy of non-standard terminology, written in a way that makes it a WP:NOTTEXTBOOK violation. In other words, it's an attempt to write a chapter of a highly idiosyncratic textbook, and thus unsuitable for our purposes. Rescuing it would involve jacking up the title and running a new article beneath. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per the comments by XOR'easter. He phrased it very well, it is not the type of article that belongs on Wikipedia. (Whether it is original research does not matter.) Ldm1954 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Molecule Art

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

Absolutely no notability of this term is shown in the article; it mostly appears to be a gallery of a few drawings. A BEFORE search of the term was fruitless as it doesn't appear to be an actual recognised term and I'm just getting lots of results for art of molecules. Fails WP:GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, and Science. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I understand. It is not well known at all. It is very niche, my hope is to expand that niche and to make it more known.

Here are some sufficient links to examples of molecule art. If you would like me to include these as references and citations to strengthen the integrity of the article, do let me know.

Thank you

Links:

https://cen.acs.org/education/science-communication/Chemistry-Pictures-Painting-pigments/102/web/2024/08 (Pigment molecules)

https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Chemistry-Pictures-scent-ual-sketch/101/web/2023/01 (Scent molecules)

https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery (Proteins and simplified molecular mechanics)

https://www.treasuresofvidya.com/wallart/lsd-wall-art (Wall art with Lysergic Acid compounds)

https://www.tiktok.com/@uokram (Only does a form of molecule art)

https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Molecularts(Etsy account only sells molecule arts)

https://s7d1.scene7.com/is/image/CENODS/20220331lnp20-chembro?$responsive$&wid=700&qlt=90,0&resMode=sharp2 ("Chembroidery" image)

https://cen.acs.org/synthesis/biocatalysis/Chemistry-Pictures-Chembroidery/100/web/2022/03 (Chembroidery website)

https://www.etsy.com/listing/682490099/science-embroidery-kit-love-hormone (Chembroidery for sale)

https://cen.acs.org/materials/photonics/Chemistry-Pictures-Fluorescence-twist/99/web/2021/02 (Florescent molecule art)

https://cen.acs.org/synthesis/Chemistry-Pictures-Structure-refinement-fructo/97/web/2019/06(Fruit based molecule art) Cmspeedrunner (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Etsy and similar sites are not reliable sources; neither is TikTok. I'm also not seeing evidence of any use of the specific term "Molecule Art" on these sources, rather just examples of art that happens to use molecules in it, which certainly exists, but I don't believe is notable. CoconutOctopus talk 19:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I understand Etsy and tiktok are not good wikipedia citation or reference sources, but in the conversation about being recognised as an art form, the evidence presented is sufficent. It is referred to as "[name of molecule] - art", "Molecularts", "Chembroidery" and "Molecule art" in a few already listed places as a generalisation. Would it not be useful to define an umbrella term?

What would this art be defined as?

List of art movements is a lengthy list with some entries being an increment different to others and having little established use. Cmspeedrunner (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Cmspeedrunner: Wikipedia is not designed as a place to write an article about everything that is "recognised as an art form," you must demonstrate notability. The article wasn't brought to this deletion discussion because the nominator said it was a hoax--then evidence that it at least exists would be much more useful, but that it has "absolutely no notability." JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I have demonstrated the notability above with the links. Coconut Octopus replied by saying it was invalid due to the lack of the term "Molecule Art", this does not demonstrate a lack of notability but a lack of a centralised definition, which this article is attempting to do. Cmspeedrunner (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Cmspeedrunner: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or a place to "centralise[] [a] definition." To demonstrate notability, you must establish that your topic has significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, not just that something similar to what is described in the article exists. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete as too soon. I’ve seen molecule art used in STEAM education, but I’m not sure if it’s catching on. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete but allow draftification if the first major contributor wishes. Like Bearian says, this subject could become notable later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, yet to meet the notability guidelines as aforementioned. Perhaps could refer to WP:NMG. Pygos (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - this "art movement" or "art form" does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A BEFORE search does not find any art historical or art critical coverage for this movement. A Google Books search finds zero hits, and a search of Oxford Art Online, The Concise Dictionary of Art Terms, Encyclopedia of Aesthetics and the Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics show no results for "Molecule art". I noticed that all the images used in the article were uploaded as the article creator's "own" artwork and released as the copyright holder. If that is the case, then WP:NOTAWEBHOST might also apply. Netherzone (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Juola

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

Does not meet WP:N standards. WP:BLP1E may be applicable Djibooty (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Computing, Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to J. K. Rowling#Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith where a brief, sourced mention is likely appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, but improve. As "Joseph A. Lauritis, C.S.Sp Endowed Chair in Teaching and Technology", he pretty clearly meets WP:PROF criterion 5. He's also won a Fullbright Fellowship, which (my instinct is) is enough for criterion 2. The Rowling stuff certainly helps, too. (Here is a profile in the Chronicle of Higher Education, for example.) And he's authored several books, so he may meet WP:AUTHOR, but I've not looked closely. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete. With apologies to User:J Milburn but just having a chair definitely does not qualify under #C5, it has to be a very major chair as discussed in the notes. Also getting a Fulbright is definitely not notable enough to qualify for anything by itself. The only reason I have a Weak is because the topics he has in GS are low citations topics. If there were truly independent awards then I might change to Keep. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Changed to Abstain, since notability is now being based upon WP:BASIC whereas previously I voted to disagree with the comments by Josh Milburn that he passed WP:NPROF. I don't have enough experience with the other classes of WP:NOTABILITY compared to others in this discussion, hence I am now abstaining. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you clarify what parts of the notes you're referring to? 5a refers to sourcing; 5c is about the institution. 5b clarifies that the chair in question 'can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments', but that applies here; he was a tenured full professor before being given the chair. As for Fullbright: my reading of criterion 2a was that a Fullbright Fellowship (which is surely 'independent'?) would presumably count. But, in any case, these things all point towards notability, and certainly (in my view) push back against the 'notable for one event' claim. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  A good way to judge awards is by who gets them, how selective they are and how much attention a university gives them. Everyone from junior to emeritus can get a Fulbright; there are about 900 faculty scholars per year, and top universities do only a nominal press release and nothing else. (The statement about how uni admin considers them is both personal experience and by asking several others.)
  
  You can compare this to NAE/NAS, where in all the cases I know the academic received much, much more from the admin, justifiably.
  
  N.B., David Eppstein has already responded about #C5 in detail. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that this chair does not pass #C5. As described here (as linked from Douglas Harper), it funds someone to be responsible for "for integrating technology and teaching in Duquesne’s classrooms". That is, it is the kind of chair given ex officio to people who do a job, as a reward or slush fund for doing that job, not the kind of chair described in #C5 given for outstanding scholarship. He may nevertheless be notable in other ways, such as #C1, but not that. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: In addition to the profile I posted above, I note this Washington Post article, which opens with 'Until recently, Patrick Juola was known primarily as the man who outed J.K. Rowling as the author of “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” a book she penned under another name. // Now Juola can add another high-profile outing to his resume.' It's about Juola's work on the origins of Bitcoin, meaning that Juola has received significant press coverage for at least two research contributions. (And he's a full professor with a named chair. And he's won a Fullbright Fellowship.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I believe the subject meets WP:PROF by citations. In particular he appears 5th in GS for "stylometry", 10th for "text analysis" and in the top 40 for "digital forensics". I'm seeing fairly highly cited papers that long pre-date the Rowling work, some of which also pre-date recent citation inflation. J Milburn's comment immediately above suggests this is not a one-event situation. Agree that reviews should be sought for his books. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Looking at JSTOR, did not find book reviews, but a chapter in Close Reading with Computers by Martin Paul Eve (JSTOR jj.8305917.7) appears to contain quite a bit of discussion of his opinions, and there also look to be significant mentions in JSTOR 23025619 and arguably JSTOR 26821537,JSTOR 27073814,JSTOR 26451329 as well as possibly some others not in English. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I have tidied the article a little, adding references to six decent secondary sources; a profile in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is entirely about Juolo; pieces in National Geographic and Smithsonian that discuss his work at some length (there are lots more like this: Times, Telegraph, Scotsman, etc.); and a piece in The Washington Post that is entirely about his work and (crucially) not about Rowling. Other articles about his research that aren't about Rowling (and, indeed, predate the Rowling story) come from two Pittsburgh broadsheets. Again, these are entirely devoted to Juolo and his work. I suggest that this is enough to show that Juolo meets the notability requirements for biographies at WP:BASIC, even if (as some people here argue) he doesn't meet the requirements at WP:PROF. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado

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

This article was first brought up on a project-space talk page by someone, although I can't remember exactly where. Seems to fail WP:NWEATHER from a cursory glance, no significant, lasting impacts, wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak (which I know isn't a valid deletion reason), and over half of the references are to the NWS. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Tennessee. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Opposed Only 13/30 resources are from NWS, which makes up 43%, so you saying over half are from NWS is hyperbolic. This caused a lasting impact in the city of Wynne and the tornado is talked about through articles to this day. Just because it wasn't the deadliest doesn't mean it doesn't deserve and article, using that logic, the Greenfield Tornado shouldn't get an article because it wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak sequence, so yeah, how l the amount of death the tornado caused is not a valid reason to delete the article. Hoguert (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair with the Greenfield tornado rationale, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. E_F⁵ 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay comparing articles is not really a good argument on my part but I still stand by everything else I've said Hoguert (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit early to gauge a "lasting" impact, only one year after the event? Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Usually (at least with tornadoes), discussion of a tornado six months-or-so after the event shows the tornado’s lasting impacts, which I don’t see here. E_F⁵ 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep or Draftify – For stand-alone articles on individual tornadoes, I look for a couple of things. (1) Is there lasting impacts and lasting coverage, (2) if out of draftspace, does the article have the potential to pass GAN (since to me, that helps establish if it deserves to be split from the outbreak article), and (3) size of article vs outbreak section.

Based on a quick Google search, I see lasting coverage, with several articles published related to the tornado and/or damage caused over a year later (examples: [14][15][16][17]) Two of those articles are related to the High School, so I see lasting impacts as well just based on those articles. In fact, searching "2023 Wynne tornado" and setting the news articles to start at the most recent shows an article within the last week related to the tornado/damage. So lasting coverage (WP:LASTING part of WP:Notability) is a checkmark.
Does it have enough to pass GAN? In my opinion, yes. It 100% needs some work done, which is why I also mentioned possible draftification. However, as a writer of several stand-alone GA tornado articles, roughly 20k bytes is the minimum for GAN potential. I know size itself is not factored into GAN, but 20k bytes or more in size most likely will give enough detail-based length for a successful GAN. This article has over 25k bytes, so a checkmark there.
Size comparison between 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado & the parent section Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Wynne–Parkin–Turrell, Arkansas/Drummonds–Burlison, Tennessee. The section in the outbreak article, which is specifically for the damage path, is 11.5k bytes. The stand-alone section for the track is 13.4k bytes. An aftermath section specific to the tornado adds 2.4k bytes. The meteorological synopsis section is not unique, so that size does not count and neither does the introduction. So in all, the stand-alone article has roughly only 4,300 bytes (aka characters) worth of additional unique-to-the-tornado content. The outbreak section cites 3 sources for the tornado track, while the article cites about 23 sources for the track + aftermath sections. To me, the additional byte length is probably the sources. Therefore, there is not much unique-to-the-tornado content in the article. For me, this is the main reason I would say draftify rather than delete. To me, this point is an X.

More unique info over the outbreak section would for sure make it notable for an article. I am ok with it remaining an article itself under the ideology of WP:FIXIT occurring. I do not believe this should be deleted, but at the present moment, I am leaning against it remaining in mainspace without additional information being added to the article/aftermath section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That is an excellent analysis, I should probably use the “would it be a GA” test more often. I would also support draftification, as it’s clear a lot of work (kudos to Hoguert) was put into this article. E_F⁵ 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - plenty of sources to verify notability. There's still news coming out this year to back up the claims for lasting coverage. Also, I believe it was ChessEric who stated this shouldn't have an article - it was under the discussion for retiring WP:TOOSOON deletions when sources unambiguously do exist, and it was in the context of the Little Rock tornado. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep or draftify per The Weather Event Writer.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delayed auditory feedback

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

This topic is already covered under both "Stuttering treatment" and in detail under "Electronic fluency device". Information on "Electronic fluency device" is fully sufficient Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I checked Stuttering therapy and Electronic fluency device and they do not seem to contain the information of the "Effects in people who do not stutter" and "Effects in non-humans" sections of the nominated article. YuniToumei (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Confused bc those sections can easily be included in "electronic fluency devices", as this is an electronic fluency device, right? Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bl0ckeds0unds I believe that the effects of DAF described in the two mentioned sections fall outside of the scope of the Electronic fluency device article: In the Effects in people who do not stutter section, the application of DAF in research for disrupting fluency (as a "SpeechJammer") (see e.g. this, this and this paper, taken from that section's inline citations) is discussed, which is not suitable for the proposed merge as the Electronic fluency device article is limited to usage intending to improve fluency for people who stutter. The Effects in non-humans section discusses the application of DAF in songbirds (again see inline citations). The Electronic fluency device article is limited to effects in humans, so this too seems out-of-scope.

In short, DAF seems to refer to a broader concept, is not limited to electronic fluency devices, and thus I think it should be kept. Hope this clears it up a little! YuniToumei (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. This is a broader notable concept. Some topics overlap with others and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. @Bl0ckeds0unds Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Deletion Review

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ace111.