User:Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.43.0-wmf.23 (a5827e3).

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

W. S. Gilbert

Photograph credit: Elliott & Fry; restored by Adam Cuerden

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Русский	Español	Italiano	Polski
6,884,793	6,116,929+	2,943,432+	2,636,400+	2,594,612+	2,167,601+	2,000,160+	1,979,707+	1,882,630+	1,628,824+

More than 63,686,017 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,220,549 articles.

Russia

Murad Ramazanov (fighter)

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

Fails to fulfill WP:MMANOT with no wins over significant opponents, bouts only in the second tier organizations and FightMatrix ranking of #65 at highest. Also, does not seem to fulfill WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Ticelon (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

1952 Leningrad mid-air collision

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

per WP:GNG failure to site verifiable sources and lack of secondary sources, as shown before, the soviet union was incredibly secretive and tight lipped about tragedies, especially aviation tragedies, that took place in the soviet union. Lolzer3k 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Lolzer3k 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N. This article is based primarily on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago and generally found to be an unreliable source. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. I'll also mention that I'm not very comfortable with the fact that the article was created August 13, 2024, yet the citations to the airdisaster.ru website are citing an access date of April 12, 2013. This may be a machine translation of the ru.wikipedia page that does not appropriately give attribution to the original article per WP:HOWTRANS. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Irina Mataeva

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

Article is written like a resume and based on sources connected to the subject. Not clear the article passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Elena Pankratova

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

Article is largely built from the website's of the subjects employers and therefore they lack independence. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Aeroflot Flight 31

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N. There are no independent, reliable sources of information about this crash. The ASN source cites airdisaster.ru as its source of information, airdisaster.ru does not cite any sources itself and has been the topic of a past discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru. Most of the currently uncited material in the article is a close paraphrase of the limited information that appears on airdisaster.ru, and the baaa-acro.com source is a WP:SPS. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Amar Abba

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

No secondary sources, unacceptable for a BLP. Per WP:PRIMARY: "do not base an entire article on primary sources" - this is particularly important for BLPs. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Algeria. AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus, Ireland, Russia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete Entirely based on primary sources. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

1952 Aeroflot Ilyushin Il-12 crash

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N. The Soviet Union was notoriously tight-lipped about aviation accidents that occurred in that era, and many domestic accidents were never widely reported. This article is based primarily on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago. I found that discussion by searching for such a discussion, as my gut feeling was already telling me that this isn't a reliable source, and the "sources of information" field on the entry on that site has been left blank. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Volga Boat Show

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

A highly WP:PROMO article fails WP:NOT by being WP:ADMASQ. Cleanup would leave no encyclopedic content, and there is no appropriate redirect target. (A G11 was rather inexplicably declined.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete. This could almost have been a {{uw-spamublock}} because the promotional page about the organization which has volga2015.ru as its domain and "volga2015" as its instagram handle was created by user "Volga2018". The sources are not credible.—Alalch E. 22:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete Even after purported cleanup by multiple editors article is overly promotional, which suggests G11 should have been used. Also appears to have been created by a single-purpose COI account. Sources don't appear great, either. A big mess not worth saving. AusLondonder (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete - literally promotional. It says it in the article itself. We are not a free web hosting site for Russian yachts. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete - As mentioned above, this is a promotion, and more than that: it's a promotion for a promotion like two mirrors confronting each other recursively. Also, in addition to the issues raised above, it raises a red flag that nobody living anywhere near the Volga itself has made an article on ru-wiki. It's a harbinger that perhaps there are no better sources floating out there on the Runet. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at the Olimpiyskiy Stadium

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the Olimpiyskiy Stadium (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. No inclusion criteria, very weak referencing. mikeblas (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Penzhin Tidal Power Plant Project

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

Perhaps this made a little sense many years ago but I cannot see how it is notable. According to https://www.renewable.news/innovation-technology/russia-wants-to-build-the-worlds-most-powerful-tidal-power-plant-in-kamchatka/ it would cost 200 billion dollars, but why would the government spend on this when they need the money for the war and have so much cheap methane? Also why divert scarce labour from the war effort? Also according to the talk page the numbers are wrong. However I don’t know Russian language or history - perhaps it has some historical notability or there are better sources in Russian than the above link which was just translated from (presumably unreliable) “local media”? https://h2ce.ru/en/projects/detail/hydrogen-power-cluster-based-on-penzhinskaya-tidal-power-plant is a company with almost no info about itself. https://dspace.kpfu.ru/xmlui/handle/net/170412 and many other sources are pre-war when the economics and politics were very different. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Others

Draft

Shortcuts

Science

PG 1543+489

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

Quasar that fails WP:NASTRO as an object with no independent coverage discovered after 1850. Article is also impossible to read, this equation being in the first paragraph; " <Γ2-12 keV > = 1.89±0.1". These equations are all over the article. Sir MemeGod  16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: It's discussed in a number of papers, including Vignali et al (2008) and Aoki et al (2005). Praemonitus (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak Delete: I just stripped out all the text that was purely references to catalog papers, but there's still quite a lot of nonsensical text there. If you're going to advocate to keep it, please go and clean up the remaining text. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

NGC 142

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO as a galaxy with little to no independent coverage. Sir MemeGod  15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per Reywas92. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000). Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NGC 135

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

Even though this is one of the 7,000 NGC objects, it was discovered after 1850 and does not seem to have any coverage (failure of WP:NASTRO). Sir MemeGod  15:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000). Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per Reywas92. Only a brief mention found.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IC 4026

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

The main reasoning is a failure of WP:NASTRO, but I could also find no significant of individual coverage of this object. Also discovered after 1850. Sir MemeGod  15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to list of IC objects. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to list of IC objects. There is some discussion in a paper by Trentham and Mobasher (1998), but that doesn't seem enough to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IC 3078

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

No notability, all searches led me to a vast list of astronomical objects. Fails WP:NASTRO for this reason. Sir MemeGod  15:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

redirect to list of IC objects ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to list of IC objects. Non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IC 4651

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

No individual coverage, ails WP:NASTRO. Sir MemeGod  15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Significant coverage in many sources, some of which can be seen in the reflist. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I concur, it's a well studied cluster. Praemonitus (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to list of IC objects ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Seriously?[2] Praemonitus (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IC 4141

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

No individual coverage in scientific journals were found after a Google search. Most of the references to this galaxy seem to be large-scale catalogs, such as TheSkyLive or Seligman. Sir MemeGod  14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to list of IC objects. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 17:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to list of IC objects. It doesn't appear notable. Praemonitus (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Rayleigh (unit)

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

Doing a Google search I cannot find more than a couple of papers where this unit is mentioned, and it is not part of any of the unit standards I can find. Rather than a PROD I am doing an AfD just in case it is used somewhere. If it is, then please add sources and description to that context to demonstrate why it should be retained. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep One straightforward way to check for usage is to look at papers that cite a paper establishing a term, in this case "The rayleigh: interpretation of the unit in terms of column emission rate or apparent radiance expressed in SI units" [3]. Checking citing papers [4] gives a good long list, of which I checked the first 10. Of these, 8 make explicit use of the unit, and devote at least a short passage to defining it, so I think we are good. Of particular note is p. 22 of this thesis [5] which gives an in-depth definition that we should adapt for the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Clear evidence of significant coverage in sources linked above. In addition, editor discussions within the talk pages of the MOS lend validity to the notability of the subject, even if it is rather obscure and not an official SI unit. Jtwhetten (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I think we have to be very careful not to conflated how we consider SIGCOV for citations of academic articles compared to in news or similar. A good comparison should be how BLP are judged. The most definitive notability is when something becomes a generic, so is quoted without citation e.g. general relativity. Dropping down a level in physics (excluding HEP) I dont think anyone would question the notability of a paper with > 1000 citations, or > 100 in the first year or two.
- A Google search would show if Rayleigh has become a generic -- it has not.
- The original paper has 176 cites on Google Scholar since 1956. While relevant, that is not strong SIGCOV. It has 3 cites in 2023-2024. Note that not every paper that cites it will discuss the units.
- The second has 44 cites since 1974, certainly not particularly significant.
- The third has 58 since 1976, better but it also discusses an alternative definition so IMO is weaker.

My interpretation remains that this is not really a notable topic, and the wider community has not voted major support of the idea. If they had it would be a widely used generic unit. Just my opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

N.B., I do not see the MOS discussion as supporting the notability, in fact the opposite. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

...what. It's a scientific unit that is used in at least 50 peer-reviewed studies. That makes it easily notable enough for an article. You are operating on some very strange metrics here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I am being a rigorous physicist. A paper cited in 50 peer reviewed studies is not particularly notable, for instance in physics it would be counted but far more would be needed for tenure. For a BLP in physics (not HEP) a rough estimate is that their should be 50 papers all cited more than 50 times, i.e. an h-factor of 50. Perhaps compare to unconditionally notable terms such as the 1968 Ernst equation which is cited 1159 times, 1968 Broyden's method cited 3816 etc; there are many, many more. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The argument as to whether the Rayleigh is generic is curious. A review of linked pages provides multiple references using the unit in the generic sense (i.e. without citation/explanation). Refer to [6], [7], and [8]. The pages using these sources do require editing to comply with MOS but that is another issue. Moreover, I think we would all agree this is a very niche topic, and so it is appropriate to expect a certain amount of difficulty in finding numerous RS to satisfy SIGCOV. Jtwhetten (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Rumpology

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

This article is terribly sourced (most sources are unreliable or passing mentions) and my BEFORE is not finding anything better (bunch of sources cite Wikipedia, there is SIGCOV in a self-published book here, etc.). I am not sure if this is not a hoax (creation of a arbcom and site-banned user Meco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), but it seems to have serious WP:GNG issues that do not appear to be easily addressed; and the current crappy article, which really belongs in urban dictionary or such, is just lending credence and leading to increasing WP:CITOGENESIS, I fear. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Gordon Edwards (scientist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable academic whose credentials do not verify, and for whom most of the claims in the text are uncited. Even if there were sources he would not pass notability. Somehow the original nomination has got mangled so I am doing a second nomination. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely shocking that some ignorant (and perhaps ill intentioned) person is trying to delete the article about Canada's foremost expert on nuclear energy issues - who has worked for over 50 years to raise awareness of the risks of nuclear energy and nuclear waste. He is the most recognized activist on these issues in Canada and is in demand around the world as a speaker by groups fighting nuclear pollution. I'd be happy to provide many sources, but I'm completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing and would prefer to provide sources/background to an administrator. When the commenter above says "most of the claims in the text are uncited," he seems to be holding this article to a higher standard that hundreds of articles I've encountered (as a Wikipedia reader). When he says, "Even if there were sources he would not pass notability," he is revealing his profound ignorance about Dr. Edwards, his world-wide reputation and his life's work. What concerns me even more, though, is that there could be malicious intent here, trying to suppress the profile of a noted activist on a controversial topic. PLEASE - administrators, immediately look into what is going on here and put a stop to it if it is indeed malicious. Hundreds of Canadian activists are watching this closely and frankly, Wikipedia's credibility is on the line. PaceVerde (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This topic should definitely not be deleted. Dr. Edwards is an expert in nuclear energy issues and has a worldwide reputation. He is an excellent speaker, is extremely knowledgeable and is in demand around the world for his expertise. He is a prominent Canadian who should be represented in Wikipedia. I agree with the previous post, that Wikipedia should be sure that there isn't a nefarious person trying to shut down the discussion about nuclear energy. 45.78.126.149 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)— 45.78.126.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Content copied over from earlier nomination: 'Hello, I am concerned about the designation of Gordon Edwards' article as an article for "deletion". I viewed of list of multiple recent edits to his article, which appear to be done by a possible 'bot'. Would an administrator please check whether this is the case or not? Many thanks, Nancy Covington MD' 08:09, September 2, 2024‎— Preceding unsigned comment added by Covingni (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 September 2024‎ (UTC) — Covingni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (this remark was copied here by User:Ldm1954, not Covingni. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Content copied from talk page of earlier nomination: "I have followed Dr. Edwards for years and find his information on nuclear to be very helpful. The article on Dr. Edwards is factual. This article should remain on Wikipedia. It is concerning that someone, who appears to be pro-nuclear, has asked for the article on Dr. Edwards to be deleted, as it is perhaps bothersome to them in all its accuracy? Wanda Laurin (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)" — Wanda Laurin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Science. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment For the closer: This "2nd nomination" was created because User:@Daffydavid: tagged the article for deletion, but (presumably) mistakenly started the discussion at the article's talk page. User:@Covingni:'s keep !vote (which was copied here already by Ldm1954) was the first edit to the "1st nomination" page. which is why there is a "2nd nomination." Daffydavid's rationale for placing the deletion tag was as follows: The only reference attached that appears to be valid indicates the person to be unqualified. Daffydavid (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC) and I would interpret this as a delete !vote for the purposes of this "2nd" nomination. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep I found reliable sources about Edwards pretty quickly. I've added two to the article. I think this is more an issue of poor article quality and poor sourcing. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It is better, but there are still serious issues which it appears led to the original AfD by @Daffydavid. For instance, source [1] is used to verify that he is both President & co-founder of CCNR, but in fact it only states that he is President. While your sourcing is better, there are still too many unsourced claims and it remains very weak on SIGCOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Did you perform WP:BEFORE as requested in the AfD documentation? I did this myself and quickly found a number of reliable sources, though I haven't added all of them. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a very strange response to having your sources be challenged. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
That is a very strange response to my asking someone who nommed an article for deletion if they followed the steps required in the process. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: To me it does not matter if someone is pro- or anti- nuclear, QANON or a judge. The bar is the same and is in WP:N. That several WP:Single-purpose accounts make rude comments about Daffydavid or me is not going to change anything. As always, this is a discussion and proof of notability by reputable secondary sources is unconditionally required. This is of course at a higher level for living people. Just having a few mentions is not now and never has been enough. Maybe you can find enough, to date this page fails WP:PROVEIT by a long, long way.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
None of that matters to me either. But you didn't respond to my question above RE: WP:BEFORE. Did you perform it as per the steps in the AfD documentation? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
You need to ask that of @Daffydavid since he made the nomination, albeit with a technical glitch as @GhostOfDanGurney indicates above (a best guess) -- but I do support the nomination. @Daffydavid clearly tried to improve it then gave up, I see no indication of ill-will on his part. I of course did the routine Google check, not finding enough for Wikipedia:Notability of a BLP. You can find the SIGCOV to prove me wrong, I never claim to be infallible. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Strange...in Wikipedia:Notability I find a whole subsection entitled: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." It points out that: "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." For this subject, there are ample sources that come up on a simple Google search including articles, quotes in mainstream media, guest appearances on major Canadian television and radio networks, etc. I am working on identifying the best ones to add and will do so as soon as possible. Please note Dr. Edwards is not a university professor and doesn't claim to be. He is an independent expert. PaceVerde (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Biographical articles about living or recently deceased people have a higher standard for meeting Notability and verification policies. Simple attestations of sources existing is not enough. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

PaceVerde - what you posted is accurate, but a few of us have already searched for Reliable Sources and come up a bit short. You're welcome to perform your own search and add sources to the article or to this discussion, but without satisfying minimal requirements the article will likely be deleted. You're invited to collaborate and improve the article to establish his notability according to our WP:BIO guidelines.Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide some of these sources you found, I don't see any and talking on a TV show isn't notable... Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming you performed WP:BEFORE. That was all I wanted to know. I admit to never having heard of Edwards until I saw this AfD, so my own searches are limited in scope. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete per lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources.~~ I made a SA table for the sources presently in the article:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/12/06/lake-huron-canada-radioactive-nuclear-waste/2622110001/			Uses quotes from the subject, but the story is not at all about the subject, but rather the Canadian government potentially choosing a site on Lake Huron to store nuclear waste	✘ No
https://www.chroniclejournal.com/life/nuclear-waste-questions-continue-to-multiple/article_eb4d17e6-dd38-11ed-9cee-3f55993ebfab.html	Guest column written by a fellow anti-nuclear activist	The Chronicle-Journal is owned by Continental Newspapers	Has secondary context in amongst the story of the subject going on a speaking tour regarding the Canadian government's nuclear waste site decision	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110706201716/http://sun4.vaniercollege.qc.ca/math/2faculty.htm	A faculty listing by an employer	self-posted by the employer	Simply lists the subject's name as a faculty member.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

As this shows, the subject does not come close to meeting GNG. Using google, I found a couple of directories of articles he has written for The Hill Times and National Observer, as well as more articles similar to the one by Detroit Free Press in which he is quoted in his role as a scientist who advocates against nuclear power, but like Detroit Free Press, is not about the subject. ~~― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)~~ - !vote struck ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. I found a fair number of opinion pieces by him, but instead we need independent works about him, and I didn't find those. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete~~self-struck. See new !vote below - as a mathematician, does not meet WP:PROF. As an anti-nuclear campaigner, I thought he might meet WP:GNG, but like David Eppstein, I am coming up short of any independent coverage that covers him. Not sure if there is off wiki canvassing here for keep voters, but ultimately it is the sources that matter, and we don't have anything that meets GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 7:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - You are perhaps not very familiar with the Canadian media? Dr. Edwards is a Canadian and is known across the country as an independent expert on the nuclear industry. That is why his opinion pieces are published in prominent national publications like The Hill Times and the National Observer. That is why he was featured as one of the main guests/experts on not one, but two episodes of the national award-winning TV program The Nature of Things, hosted on our national Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) network by Dr. David Suzuki (perhaps you've heard of him?). One is The Friendly Atom, 1998 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpVgYrfSIAM, the other My Nuclear Neighbour, 2010 (looking for online link). On APTN News (Aboriginal Peoples television network) in 2019, a journalist introduced him as "probably the nuclear industry's most prominent critic in Canada" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW1CpAOr9HI (10min45). I do thank you for flagging the fact that his bio does not do justice to him. I am working to update and fill it out and will post new content and sources in the coming week or two. His short bio is also on the site of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Does that qualify as a source 'about' him? https://thebulletin.org/biography/gordon-edwards/ He has also provided invited testimony to legislative committees and expert sworn testimony (e.g. to the US Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, although mostly in Canada) about two dozen times. These date back to the 1970s and 1980s so the earlier examples do not have online sources (as far as I know). I believe I can footnote them without an online link, according to wikipedia guidelines? talk — Preceding undated by PaceVerde added 19:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Repeat vote.— PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (you can only cast one "vote", I'm striking this duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC))
Non-notable as a scholar. Not an expert on the yak. Keep as a notable activist with significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Where is the SIGCOV? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Here you will find listed and hyperlinked 29 interviews with Gordon Edwards as an expert commentator on the subject of the Fukushima accident. https://www.ccnr.org/index_fuk.html That's just on one topic. You may not be familiar with Canadian media, but these interviews are on Canada-AM, CTV and CBC News - it doesn't get any higher profile than that in Canadian national news coverage.

On this page https://www.ccnr.org/index_A-V.html you will find well over 100 links to video and audio files including Gordon Edwards' in-person presentations as a guest speaker, media interviews - again, in Canada's top national media, webinars, and a presentation at the United Nations (side event to the 17th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKmZmIF6ms - where Dr. Edwards was one of two invited non-Indigenous speakers on a panel with 5 First Nations Chiefs and Grand Chiefs.

Please, for us novices, explain "significant coverage"? PaceVerde (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Please, for us novices, explain "significant coverage"? Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability. A key section here is the one headeded General notability guideline which explains that:
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very helpful. So it sounds like someone being repeatedly interviewed in major media for their expertise/commentary would be significant evidence of their notability. PaceVerde (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Interviews are not independent. It is the subject talking, and talking about himself is a primary source too. But the reason for the interview might be indicative of notability. If he approaches an organisation and offers talking points, maybe not - because that is again not independent - but if a major news network approaches him for comment, then the question is: why did they approach him? In particular, if he has been written about as an expert, they might approach him for that reason. But then, the source we need that demonstrates notability is the independent person who has written about him and his expertise. It was this kind of source I could not find. But if there are such sources, then I would change my view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but that last statement makes little sense - if the person was approached repeatedly by the media for comment, then clearly the media had a reason to do so, especially on national television (they don't just pick names from a hat). The existence of the hundred plus media interviews and documentaries with the person is in itself proof of notability. PaceVerde (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
So what I was saying is that often, as you say, someone is picked for interview based on established expertise. But not always, in fact. But assuming he was picked for his expertise, what we need to see here is the basis for that establishment of expertise. Why did they think he was an expert? What has been written about him? Where is he discussed? When they picked him as an expert, what was their basis for thinking he was an expert? That is what we need to see. Do you have those sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete (note: searching works better on "gordon edwards nuclear" - that eliminates others with the same name. "Scientist" doesn't narrow it down to him.) He doesn't meet NPROF; there are few articles in G-Scholar and they are hardly cited. I don't think we can consider him as an author - he wrote some (many?) opinion pieces but I don't see proof that he became a kind of "opinion celebrity". The most that I can find is the student newspaper The Gateway, which has a handful of paragraphs about a talk that he gave. That doesn't really count as being "about" him. I can change my mind if some folks find other sources. Lamona (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
What about the sources I cited above? (In my reply to Ghost of Dan Gurney.) The 29 interviews on national television about the Fukushima accident alone? And over 100 video and audio files of media interviews, public speaking engagements, press conferences, panel discussions and webinars in which he is a featured speaker and commentator? Please look at those, I have provided the web pages above where you will find all these links. Clearly he is a 'go-to' commentator on nuclear energy, or as you put it, an "opinion celebrity". PaceVerde (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is an additional source 'about' Dr. Edwards: https://raven-research.org/dr-gordon-edwards-in-nb-to-talk-about-nuclear-energy/ This is on the website of a university-based research project, based at the University of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick. The project was funded for 5 years by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), a research granting agency of Canada's federal government. PaceVerde (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Note to closer - I note that the week is up today and this is due for closing. I have voted delete and remain unconvinced sources will be found, but I note the active attempts by new user PaceVerde to understand Wikipedia notability and to demonstrate notability. As the learning curve is steep, perhaps we can give this another week to see if they are able to find any suitable secondary sources. They are clearly familiar with the subject, and if anyone can find what is needed, it will be them, but they will need to understand what is required first. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Yes, additional time is needed to confirm sources, understand the policies and make the changes. I also note that there is no consensus in this discussion. I hope there will be when edits have been completed. PaceVerde (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The no consensus close was disruptive editing by an account created today. I have reverted it. We will need an experienced closer for this AfD owing to the high level of disruptive activity. It would be a pity if we had to request page protection for it as it would prevent you from taking part, so I would make a plea to other SPAs to leave this alone and let the process work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Request Can someone more experienced than I evaluate the sources PaceVerde has provided here in their various comments? They seem to be mostly interviews, which I think are probably considered primary. But if that many organizations are interviewing him about Nuclear Energy then it's hard to see how he is non-notable in that field. It's a bit too complex for me. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete with a possible alternative to deletion being redirection to Anti-nuclear movement in Canada. (Note that the organization Edwards heads does not have its own article). I see a start towards GNG (or perhaps WP:NPROF C7), but it surely looks short of WP:SIGCOV. Disclosing that this article came back to my attention (after earlier seeing on delsort) as a result of the disruptive close by SPA. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
A comment before this closes -- I am undertaking a source analysis and have also found some promising new sources myself, which I will post in full in the next few hours, if any closers can wait a bit. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've undertaken an expanded source assessment below addressing the newer sources linked in the article and this discussion, as well as some I found myself.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Canada might put its most dangerous nuclear wastes on shores of Lake Huron			three quotes from Edwards but the sole content about him is "Gordon Edwards, president of the nonprofit Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, based in Montreal"	✘ No
Nuclear waste questions continue to multiple	? This may be a press release from Environment North, who are hosting one of his lectures for their annual meeting		Full article is coverage of Edwards' lecture tour and background	? Unknown
CEGEP Vanier College, Mathematics Department Faculty list			This is excellent as verification of his role but since it's just his name on a list, definitly not sigcov	✘ No
1974 Nuclear Debate : G Edwards vs E Teller (TV 48m)			An interview with Edwards can't be coverage of Edwards, though it sure suggests cultural prominence	✘ No
How I Became a Nuclear Skeptic	literally by Edwards	?		✘ No
Expert weighs in on nuclear power		Student newspapers are I believe considered reliable for events on campus	533 words solely focused on Edwards' background and talk	✔ Yes
The Friendly Atom			appears to just interview Edwards (though I didn't watch the full documentary to see if it also has secondary discussion about him)	✘ No
Nuclear Courtship			Primarily interview with Edwards, but does have a few minutes about him as introduction, including recapping the debate with Teller evaluated above (which is framed as a historically notable event)	✘ No
Dr. Gordon Edwards in NB to talk about nuclear energy	? Not sure if the host of the event can count as independent for coverage of the event	Not convinced a research org's blog really counts		✘ No
There is more than one Dr. Gordon Edwards		? Appears to be a letter to the editor	A very fun piece from a different, pro-nuclear Gordon Edwards, seemingly annoyed by prior coverage of this article's Edwards	? Unknown
Nuclear watchdog's views to be heard at forums			248 words solely focused on Edwards' upcoming talks and his background, e.g., "The forums are to feature retired mathematics professor and media personality Gordon Edwards, who is currently president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. The 82-year-old Edwards obtained his PhD from Queen's University in the 1970s. He has been speaking about the potential perils of the nuclear industry for several decades."	✔ Yes
Two small communities are competing to receive Canada’s inventory of nuclear waste			Edwards gets three quotes as an expert here, but the coverage is not of him	✘ No
Nuclear coalition head warns of SEU			849 words solely focused on recapping a presentation by Edwards at a recent public meeting	✔ Yes
The people versus nuclear power: public participation in the energy debate ]interview with Gordon Edwards, chairman, Canadian coalition for nuclear responsibility], in the scholarly journal Perception, vol 2, 1979			? I can't access the full article, but by its title appears to be non-sigcov since it's an interview... though my gosh, having a featured interview in a printed scholarly journal is much rarer than getting a soundbite in a news article, and seems like a sign people are taking note of him. Likely also some biographical coverage as introduction here.	? Unknown
Nukes, climate change are both threats, say activists			two quotes from Edwards but not really sigcov of him	✘ No
Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change (book)			? Edwards is quoted for the epigraph of ch 3 on Nuclear Waste, and he and his ideas get about three paragraphs of discussion in that paragraph, plus one more in ch 4 on Nuclear Proliferation. But in the scale of a whole book that's not so much (ie no chapter just on him) and much of the focus is on his ideas rather than background.	? Unknown
Burying nuclear waste, exposing nuclear authority: Canada's nuclear waste disposal concept and expert -lay discourse, 2008 dissertation			? Cites Edwards 14 different times with small bits of discussion. The citations are all about him rather than about nuclear power, but each is just a sentence or two.	? Unknown
Profoundly Misunderstood: Nuclear Energy in Ontario, 1940s – 1980s, 2024 dissertation			? Three sentences in a whole dissertation probably isn't enough for sigcov, but it did seem promising to find it there. The full discussion of Edwards is "The CCNR, the largest anti-nuclear organization in Canada, was chaired by Dr. Gordon Edwards, who participated as an expert witness and prominent participant in the Royal Commission. Edwards oversaw every opposition submission to the Royal Commission, which will be discussed below. When cross-examined by AECL lawyers toward the end of the process, Edwards admitted every anti-nuclear submission was neither information nor public information but propaganda 'in the non-pejorative sense.'"	? Unknown
Math teacher aims to solve nuclear puzzle; Introducing . . . Gordon Edwards, Montreal Gazette 1989			510 words solely focused on profiling him as "a leading anti-nuclear activist in Montreal"	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I am personally persuaded of a keep here. There is a lot of borderline coverage, which starts to add up when it is considered as a body of forty years of expert quotations and mentions; I am particularly tantalized by how many dissertations make nods to him (more than just the ones I evaluate above). But the clincher for me is the 1989 profile of him in the Montreal Gazette as a notable resident; in conjunction with the coverage of some of his lectures and events (such as "Nuclear watchdog's views to be heard at forums"), I see GNG for him as an activist. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this extensive work. Not sure if it would belong in your table, but he is also co-author of the following:

Mathematical Sciences in Canada

Issue 38 of Background study - Science Council of Canada

Issue 37 of Background study, Science Council of Canada

Volume 37 of Science council of Canada : Background study

Authors Klaus P. Beltzner, Gordon D. Edwards, Albert John Coleman

Edition illustrated

Publisher Science Council of Canada, 1976

ISBN 0660003880, 9780660003887

Length 339 pages

Subjects Education › General

Mathematics / General

PDF found here on University of Ottawa website. https://www.uottawa.ca/research-innovation/sites/g/files/bhrskd326/files/2022-08/background_study_no._37_-_mathematical_sciences_in_canada.pdf

Could be relevant to the comment above suggesting WP:NPROF. It includes his detailed bio (as of 1975). Also if one is considering his notability as an academic (college professor), he earned a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship (1961) - is that considered a "highly prestigious academic award or honor" (national or international)? According to WP:NPROF, that alone qualifies as notable. PaceVerde (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm honoring an informal request to relist this discussion. Just an aside, positing conspiracy theories or speculating on some "nefarious person" serves to undermine the speaker's position and are, by and large, ignored by experienced editors who would be reviewing this AFD discussion. Focus on Wikipedia's standards of notability and whether reliable sources providing SIGCOV exist, either in the article or brought into this discussion. Right now though, a majority of participants are arguing for Deletion so those editors wanting to Keep this article would be wise to spend their time looking for better sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Re your comment that "a majority of participants are arguing for Deletion," I count 8 keeps in this discussion. Three of them are near the top in a reply and two comments copied from an earlier nomination. Those individuals seemed not familiar with the convention of stating "Keep" at the start of one's comment, but they are clearly for keeping. At the moment I see 4 deletes and one weak delete. I am aware this is not a vote as per guidelines. PaceVerde (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I mean, we have confirmation of the Nuclear Responsibility group and he's written articles [9], but nothing about this person. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I found several new sources in ProQuest, included in my source table above: I would describe several of them as being about him, especially the profile in the Montreal Gazette. Does your assessment include those? I only ask because I’m concerned I didn’t make my finds clear enough. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: There's an Entymologist (bug scientist) with some coverage [10], but it doesn't appear to be this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I'm persuaded enough by LEvalyn's expanded SA table to strike my delete !vote, but will stop short of changing my !vote to keep as I cannot verify the sources on ProQuest myself. Am now neutral. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I have struck my delete above having reviewed the source analysis by LEvalyn above. I think it is still marginal, but I think the range of these sources is sufficient to take this over the line. My specific comments are as follows (I am just going to treat the sources as numbered from 1-19 in the table rather than duplicate the table, and I will not mention sources where we both agree they don't add to notability):

Source 2: I agree with you that this looks like it is off a press release so not independent.

Source 6: Edwards came to the student campus and this is the student newspaper report of it. The article is long, but what i actually says about Edwards as background is just “Dr Gordon Edwards, an expert on nuclear energy and the President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility,” which is pretty much off his website. I don’t think this is significant coverage about Edwards

Sources 11&13: Local press, articles as you describe them A lot of people will take these asis. I tend to be a little sceptical, but the range of local press across more than one locality is worth noting.

Source 16: This open access book does not appear to be independent. It says: "Gordon Edwards, quoted at the start of this chapter and whose work substantially informed this chapter, is President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility." (page 23)

Source 17: PhD thesis. I couldn’t find the coverage as I was only getting a preview. This may be a good one. Where it talks about Edwards, is this information from which a page could be written? The thesis does not have to be about him, but to be significant coverage, it must discuss Edwards, so that we have something the article could be written from. This is a definite maybe.

Source 18: MA dissertation. We usually only use PhDs, although, to be honest, I have some issues with that, as our standards are much lower when it comes to other things - but I won’t sidetrack onto that. You already had it as questionable, and it remains so.

Source 19: Agree. This one counts.

So all in all, there is one that I clearly agree on, one source that may also be very good. We need multiple sources to pass GNG, but my feeling is that given one clear one, and the range of the others, I don't think there is a clear case for deleting this article. Note, however, that the title is wrong. He is a mathematician, not a scientist (as per the amusing source among others). He is notable for heading up his campaign, and not for being a scientist. A page move would be in order after the AfD closes to a title that corrects that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in in such detail; you’ve given this AfD a lot of careful and generous attention. I think your enumerated concerns are fair except for the book, which really looks independent to me. Saying that Edward’s’ work substantially informed a chapter strikes me as scholar-speak for “Edwards is influential and I read a lot of his writing” not “I personally know or ever spoke to Edwards”. Edwards is not thanked in the acknowledgments nor is he quoted from anything but public sources so I would be surprised to learn he was involved with the book. (But, the source may still not be solid for GNG since he’s proportionately a small part of the book…)

I agree that “scientist” is wrong. I think “anti-nuclear activist” would be most accurate to how the sources refer to him, even during the period that he was also a math teacher. But I’m neutral on what the new title should be. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Not swayed by the sources in the last table above; marginal sources one and all. If we had at least ONE decent story in a RS about this guy I might be ok with a weak keep, I'm just not seeing enough coverage to show notability. Still a !delete from me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: He comes up in newspaper articles in the 70s and 80s [11], [12], [13], bu they're just him speaking about xyz subject in the field, attending a conference or talking about it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Also note in the new SA, the article "Nuclear waste questions continue to multiple" is not a press release, it is a guest column in a newspaper, The Chronicle-Journal (Thunder Bay, Ontario), author identified as a climatologist with Lakehead University who is also vice-president on the board of directors of Environment North, a charitable organization. The fact it is published in a daily newspaper with a significant circulation and owned by a known newspaper publisher makes it independent. That would now make 4 independent, reliable sources about Edwards in the SA. [User:PaceVerde|PaceVerde]] (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Basem Al-Shayeb

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

I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles about people. The article heavily references the accolades and accomplishments of this person, seemingly for no other reason than to make them sound impressive, but their listed accomplishments and scientific contributions, though interesting on their own merits, are frankly not very noteworthy against the backdrop of the molecular biology field. They obtained a PhD from UC Berkeley, got their dissertation work published in some high-profile journals, and co-founded a startup- so what? This is not a singular accomplishment; this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone. There are many other individuals like them out there for which we do not - and should not - have articles.

Furthermore, the article shows every sign of having been written by either the subject themself or someone close to them, with the intent of misrepresenting their accomplishments for self-aggrandizing purposes; to wit:

1. The article as originally written named the subject as the founder of the listed company; they were a co-founder.

2. The article as originally written stated that the subject "led the discovery of" the various listed topics; they were co-first author on two of the papers and a first author on one, and moreover all of this work was evidently done during their PhD, meaning that their graduate advisor technically "led" the work in question.

3. Following my attempts to correct these misstatements, at least two single-purpose accounts were created which proceeded to revert these changes and call into question my motives in editing. I have little doubt one or both of these accounts belongs to the subject of the article.

I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 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 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Wiki analytics indicate that the page has been visited 7130 times, with 13 average visits per day this year. There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This suggests some noteworthiness, even if you personally think it undeserved. A quick search also yields further attributions that are not present in the article, including references in two 2024 books: Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl, and The Nobel Prizes 2020 By Karl Grandin.

It appears that the original edits that you mentioned, Xardwen, had deleted relevant news sources. They also included unsourced information, a copyrighted photo and a LinkedIn profile which are all against WP and the edits were addressed by seasoned wikipedians accordingly. It is inappropriate to insert unsourced personal opinions or skepticisms into an article. Your statements also seem to repeatedly violate both WP:AFG Assume Good Faith and WP:PA No Personal Attacks principles with potentially libelous phrases against a public figure?

Considering your edit warring and your statement of being in the same field and in the same city as the subject, can you explain what precisely is your role or personal and financial relation to the subject for COI purposes? You mentioned strong opinions on biographies, but you have not edited any other biography apart this one. In fact, aside pages on erectile dysfunction, this is the top page you have edited. I have no tie to this topic but I hold strongly that Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta. Pantrail (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your semantic first author comment, you are enforcing a biased personal opinion in contradiction with referenced sources, which state a leading role. A first author in biological sciences is typically the person who led the work on a day-to-day basis and is considered to have made the most substantial contributions to the overall research. In cases of co-first authorship, all co-first authors are considered to have "led" the work. Your edit was inaccurate because you removed this detail in your stated effort to undermine the subject Pantrail (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to preface the following by saying again that I would very much like a senior editor to weigh in on this matter; I believe an experienced and impartial voice is sorely needed here. That being said:

The Wikipedia guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows: people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The secondary sources cited in the article are as follows: The Independent, GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, Chemical Engineering News, CRISPR Medicine, Forbes, Arab America, ScienceAlert, IFLScience, SYFY Official Site, TechCrunch, Berkeley News, The Daily Californian, and the Innovative Genomics Institute website (apologies if I have missed any sources). Of these, I would say that only the first four qualify as reliable and intellectually independent of one another and the subject; the subject was listed in Forbes and Arab America's "30 under 30" lists and thus calling these sources "independent" is questionable, and the last three listed sources are affiliated with the institution where the subject did their doctoral research. ScienceAlert is described as controversial and sensationalistic in its Wikipedia article; IFLScience is described as similarly unreliable in the article on its founder; TechCrunch seems fairly reliable based on this analysis by Ad Fontes Media; SYFY is an entertainment company and should not be regarded as reliable when it comes to science reporting, though the subject's mention by them does speak to the extent of their publicity. Indeed, if their work had not been (rather sensationalistically, in some cases) reported by multiple media outlets, and were I not also a researcher in the subject's field, then I would never have heard of them to begin with. I assure you that were I to learn of another researcher in my field with a Wikipedia page that I felt was unwarranted, I would respond exactly as I have here; this was simply the first such example I have come across.

I would like to briefly interject here that I have never stated that I live in the same city as the subject. I am not sure how this misconception arose. I also do not believe that I am obligated to reveal any information about myself beyond what I already have, and I will decline to do so if asked. I have said previously that I have no personal or financial relation to the subject, and that is all I have to say on the matter.

Regarding my other interests as indicated by my edit history, I do not see how this is relevant, but I appreciate you taking the time to look through my prior contributions - I hope that you found them interesting and informative. I cannot help but notice, however, that you have engaged with exactly no articles aside from the one under discussion, and that your account did not exist prior to last month. The same is true for Xerxescience, who has behaved in a more-or-less identical manner. I find this to be extremely suspect.

Regarding your statements about co-first authorship: yes, it is true that co-first authors on a scientific publication are both regarded as having "led" the work described, but regardless, I think it is unfair and misleading not to explicitly give both individuals equal credit in an article that describes their work. Likewise regarding being a co-founder of a company- yes, a co-founder is obviously considered a founder, but listing them simply as "founder" gives an inaccurate impression of their role in the company's history- and, not incidentally, makes the referenced individual sound more impressive, which seems to be a throughline of almost every aspect of this article as it was initially written.

To the extent that my actions have violated Wikipedia's rules: granted, and I aim to do better to avoid running afoul of them in future. I believe that my criticisms and concerns are valid even if I have crossed some lines, or had a bit too much fun at Mr. Al-Shayeb's expense. As I've said above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are. Xardwen (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in as an independent observer, as the flag to remove this article caught my eye. I think this article inflates the significance of its subject. There are thousands of people who recently graduated with PhDs from top universities with papers in top journals each year, yet most of these people do not have Wikipedia articles written about themselves. The wording of the first paragraph reads as an advertisement for Amber Bio. The second included information about the individual being a peer reviewer, which is a non-noteworthy duty that nearly every academic scientist fulfills.The studies called out in the third paragraph were made possible only through the hard work of a large team of fellow students, postdocs, and even Prof. Banfield herself. Given the other co-authors' (including Prof. Banfield's) documented roles in the work, I think the term "led" to describe this individual's involvement is disingenuous. Additionally, there are 600 people located in North America who are added to the Forbes "30 Under 30" list annually (30 people across 20 industries); I think Wikipedia call-outs of achievements should be saved for actually meaningful and highly selective awards. I respectfully disagree that the subject of this article represents a "public figure."

I call on Wikipedia leadership to investigate whether the multiple accounts that created and have been editing this article in a disingenuous/advertising way represent "sock puppets" of the same person. If proven to trace back to the same person, then every indicted account should be banned for violating Wikipedia's policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform. Hemelina (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This has become quite ridiculous. The content of the page cannot be based on subjective opinion of a user, or terminology they think should be used, but rather the information in the sources. Xardwen has now added the same unsourced information and libelous material multiple times, and subjective synthesis of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and not your blog. Sources cannot be removed based on your subjective opinion of whether information is important, or how "scientific" a source is, or your biased opinion on noteworthiness of the subject's work. And I say it is biased because Xardwen has already engaged in forum shopping and has accused me of COI, and was thusly already resolved by administrators for being baseless. Meanwhile, he states he in the subject's "field" and the address associated with his account links to the San Francisco metropolitan area, in particular Berkeley. It is abundantly clear that he is somehow linked to the subject and has been obsessively editing the page to harass and malign them, which he has expressed himself "with savage delight". Hemelina is also a brand new account that is likely Xardwen's sockpuppet to further target this page, having just been created to install the same baseless claims and remove information. Xerxescience (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well. Whoopsies. Regardless, I have no personal or financial connection to the subject, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. I have no idea who User:Hemelina is, either. I have opened a "Request for Comment" on the article's Talk page; I hope that this matter will shortly be moved into the hands of more experienced editors.Xardwen (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xardwen you have yet again inserted original synthesis of your own subjective opinions into the page, replacing the language that was presented in the source articles, and violating Wikipedia:No original research after multiple warnings. I will also note the interesting presentation of the same typos as User:Hemelina. Xerxescience (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion of an article subject and whether or not you believe they "deserve" an article on this project. None of your opinions are based in Wikipedia policy which, along with consensus, is how AFD discussions are closed. In this case, the standards for notability is WP:NACADEMIC and comments should be made in reference to whether or not this subject can be considered notable by this standard or, less likely, WP:GNG. Notability isn't determined based on editors' opinion, much less accusations against your fellow editors, but based on reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV. Some analysis of sources was done here and I thank you for that start. Those who disagree with the nominator's proposal would spend their time more productively by addressing their evaluation of sources or by finding better ones. It is also clear that none of you have participated in an AFD discussion because it helps the closer if you, except for the nominator, cast a bolded "vote" like Keep or Delete or Redirect. Assessing consensus isn't a vote count but some times when editors post long comments, like in this AFD, a bolded vote makes it obvious what outcome you want to happen. Here's hoping we get some participation from AFD regulars who could also offer a source assessment. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep - The article text demonstrates that the subject's research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline and beyond.

Referenced articles state Al-Shayeb's role in having "led" / "helmed" (100+ year old magazine by the American Chemical Society) multiple major publications that have each received significant coverage, and cited by multiple reputable perspective pieces as having major impact or "shift our understanding" of how we think about viruses and other elements https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02975-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0341-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00574-z These discoveries are influential in the fields of microbiology and gene editing, as independently outlined by multiple different editors in the 2021 in science and 2022 in science pages, which highlighted major discoveries of the year. Several of these discoveries also have their own separate Wiki pages. Considering the Wiki reference search shows 3,090 results, and over 100 different news articles, I addressed only some concerns mentioned.
As referred to above by @Pantrail, Al-shayeb's work on new CRISPR tools is discussed as the cutting edge of genetic engineering technology in the 2020 Nobel Prize lecture with Al-Shayeb credited by name, and in the 2024 book Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl. To say "this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone" is a fallacious and subjective view of science. By that standard, nobody qualifies since nobody does science alone. The article and sources state that he led the work, not that he or any scientist did it alone.
Prestigious journals like the Nature Portfolio are known for their rigorous standards, only accepting "ground-breaking" research. These journals presumably similarly carefully select reviewers who are leading experts, and reviewing for said journals is a testament to the subject's significant authority and extensive record of impactful research in their discipline.

The person has also had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The published work is in development by major companies demonstrating real-world impact beyond academia. The work on RNA-guided therapies highlights how the research has translated directly into medical innovation by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Recognition from mainstream sources like Forbes Magazine (from which there are at least 5 different articles on subject) and other outlets also indicates broad public and professional acknowledgment of his influence beyond the academic realm. This shows substantial impact in both the academic sphere and the wider industry. The nominator claimed Al-Shayeb has affiliation with the editorial board of Forbes Magazine or the Daily Californian multiple times now and suggested that it diminishes their credibility, but provided no evidence, or that this presumed affiliation led to the coverage. He also conveniently dismissed the outlets or sources curated by industry experts such as GEN, c&en, CRISPR Medicine, Nature Magazine News, Science Magazine News, Futurism (credibility), LiveScience (rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by NewsGuard) or the work in TechCrunch, The Independent that corroborate the same reporting that the nominator claimed to be "non-credible or sensationalistic"

Xerxescience (talk) 07:01, 19 September 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.