Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

26 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< August 25	August 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Nellore Airport

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

Always been a proposed airport, no developments. Appears to be TOOSOON. Can be recreated if the airport actually reaches construction or approval stages. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "proposed" project is still going through designs, plans, bids, contracts, budget, approvals and is too early to warrant a standalone Page on this airport. Case of WP:TOOSOON and not notable as of yet. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG. Charliehdb (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Dagadarthi or Nellore. This appears to have attracted a lot of coverage already, but if it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article yet we should merge to one of the above articles. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge) - there's extensive coverage of the project's multi-year development saga. ~~Note WP:CRYSTAL~~ Eg, 2018: Centre okays 3 airports in AP; efforts on to expedite tenders, 2020: A.P. govt. cancels Nellore international airport concession agreement, 2022:Works for Nellore airport to begin in April, 2024: Govt. proposes to set up four new airports in Andhra Pradesh. FWIW TOOSOON is not really relevant (and is an essay, WP:CRYSTAL is policy), notability is available because of the attempt to develop the airport. However, WP:NOPAGE is useful to recall and agree with Thryduulf, merging to one of the local towns could be appropriate to the point when (if) construction officially begins. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany, Windhoek

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

Article merely confirms it exists. No third-party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Germany. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities

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

Very unclear whether this group of "lower communities" which includes e.g. Sat-Sudra (considered higher castes), is a commonly accepted grouping with a clear definition, or some division created specifically for this article. Also not clear if the topic (Sanskrit texts by caste division) is a topic of study and whether these people are grouped together scholarly, or if this is some novel WP:SYNTH list. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, Hinduism, and India. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article of Sat-Sudra is very badly written. I have suggested an edit but my edit is reverted. Please check. Sat-shoodras are only higher than other shudras (asat shudras) and lower than every other varna. That is, Lower than Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishya. See the note on sat-shoodra there. Caste boundaries can't be clearly defined due to their complexities. The main castes are mentioned themselves which are considered lower nonetheless. Sat-shoodra only highlights their status in varna system. This is a dynamic list and more people from other communities can be added by everyone. The topic of debate has always been whether lower communities have contributed to sanskrit among scholars. This article helps in breaking the myths of denial of education and lack of scholarship among lower communities and foster inclusivity. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiol Rexhepi

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Only stat sites and passing mentions can be found. Modest career with 90 minutes in Albania's highest league and 41 games in the semi-pro second tier. Geschichte (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samet Ruqi

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Modest career with 5 games in Albania's highest league (according to Worldfootball) and several seasons in the semi-pro second tier. The best sources I could find were this short interview and this short transactional news piece. Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRAM diet

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

An article about a medical diet treatment. Dismally sourced, and flagged as such since its creation in 2010. I can't find any reference that remotely meets WP:MEDRS (everything online seems to be a mirror or rewording of this article). I asked for expert help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#CRAM diet to no effect. If this was in any way a notable treatment, surely there would be some worthwhile mention online for it. I don't think we should redir to the similar BRAT diet, which is much better sourced. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Inner Mongolia

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

As the article's first sentence states, Inner Mongolia does not have a flag. The article has not been reliably sourced for almost six years and this is unlikely to change because no notable flag has been claimed as the "flag of Inner Mongolia". The scope of the article is more akin to "flags used in Inner Mongolia" or "flags used by Inner Mongolian organisations", as there is a gallery of organisational flags and a brief write-up on two organisations'. However, none of this is sourced, and the actual scope of the article is extremely limited anyways, being nothing more than a mirror of a Wikimedia Commons gallery. Yue🌙 06:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany, Chișinău

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article is merely a 1 line sentence which confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Schuster

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

Only cites one source of dubious reliability. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peyton Place (TV series) where she is already mentioned; there does not appear to be a "characters of" article. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chol-ho

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Chol-man

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear craze

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

Concerns about WP:GNG as raised earlier on the article's talk page by another user, which I'll repeat below:

A quick search of Google Scholar returns the sum total of one book that mentions the concept of a "clear craze" ever existing, or that it was a thing that was defined to the 1980s or 1990s. I am almost certain this article fails notability and significance. I am not sure how I ended up here to be honest but I see no significance or notability to this article or its contents. Moreover, I fail to see how the term "clear craze" is encyclopedic in any real sense. Further to the point tabloid trends do not construe a relevant or notable reason for this article to be here.

At current, this article loosely collates a list of products that were released around the 1990s that had a transparent design, which is anecdotally indeed something that some products did during that time that can be called a trend. However, the article's collation of them and framing them as a "clear craze" overstep the mark when the nomenclature and grouping is not subject to significant secondary coverage. We don't have an article for Global Village Coffeehouse even though the term means something and connotes an obvious trend without more secondary sources that substantiate the term. Some reflections include the following:

(1) Firstly, on the use of the phrase, the beverage 'clear craze' seems very loosely to be a thing that some sources like the Newsweek article in the context of the trend to create clear beverages or consumer products to reflect claims about the purity and healthiness of the product. I am not sure that this makes it notable, given that the only source really holding the article up at the moment is the Newsweek one, but it seems that this is where the term is coming from. There's very little secondary analysis, and pivotal sentences in the article like "the clear craze became official with its first wave of products" are unsourced. A brief look around for the term doesn't find much use of "clear craze" as a phrasing, although I found it in or the book The Nineties by Chuck Klosterman (around p. 191) [1]. So thinking critically here, without evidence of consumer demand for this style, "craze" at best falsely connotes a marketing strategy that does not, in fact, reflect a "craze" for the products. The most notable example on the page, Crystal Pepsi, was a failure.

(2) Following from that, on the categorisation of products included, the article spuriously conflates the concept of the 'clear craze' as it applied to beverages and consumables to other trends in transparent product design, particularly transparent casings of consumer electronics in the later 90s that seem to have occurred well after the fact of the sourced products. From what I can tell, the link isn't explicitly made by the sources. Ultimately, the article is a list of products with very little explanation of what unites them. There is not a lot of sourcing or analysis to justify why certain things are in the article other than that an editor or other has found a source about a clear-looking product from that era, attributed it to the "clear craze", and put it in. This is not really the most rigorous approach when trying to define a term for a historical design trend.

If this is deemed notable, suggest a rewrite of the article focusing on (a) the substance and use of the term, and (b) being more rigorous about what about products from that era make it attributable to the trend, backed by sources. Welcome any thoughts - thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansolet Rossouw

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

Not a notable model. No references that are non-trivial and non-promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Africa. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to which references are "trivial" or "promotional" as last I checked, News24 is a South African news website, not PR Newswire. Marie Claire is a fashion magazine. V is a fashion magazine. CR Fashion Book is a fashion magazine and so on. None of them are providing trivia. They verified the work she's done and according to the sources… it's notable. Trillfendi (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Museums and libraries, and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – includes references and suitable information, needs to settle down rather than have instant dismissal. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone International School

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

Declined draft moved by original author. Article is about a school with no independent significant coverage from reliable sources. This fails WP:NORG. I am not opposed to this going back to draft if evidence that this private school is potentially notable is given. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is wasting time in AFD, it should have been deleted via CSD A7. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:A7 specifically doesn't apply to education institutions. I think this is the right venue, although moving declined drafts to mainspace is what is time wasting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or else just delete it, and to be clear, if it were draftified and then moved to mainspace again without an accepted AfC submission, I would !vote to delete. I have tried searching, although the name is tricky as it is not unique. Adding Nigeria as a qualfier turns up almost nothing and nothing useful. Sources may exist that are not in English, but as it stands there is no demonstration of notability on the page, nor any other sources to consider. On the plus side, the school has been open nearly 30 years and appears to have a suitably large role that its notability within the area it serves may well be sufficient. Schools don't have to be internationally renowened to have a page, but they do need to be shown to be notable with reliable secondary sources. The page creator has added quite a lot of good history, but the sourcing on that is also unclear. The creator is new to Wikipedia, and perhaps unaware of the notability guidelines, and it would be unfortunate to waste their efforts by summarily deleting this page. I think draftify is appropriate in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone International School is one of the most reputable and notable schools in port harcourt, Nigeria. You could try searching on Google for Cornerstone International School Port Harcourt. It is literally the biggest school in town which is why I was surprised when t wasn’t in the list of notable schools in port harcourt, category and then I decided to add it. The other schools in the area you can check also don’t have as reputable online sources except their website information because schools or anything not political rarely get written about online in that area of the world. I think yall are using your first world lenses a bit. That school is really renowned. 31.205.127.189 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siebel Scholars

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

Insufficient referencing to demonstrate notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. CptViraj (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Organizations, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Rizivi

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers.
The attempted notability claim here is an unreferenced list of minor awards from small-fry film festivals whose awards are not instant notability clinchers -- WP:NFILM is looking for Oscars, Canadian Screen Awards, BAFTAs or major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin or TIFF whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, not just any film festival that exists -- but apart from two hits of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown media (and a New York Times hit that tangentially verifies the existence of a podcast that she was not involved in creating, and thus is not about her in any GNG-contributing sense), this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was at a misspelling of her name: I moved it to Jia Rizvi (as on her website and in other sources), then realised one isn't supposed to move an article during an AfD and moved it back again. So as I type it is at the wrong title. PamD
Note also: most sources refer to her as Jia Wertz, but her own web page uses Rizvi. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there seem to be enough articles about her as film-maker. It was a badly-written article but I've cleaned up some of the problems - use of forename, curly quotes, lack of links, overlinks, etc. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And bizarre system of reference names too: "one" etc. Have fixed the most-re-used. PamD 10:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She doesn’t seem to pass WP:NDIRECTOR but the Calgary Herald and GlobalNews profiles are sufficient SIGCOV for this to clear WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She’s won some accolades in smaller film festivals, but not the bigger ones like Cannes (which actually isn’t that difficult to get into). Right now, the sourcing isn’t up to the level we usually expect from significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Ho

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.

Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:

Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Wikipedia page
Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Wikipedia page itself lacks secondary sources)
Impact on Higher education: no evidence
Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
Administrative post: no evidence
Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Wikipedia page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize [2], (state-level) Carnegie Science award [3], Blavatnik finalist [4], and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation [5]. I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
- Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA [6]) generally do not seem to have Wikipedia pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
- The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
- It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
- Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation [7] comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Trying to understand whether this should be considered extraordinary impact, I just had a look at Web of Science (which usually only considers actual citations to peer-reviewed journals). It reads 9 publications as first author (2 of them with more than 50 citations) and 23 as last author (3 of them with more than 50 citations). In addition, there are ~20 publications with more than 50 citations on GS where Ho is neither first nor last author. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases

It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.

Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.

Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: [7], [8] [9], [10] [11] Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the 11 edit (all on this subject) for these comments. Do you have any connection with the subject that should be reported under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

WP:COI: It is indeed an interesting coincidence that "Surely" in User:Surelyyouarejoking is pronounced similarly to "Shirley", and that the page was originally created by a similar single-purpose profile User:Shirleysurely and soon deleted for lack of notability. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgebrown5566, you are also a new user account, and nominating Shirley Ho for deletion is your third edit ever. Doesn't this suggest your account to also be a similar single-purpose profile? CaptainAngus (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a triggering event. As a scientist too (in a different field) it hurts to see relatively young scientists using this site to boost their notoriety. Instead of complaining, I thought I could make the difference, and more is coming! You can see more contributions on my side (time permitting), I asked my mentor if I am following the right procedure, and yes, please feel free to give feedback or suggest other ways to help! I don't know the person or the specific awards, this is what I could find online, so please double check :) Georgebrown5566 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: (please see the comment above for the discussion about the questionable impact, considering both first and last authorship); papers should be peer-reviewed to be considered, and [8], which appears to be only a preprint, does not contribute to WP:PROF#1; according to Web of Science, Ho appears to be the senior person on about 14% of her publications
Awards: the question is whether the Blavatnik Prize is a major award comparable with the Nobel prize or Fields Medal, or whether it still conveys a high level of academic prestige; in the case of Blavatnik, Ho is a finalist but did not even win the full award [9].
Media coverage: should we consider the contributions to "Polymathic AI" as general notability WP:GNG? the organization does not have a Wikipedia page and does not seem to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research (I could only find one published paper of arguable impact). The mentioned articles show media coverage but do not show impact, since they mainly refer to the beginning of the collaboration but not to its achievements; it is written in an interview style and many of the articles come from institutions affiliated with the initiative [9, 11], probably not independent.

Maybe this could be considered for WP:TOOSOON? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOOSOON is what you say, after justifying a delete opinion, when you think they are on track to become notable later. It is not a justification in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NPROF#5. A named chair at Carnegie Mellon is listed here ("She joined Carnegie Mellon as an Assistant Professor in 2011, becoming Cooper Siegel Career Development Chair Professor and tenured Associate Professor.")
I consider @David Eppstein's comments on citations and prizes persuasive as well, in lieu of my own capacity to weigh in on their relevance. Oblivy (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That definitely does not pass #C5, though. C5 is for "a comparable level of achievement" to distinguished professor, a step above an ordinary full professorship. A "career development chair" given to newly tenured associate professors does not match that description. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That makes sense. In fact, I found the listing of dual-roles (chaired professor and associate professor) confusing. So much to learn... Oblivy (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casino chip collecting

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - I might've nominated this too soon. (non-admin closure)‎ MiasmaEternal☎ 05:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails to meet the WP:GNG at first glance - no cited sources are independent or reliable, and does not appear to have significant coverage. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a brief, preliminary search I can see that the topic of casino chip collecting has been the subject of significant coverage in a wide variety of sources including:

Overall I believe there is enough to justify inclusion. The article as it stands is not well sourced, but I believe there is enough sourcing out there. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three of these revolve around a Guinness Book of World Records entry - a search on WP:RSN indicates a mixed opinion on the notability of Guinness Book of World Records. As for the rest of the articles, the majority seem to be mainly about individual chip collectors or (in the case of the NY Times article) a chip collecting convention, not the subject of chip collection. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concede to you that the coverage primarily focuses on the conventions themselves rather than the hobby of chip collecting in isolation. However, the existence of dedicated conventions for casino chip collecting is a strong indicator of the topics's notability, particularly given their reporting in perrenial sources. These conventions highlight the significant community interest and engagement in chip collecting. To me, fact that enthusiasts gather to discuss, trade, and showcase collections, highlight's the notability of the topic. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by @MaxnaCarta especially the LV Sun and 3newsLV articles., Delmarvanow and Norwich Bulletin are substantial but maybe too regional. Plus a price guide which I think counts as book-length treatment of the subject for notability purposes, or at least significant coverage to the extent of any prefatory material.

I would note that the nomination statement does not state a WP:BEFORE search was done. Rather it appears to be based on "at first glance" and "cited sources". Such searches, if done, might have avoided an AfD as there are plentiful sources not found in the article. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Alüto

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

The only Japanese-language sources I found seem to be press releases when machine translated. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing any indication of notability. Before search returned nothing. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked for sources on Google and Newspapers.com. Nothing came up, I also translated the sources in the article and they are not independent or in-depth. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]