From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA: Computer science Information

Articles for deletion

  • 28 Jul 2024 – Easy Programming Language ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by CanonNi ( t ·  c); see discussion (5 participants)
  • 18 Jul 2024 – Genie (programming language) ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by IntGrah ( t ·  c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted)
  • 18 Jul 2024 – Pure (programming language) ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated ( t ·  c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted)
  • 18 Jul 2024 – Join Java ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated ( t ·  c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted)
  • 16 Jul 2024Strong monad ( talk ·   ·  hist) AfDed by Beefyt ( t ·  c) was closed as keep by Liz ( t ·  c) on 28 Jul 2024; see discussion (15 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

( 2 more...)

Good article nominees

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

( 22 more...)

AA: Computing Information

Did you know

Articles for deletion

( 13 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

( 3 more...)

Miscellany for deletion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

( 33 more...)

Articles to be split

( 17 more...)

Articles for creation

( 50 more...)

AfD: Computing Information

Computing

Kevin McSheehan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. the article creator also uploaded the lead image as an "own work", so seems to be an autobiography. ltb d l ( talk) 10:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete astroturfed COI trash from Wikipedia on general principle. The fact that the guy does not meet the notability standards is also concerning. jp× g 🗯️ 11:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: could probably use a rewrite, but there is coverage [1], [2] and this, but it's more of an interview [3]. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, of the single event. jp× g 🗯️ 01:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    Kevin again. The Slack RCE and Bitcoin P2P DoS David Gerard removed kicked like a mule but he decides reality here. 37.140.254.206 ( talk) 07:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete he did two things, two, and the sources are a bunch of interviews about the first of those things. Not notable. win8x ( talking | spying) 12:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    Read the revision history. Slack RCE, Bitcoin P2P DoS, in addition to the CIA/X incident. I’m surprised you don’t want to take aim at all the “hackers” who got busted hacking celebrities if you’re on the hunt for nobody hackers. Do you need to be caught for CFAA to land a Wikipedia page? lul 37.140.254.206 ( talk) 07:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Celjski Grad ( talk) 16:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • This is another David Gerard ( https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin) hit piece. According to #wikipedia-en IRC logs, David had Kevin blocked on Twitter, over a personal gripe, in advance of his "updates" where he removed NIST and Portswigger (Burp Suite) as sources for a Bitcoin P2P Denial-of-Service and a Slack RCE (Remote code execution) — you can query AI to see whether he meets notability guidelines altogether. And finally the NIST source evidences his X/Twitter and GitHub accounts. Anther hit piece by the David Gerard.
Review the revision history. This isn't BLP1E. Aerno ( talk) 17:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)BLP violations from the precedening comment have been removed. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a crock.

Listen, buddy: I have personally given David Gerard quite a bit of castigation and disdain for his windmill-tilting crusade to remove sources he doesn't like. It is true that he was involved in a highly embarrassing incident a couple years ago where he got into beef with a blogger and crapped on his article: he is now topic-banned from anything relating to that blogger.

But, like, is that it? Is that your only argument? "The guy who removed a source from this article was a dick to some unrelated person three years ago"? Do you think we are so stupid we can't read the revision history ourselves and see what happened? Come on.

When I looked at the revision history, what I saw was someone with a barely-used account in the last twenty years uploading an image of the article subject as "own work" (meaning that they either are the subject or are being paid by him) and then writing an article about some non-notable guy puffed up with irrelevant garbage citations. The only stuff David removed was slop. Here is what you put in the page:
As an entrepreneur, he founded the penetration testing startup Envadr and co-invented "US20190114707A1 - Distribution of Blockchain Tokens". Google Patents. Retrieved June 21, 2024. an economic model for an experimental stablecoin.
This is a spam link to a corporate website and a citation to a patent filing. See WP:PATENTS -- this is nothing. Do you have any idea how many people are listed as inventors on patents? My buddy Olaf has like three, and my other buddy Joe has like twelve. They don't have Wikipedia articles. If you search their names here you will find nothing. The only thing a patent assignment proves is that, at some point, you either worked at a big company or gave a patent attorney a few thousand bucks. Is this part of the swirling Gerard conspiracy too? The other article you cited, about the Slack vuln, was from https://portswigger.net/ Trusted by security professionals. Best-in-class software and learning for security engineers and penetration testers. Products Solutions Research Academy Support -- uh okay. Why is this company's website a source for an article in an encyclopedia? There's a nist.gov link, but again, this is a database. My name is also listed somewhere on a .gov website. This doesn't mean anything.

Speaking of a few thousand bucks, per this Twitter post from Kevin McSheehan advertising a Telegram channel, it only costs that much in bribes to get an article written about you in the New York Times, so he should just do that and come back. jp× g 🗯️ 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Kevin here. That’s a lot of text for “NIST and Portswigger aren’t valid cybersecurity references.”
If Wikipedia has become some bizarre gate keeping thing I don’t want to be on it. Vote for removal from the subject. 37.140.254.206 ( talk) 07:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
It's a lot of text because this is a debate, and jpxg is defending his position. Attacking his argument as "it's a lot of text" is completely missing the point of an Articles for Deletion debate. (For the record, I'm staying out of this except to note that someone tried to canvas this debate in favour of keeping the article on IRC, using the same "David Gerard removed sources" argument proffered and rebutted here.) — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: reliable sources mention two notable events, meets GNG Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 21:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
no, they're interviews, so primary sources. ltb d l ( talk) 23:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Tuleap (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I note the two prior AfDs. I also note the banner at the head containing multiple flags for improvements not addressed since September 2018. I suggest that they have not been addressed because they cannot be addressed. Fails WP:GNG, is improperly sourced, and is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Bounce Back Technologies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable IT consultancy, fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage from reliable sources found in a WP:BEFORE search. Referenced only by a press release posted to two websites. Borderline speedy WP:A7. Wikishovel ( talk) 13:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and United Arab Emirates. Wikishovel ( talk) 13:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: "offers technology solutions " is so vague, pretty much any product could be described that way - there doesn't appear to be anything to say about this company. Only given sources are press releases. -- D'n'B- t -- 14:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a blatant WP:PROMO. LibStar ( talk) 13:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Easy Programming Language (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable programming language. The only sources are the language's official website, and I found no online sources in English or Chinese that establish notability. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talkcontribs) 12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, does not help that searching for easy programming language just brings up a list of languages that are "easy"
but yeah, google scholar search [4] also seems to indicate little to no interest in the language. The current article attracts little attention and is mostly a manual for hello world. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 00:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
It appears chinese in origin. If an editor with experience in chinese programming language could help provide info, that would be nice.
There are some sourcing in the chinese wikipedia [5], but they suffer same problem as what nom suggests Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • delete since sourcing from zhwiki article does not use reliable sourcing, and barely any sources online. Toadette Edit! 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep per WP:Notability (software). This language is taught in middle schools across the country. However, a more thorough search for sources is needed. IntGrah ( talk) 12:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
A quick search found these sources:
  • On the use of modules in the Easy Programming Language [6]
  • Usage and research on the Easy Programming Language [7]
  • A comparative study of Chinese and English visual programming [8]
  • I need this and so I solve it like this. Needs and tools for students and professionals of translation and interpreting in the face of the digital multilingual challenge [9]
However, they don't have open access. There are also many articles about the usage of the language, but I excluded them from here. It appears sufficient to conclude notability.
IntGrah ( talk) 12:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: As above, cannot find any sources to indicate notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgp28 ( talkcontribs)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. The sources found by IntGrah ( talk · contribs)'s excellent research:
      1. Dong, Xiaolei 董小雷; Liu, Zhifang 刘志芳 (2007). "易语言中模块的使用研究" [Research on the use of modules in Easy Programming Language]. 唐山师范学院学报 [Journal of Tangshan Normal University] (in Chinese) (5): 95–97. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Zhangqiao Keyan 掌桥科研.

        The abstract notes: "就易语言中模块的功能与使用进行了深入研究,体现了易语言中易模块在程序设计中所起的重要作用."

        From Google Translate: "The function and use of modules in Easy Programming Language are studied in depth, which reflects the important role of Easy modules in Easy Programming Language in program design."

      2. Dong, Xiaolei 董小雷; Liu, Zhifang 刘志芳 (2007). "易语言的使用与研究" [The use and research of Yi language]. 唐山师范学院学报 [Journal of Tangshan Normal University] (in Chinese). No. 2. pp. 71–73. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Zhangqiao Keyan 掌桥科研.

        The abstract notes: "分别从运行占用资源、编码效率、程序运行速度与代码量等多个方面与其它编程语言进行了比较研究,从而体现出易语言编程的优点."

        From Google Translate: "A comparative study was conducted with other programming languages ​​from various aspects such as running resources, coding efficiency, program running speed and code amount, thus reflecting the advantages of Easy Programming Language."

      3. Huang, Jiacheng 黄嘉诚 (2022). "中英文可视化编程的对比研究" [A comparative study of Chinese and English visual programming]. 电大理工 [Science Engineering] (in Chinese) (2): 72–78. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Zhangqiao Keyan 掌桥科研.

        The abstract notes: "在易语言与VS2010开发环境上, 模块化等方面效率更高。"

        From Google Translate: "In the development environment of Easy Programming Language and VS2010, the differences and advantages and disadvantages of Chinese and English visual programming are studied by comparing different factors such as windows, variables, and codes. The results show that Chinese programming is relatively disadvantaged in terms of space and time efficiency, but is more efficient in terms of writability, organization, and modularity."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Easy Programming Language ( Chinese: 易语言) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Problem management (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l ( talk) 16:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Self-explanatory term, and the cited sources talk about much more specific concepts that could fall under the umbrella of problem management in IT. Searching for more general, relevant information is hopeless. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. WCQuidditch 05:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Cleanup stack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom -1ctinus📝 🗨 19:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Symbian per nom. How the heck did this nothing of an article make it fourteen years without anyone noticing it? jp× g 🗯️ 11:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Version Control by Example (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this while looking through orphans. A WP:BEFORE Fails to come up with any reviews or charts besides programming blogs. Even reviews linked on the author's website lacks anything for WP:NBOOK. -1ctinus📝 🗨 14:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

P-GRADE Portal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks of WP:GNG, since it is a project of cloud infrastructure in grid computing with little overall impact and very few available sources, mostly self-published sources of the authors of this project. It seems there are a few other project-related articles that are related to the Institute for Computer Science and Control (SZTAKI) of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences that seem to lack considerably WP:GNG as well. Recently, other related articles have been already deleted: [10] and [11]. The targetted articles, like this nomination, GUSE, and the deleted article of MTA SZTAKI Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Systems, were all created by the same user many years ago. Chiserc ( talk) 07:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Athanasios Tsakalidis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
    When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 ( talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Genie (programming language) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted via AfD in 2009 but then recreated. Survived an AfD in 2019 which was quickly closed as a revenge nomination, without discussion. Sources do not provide sufficient coverage and/or are not reliable. Just another non-notable programming language (dialect). IntGrah ( talk) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I found some sources that describe unrelated programming projects/proposals that contain the word "Genie", but nothing beyond that. This subject is not notable. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 20:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Unable to find any sufficient sourcing, language is apparently dead anyways. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Pure (programming language) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: N. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan". IntGrah ( talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well, one of the previous AfD arguments mentioned a refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings, this ACM paper, and Michael Riepe. Rein ins Vergnügen : Pure – eine einfache funktionale Sprache. iX 12/2009, p. 147. ( http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html ). This seems like three decent sources to me. No? jp× g 🗯️ 12:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. The iX article is fine, but the ACM paper (An LLVM backend for GHC) only mentions Pure in a list of other languages that use LLVM (Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler.), and the LAC2009 paper (Signal Processing in the Pure Programming Language) is by Albert Gräf so it's not independent. Looking at other citations of Gräf's papers, I couldn't find any that discussed Pure in depth - it's sometimes mentioned as an example of a term-rewriting language but only in passing. It was a nice design and somewhat unusual when it came out, but I don't think it meets GNG. Adam Sampson ( talk) 14:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rewriting - I think the best outcome here is probably one or two sentences on the language in a new paragraph inserted under Rewriting#Term rewriting systems#Use in programming languages. I agree with Adam Sampson's assessment of the sources, and it seems like there's been almost no uptake of the language in either academia or industry in the last 10 years (which would make me want to ignore the lack of WP:SIGCOV). I do think this should likely exist as a redirect, and I'm not confident my proposal is the best; there's some argument for expanding its discussion on LLVM or for including a sentence in Pattern matching instead. Happy to keep instead if there are sources I missed. Suriname0 ( talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Join Java (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability (i.e. that aren't written by the designer of the programming language). HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete The sources given in the previous AfD do not provide substantial coverage. IntGrah ( talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Science Information


Science

Salt extraction process (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable research paper; the article is not about salt production in general, but one specific procedure described in a 2005 research paper. Walsh90210 ( talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 ( talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unfortunately, all sourcing is primary; it has peer-reviewed articles about it, all by the same authors identified in the opening paragraph of the article. Gscholar still brings up the term as recently as 2015, but it's still by these same authors. Until we have sourcing from others, we can't use their own articles as sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
BioSense (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg ( talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 ( talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Athanasios Tsakalidis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
    When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 ( talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate


Deletion Review

AfD: Academics Information

Academics and educators

David J. Jackson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Between the two sentence stub and the admission of self-creation, this isn't a particularly promising page. I don't know if there's anything approaching a minimum number of citations sought for an NACADEMICS#1/#4 pass, and perhaps the 703 listed on Google Scholar is far and away enough, but I couldn't find any evidence of passage of any other NACADEMICS criteria so I would feel wrong just leaving this here without bringing it up for discussion. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 07:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Annu Navani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 10:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Douglas L. Fagerstrom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author and executive. Very few citations in other literature, even more obscure in news/media. PierceG ( talk) 16:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Businesspeople. PierceG ( talk) 16:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not finding anything that could source his biographical info. He has written books in a certain religious niche but they are popular rather than academic, so he doesn't meet that criterion. This is not my topic area so I will cycle back in case someone can give us leads on sourcing. Lamona ( talk) 03:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Richardt Strydom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. Looks like a lot of sources but sources 9-22 are primary sources merely confirming exhibition. LibStar ( talk) 00:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and South Africa. LibStar ( talk) 00:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Artists. WCQuidditch 04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but for people with academic positions in the practice of art rather than its scholarship, WP:NARTIST is far more likely than WP:PROF as a notability criterion. He had a solo show at the Johannesburg Art Gallery, which does count for a lot for me (as the only thing in the article that stands out) but I think is not enough by itself. I'd like to see the same, or preferably inclusion in the permanent collection, at more than one major museum. Reliably published reviews of (multiple) shows would also contribute, if they can be turned up. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Shipra Guha-Mukherjee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability and significance issues Thewikizoomer ( talk) 17:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Bassem Fleifel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF, fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Lebanon. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing found that would support a pass of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. But there may be a language barrier in play, as most of what little is listed on his Google Scholar profile appears to be in Arabic [13], so if multiple reliably-published reviews of multiple books can be found (regardless of language) I could be persuaded to change my mind. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Chuck Garcia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page for non-notable engineer and public speaker. I couldn't find any reliable sources via Google News or Newsbank Database (wider and deeper than Google). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils ( talk) 00:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Radio, Engineering, and New York. WCQuidditch 05:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not apparent yet. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only thing in the article that looks like it could plausibly lead to notability is authorship of two books, The Moment That Defines Your Life and A Climb to the Top. But my searches of the web, news, and scholarly sources failed to find any reliably published reviews of either book, so I don't think he passes WP:AUTHOR. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing to meet any relevant notability standard and reeking of promotionalism. The second book was published through "Advantage Media Group", which ticks a lot of boxes for being a vanity press, starting with a "book publishing services" website full of "synergize your brand potentialities" language that makes me want to gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon. Even a self-published book could contribute to notability if it were reliably reviewed, of course, but that is not the case here. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Per everything that’s been said above. No indication of notability. Go4thProsper ( talk) 22:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, I have nothing else to add. Svampesky ( talk) 21:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Iyke Nathan Uzorma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If all of the unsourced claims of supernatural abilities were removed from this article, I'm not sure what would be left. Until recently, this was a redirect to a book but has become the focus of a single purpose editor. Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 21:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Biographical Information and Publications: Key details about his early life that are supported by verifiable sources such as books can be found online from Google Books. Geswith ( talk) 23:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Biographical Information and Publications: Key details about his early life that are supported by verifiable sources such as books can be found online from Google Books and credible news from Nigeria such as Punch newspapers. Geswith ( talk) 23:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sourcing of the article is not enough to meet notability criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, nor WP:NAUTHOR. The three book citations were all written by him, and about him and are self-published by Xlibris Corporation, not a reliable publisher. One source is a wikipedia mirror wiki (user submitted content) and the "All Christian Quotes" website is also user-submitted content. There is one possible reliable source (Punch) but that is not enough to pass WP standards for notability. The article is WP:PROMO and largely unsourced, it may contain original research or possibly be a COI creation. Netherzone ( talk) 23:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Completely fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC. Haven't found a single independent source about him. A7 may apply here because I do not see a credible claim of significance. C F A 💬 23:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    these are independent sources.
    kindly check this one:
    • Okeke, Chukwuemeka. (2018). Spiritual Leaders of Modern Africa. African Scholars Press. ISBN 978-978-12345-6-7.
      • Offers insights into the lives and influences of contemporary African spiritual leaders, including Iyke Nathan Uzorma. [Reference to specific pages: p. 102-110 for discussion on Uzorma’s influence.]
    • Nwankwo, Stella. (2021). The Role of Charitable Works in Modern Christianity. Faith and Hope Publications. ISBN 978-987-65432-1-0.
      • Discusses Uzorma’s philanthropic efforts through Mercy Store House. [Reference to specific pages: p. 78-85 for information on his charity work.]
    • Johnson, Elizabeth. (2019). Biographical Profiles of Notable Nigerian Figures. Lagos Publishing House. ISBN 978-978-43210-9-8.
      • Contains a biographical profile of Iyke Nathan Uzorma, including his early life and career. [Reference to specific pages: p. 56-65 for detailed biography.]
    • Adeyemi, Solomon. (2022). Religious Transformations in Nigeria. West African Press. ISBN 978-978-87654-3-2.
      • Examines religious figures and transformations in Nigeria, including Uzorma’s role in the broader context. [Reference to specific pages: p. 90-100 for context on Uzorma’s religious journey.]
    Geswith ( talk) 23:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    @ Geswith: How do you know of Iyke Nathan Uzorma? C F A 💬 23:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    i have been researching him for a long time. most of his claims have been substantiated by people all over the world. Geswith ( talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    @ Geswith, it seems from the portrait of him in the article - your "own work", that you do have some connection to him deeper than just researching him. Please explain. Netherzone ( talk) 02:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    @ Geswith, I can't find any of those books in an online search. I tried searching by title, and by author and by ISBN number but came up cold. Could you please provide links so that they can be verified. Thank you. Netherzone ( talk) 01:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    @ Netherzone: I don't think these are real books. Look at the ISBNs: "978-978-12345-6-7", "978-987-65432-1-0", "978-978-87654-3-2", "978-978-43210-9-8". I also can't find anything about their publishers. They look like hallucinations by ChatGPT or something similar. C F A 💬 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree, @ CFA, I could not find any of these publishing houses either. Do you think this is a hoax article or just a lot of AI hallucinations? Netherzone ( talk) 01:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well, the person seems to exist, but I have no clue if the information is accurate or not because there are no references aside from the "books" above. I imagine the creator has some sort of conflict of interest and most of it is original research. Regardless, it is safe to say they are not notable. C F A 💬 02:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    You mean you can't confirm his "encounters with what he describes as advanced extraterrestrial intelligences or angelic beings of light"? Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 02:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    sorry for the late response. i will definitely get you the proof you require. Geswith ( talk) 05:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously or per WP:V if I have to provide a rationale. I found this AfD through the academic deletion sorting list so I was curious how in particular he qualified as an academic. I find it interesting that the supposed "St Thomas-a-Becket University, Canterbury, England" that our article claims him to be a professor of has greater evidence of existing in Nigeria than in England. But I suppose that's far from the sketchiest part of this story. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - clear COI here and serious lack of notability. The two universities that he is supposedly associated with don't seem to exist outside of self-published sources about Uzorma himself. There is nothing here to justify a Wikipedia article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The article is presently undergoing editing, only 1 source remains as of this time, punchng.com, which may be the only source that may have some claim to reliability. Prof.PMarini ( talk) 10:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    Punch is listed as generally reliable in Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources but the article is essentially a long extended quote from the subject; it has no depth of coverage about the subject. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per Netherzone's reasoning. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
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 delete‎. Owen× 12:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Claudio Fernando de Aguiar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Promotional also. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 12:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

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.
Athanasios Tsakalidis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
    When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 ( talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Pavlos Savvidis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic with a decent publication record (h-factors 43) but no significant awards to verify peer recognition, and no significant coverage beyond a mention back in 2008. Tagged for notability in NPP; no action taken beyond an unexplained and unwarranted removal of notability tag. Does not pass any section of WP:NPROF, and there is no evidence that any other notabilities apply. Ldm1954 ( talk) 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 ( talk) 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and Greece. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Another scientist with high GS citations in a high-cited field. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
    @ Xxanthippe, an 43 h-factor, 7726 total cites and 459 total in 2023 is definitely not high, particularly for a highly cited field, not close to passing WP:NPROF#C1. He has one highly cited paper from his PhD thesis, but not much else. In terms of his GS area of Condensed Matter Physics he comes in something like number 300 or lower. If he had been elected as an APS Fellow it would be different, but there is no such evidence of peer recognition. Ldm1954 ( talk) 04:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. My vote is unchanged. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Keep. I'm a little baffled by this afd, given the expert credentials of the nom. In Web-of-science, Savvidis shows >100 papers, ~2600 citations, and H=35 (goes to PROF 1). While it's true that semiconductors (one area of research) is a high citation field, what I find here is the usual gigantic variance in research metrics of WP BLPs working in this field. There are folks both much high and much lower, for example Herbert Kroemer (~700 papers, ~23,000 cites, H 90) and Janice Hudgings (31 papers, ~500 cites, H 11), as well as lots of BLPs having similar stats, like Cyril Hilsum (96 papers, ~1700 cites, H 20). On balance, I have the distinct impression that Savvidis has a research impact appreciably higher than the average professor in this field, suggesting PROF 1 is satisfied. 128.252.210.3 ( talk) 17:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    Hudgings is a pass of PROF#C3 (Optica Fellow) and C5 (named professorship at a high-ranking university). Her case for C1 is more borderline. For Savvidis, though, it seems C1 is the only suitable criterion. So their cases are not really comparable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with @ David Eppstein. Just on citations Janice Hudgings would not pass, but her awards indicate major peer recognition so she sails through on WP:NPROF#3. Similarly Cyril Hilsum is NAE plus a stack of other major peer recognition awards, WP:NPROF#3 and perhaps also WP:NPROF#1b and WP:NPROF#2. For Pavlos Savvidis there is no peer recognition, and when I searched a little I also found nothing to mitigate the modest citations. You can look here for a comparison of him to others, which puts him as 57th in Crete. Ldm1954 ( talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. I think the citation record is strong enough but I'm having trouble verifying anything else to say about him that is not just a repetition of his potted biography on his own personal web sites. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting owing to the WP:V concerns raised by David Eppstein. We have clear consensus that the subject meets WP:PROF by citation count. How concerned are we that we don't have independently verifiable information about him?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk) 18:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree about the statement "consensus by citation count" particularly for a high citation field and when the citations are not significantly increasing. This is why I nominated the page because there was nothing in WP:V to back up the citations. Academics get awards, the lack of any here including none that are notable concerns me. Ldm1954 ( talk) 18:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions