User:Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.43.0-wmf.24 (72fea51).

Wikipedia:Babel

ru

Русский — родной язык этого участника.

en-4

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

de-2

Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

fr-1

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).

This user runs a bot, Acebot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.

This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (in Russian).

Википедия
Я вношу вклад в русскую Википедию.

I support the Russian-language Wikipedia with my contributions.

This user is from the planet Earth.

This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤

This user contributes using Firefox.

Picture of the day

Olivia de Havilland

Photograph credit: Bernard Gotfryd

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Русский	Español	Italiano	Polski
6,888,423	6,116,916+	2,945,694+	2,637,989+	2,595,173+	2,168,248+	2,001,421+	1,981,153+	1,883,775+	1,629,536+

More than 63,723,530 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,225,518 articles.

Russia

Aeroflot Flight 227 (1969)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. Was not able to find any sources for the entire flight. Although it does meet WP:PLANECRASH, that isn't a formal guideline or notability policy. Sir MemeGod  12:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Sir MemeGod  12:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and/or no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1960s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

•Weak Keep per amount of fatalities, i feel better sources can be still found about this accident. I'm saddened to see so many notable Aeroflot incidents have to go, but i feel this could be saved. @Sir MemeGod Lolzer3k 17:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

While it did have fatalities, the only source we even have to back up the fatalities is an archived Russian site, which I'm not even sure is reliable. As stated, WP:PLANECRASH doesn't apply here, as it isn't a deletion policy. Sir MemeGod  17:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to the Aeroflot accidents and incidents page. This was an unattributed translation of an ruWiki article, so they don't have any additional sources. Even if this did meet the GNG (I'm assuming the sources would mostly be Russian-language 1960s era stuff), I concur with Meltdown627 that coverage is not so sufficient as to merit a standalone page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Rostov-on-Don pre-trial detention center hostage crisis

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

Seems to fail WP:NEVENT, specifically the lasting part. I cannot find any continued coverage of this event in English, or any secondary source for that matter. It is possible some exists in Russian or under a name different to the title. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Russia. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep haven't done too deep of a dive (i guess more of a week keep, I'm pretty sure this is notable though) but with a quick search I found this article from only 4 days ago, reflecting on the consequences of the hostage taking. There's definitely more but this shows continued coverage and consequences for NEVENT PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Gleb Frank

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

BLP with no coverage. Reference are routine business news. Passing mentions, PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I see Forbes coverage here, not sure that's enough for the article to stand. I will do further research before casting my votes.

Tesleemah (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Its a passing mention. One of the reasons I posted it. scope_creep^Talk 20:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike

AfDs for this article:

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

This was up for AfD a few months ago, and since then, there have been so many other attacks like this one. I don't see notability, based on the lack of any sort of continued coverage, that would make this attack stand out from the other hundreds of such attacks at this point. NOTNEWS? Discuss below so it can be settled. Oaktree b (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete one missile attack among many in this war. No ongoing notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's already mentioned in Chernihiv#Siege of Chernihiv. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

•Delete sadly, although tragic, its just another missile strike from the Russia-Ukraine wars spillovers and affects on civillians in russia and ukraine alike, it has no standing notabillity. @Oaktree b Lolzer3k 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Pan-Nakhism

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

can't find GNG, has a series of random page moves and it seems like this could be better off merged with Nakh peoples article if the obvious LLM doesn't cause an issue — Karnataka 17:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka 17:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

i have sources , here is it: https://snifferip.com/chechen_history.pdf

Its the «Jaimoukha amjad The chechens» Book NakhBoy (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Pavel Abramov

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

The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Volleyball. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - he won a bronze medal in the Olympics, and that’s verified. Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t that automatically notable? Bearian (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not exactly. It does meet WP:NOLY, but that only says sigcov is 'likely to exist'. No modern Olympic medalist has ever been deleted, however. From a glance, it looks near-certain that this athlete has sigcov – we just have to find it... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep, does not need news coverage now, only from when he was active. Geschichte (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep, there is plenty of coverage in non-English sources. Try searching "Paweł Abramow" for Polish sources or "Павел Абрамов" for Russian. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:52, 28 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Dmitri Pestryakov

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Russian footballer. Seems like the article creator moved the draft to the mainspace. JTtheOG (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. JTtheOG (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. Everything I'm finding is pretty run of the mill and insignificant. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete - probably WP:TOOSOON. I found Premier Liga, which shows that he had an impressive match recently. I also found an image caption in August News but there is little else in Russian and the Russian Wikipedia doesn't give any SIGCOV either. It's a shame that this got moved out of draft space as that wouldn't have been a bad place. Since this would only be moved back if draftified, I have to support deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Draftify – Has the potential to become notable during the current season. Svartner (talk) 18:14, 23 September 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.

.рус

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

No good sources, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article literally says, twice, that there is a lack of information for use in writing about it.. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Many references exist in the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia at http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/.%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81 or ru:.рус That article also includes a detail chronology of the top-level domain. Once the information in the Russian article is added to this one, notability should be clear. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the russian article, a large majority of the sources are from icann, which is not what I would describe as independent third-party coverage congruent with WP:GNG Sohom (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I'd say it's a plurality. There's usable sources like CNews, RIA Novotsi, and Lenta.ru. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Irina Mataeva

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Userfy. We need more research. Right now, the article is in pretty bad shape. However, if she does have this wide range of repertoire, and she has toured and performed in multiple cities with important companies, and she had a role of the protagonist’s love interest of Tatyana in Eugene Onegin, and we can find sources that document all of it, then she is notable per WP:MUSICBIO. That’s a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Elena Pankratova

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. According to the article, she’s sung in two cities; that’s not a tour. She also has a fairly limited repertoire. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 28 September 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. Editors may additionally want to consider whether the entry for this incident at Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s should be removed, given the sourcing concerns. asilvering (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

1952 Aeroflot Ilyushin Il-12 crash

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

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

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

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

~~Merge~~ Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltdown627 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete: does seem notable as an accident causing several fatalities, I just can't find any sources on it besides ASN and other accident databases. Sir MemeGod  19:03, 21 September 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.

List of entertainment events at the Olimpiyskiy Stadium

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Others

Draft

Shortcuts

Science

Roberto G. Carbone

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

Article about a person that doesn't meet WP:GNG. The first source is a database result as well as unverifiable. The second sources was like that too. The third one, embt.org, is solely a tribute to another man called "Alberto", and has nothing to do with this article. Source 5 is undoubtedly unreliable, and source 6 is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (because it's written by him, I would call it a WP:SELFPUB. ORCID isn't needful especially when citing as a biographical information. I don't know much about it, but it does appear like a user generated site. I was thinking how we can structure a person's research as academics always write many publications. On this aspect, there are many primary sources; books written by him, and thy are from source 9 to 11. Primary sources may be useful and good, but at the same time doesn't tell us how notable was that research. WA it reviewed by critics, did it appear on TV sites, e.t.c.

The subject's co-authored work, and his first book according to the article, doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. This is applicable to the third (there was no mention of the second book). A Fellow of the American College of CHEST Physicians isn't notable per WP:NACADEMIC as the membership including non elected paid position is shown here. Same as the American Heart Association. Additionally, a letter of recommendation on someone doesn't show his notable that person is, and it isn't an award per WP:ANYBIO. This was accepted via AFC by me, for the sale of this AFD. The creator is likely a COI editor who has moved this page twice, and it has been draftified twice too. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Literature, Education, Science, and Italy. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Low GS citations in a very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC).

ORCID's mean nothing with regards to notability. I have one, you can register for one, for free. We were encouraged at one point to register for one with our Wikipedia credentials... Not sure how useful it is, but it doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

David Watson (entrepreneur)

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

No more than an advert for Ohme. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of significance. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 22:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Sources 2 and 3 are RS... more about the company than the person. I"m not sure the company is notable though... Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I was going to redirect to the company, but there isn't enough coverage about them [1] and [2] are typical. I suppose the two Irish Times articles could be used for an article about the company, but one's mostly this person talking about things with a bit on the company... We aren't debating an article on the company; delete the entrepreneur's article due to a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Environment, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete - delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Spleodrach (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

IC 167

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

Could not find any individual coverage on this object. Should redirect to List of IC objects.

Added after Praemonitus's vote: While there is coverage of the group it is a part of, I couldn't find any coverage of the object specifically. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
It's borderline. I find brief discussions of IC 167 in a few studies, particularly of the NGC 697 group. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

PG 1543+489

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: It's discussed in a number of papers, including Vignali et al (2008) and Aoki et al (2005). Praemonitus (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak Delete: I just stripped out all the text that was purely references to catalog papers, but there's still quite a lot of nonsensical text there. If you're going to advocate to keep it, please go and clean up the remaining text. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Praemonitus. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Basem Al-Shayeb

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xerxescience (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

As the nominator, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to "vote" or not, but I didn't see anything on the AfD guidelines page prohibiting me from doing so, thus:

Delete -

Wikipedia's criteria for notability regarding articles about academics are listed as follows:

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

First of all, "significant impact" seems highly subjective, but that aside: what counts as a "significant impact" here, and does this person's research qualify? They were first author on a paper describing unusual archaeal extrachromosomal DNA elements; this is interesting, but speaking as a fellow microbiologist, it does not strike me as a very impactful discovery, but more of a niche curiosity. Another listed publication (I thought they were listed as co-first author, but I seem to have been mistaken? Need to double-check) describes some very small virus-derived CRISPR-associated genome-editing proteins; again, this is interesting, but did this really leave a lasting impression on the field? The CRISPR field seems to move quite fast, and my understanding is that other, smaller gene-editing proteins (e.g. TnpB) have been discovered since; moreover it's not clear to me that the proteins discovered by Al-Shayeb et al. were that transformative in terms of their applications, although this may just be my ignorance showing. Finally, the third paper listed (on which Al-Shayeb was co-first author) describes some of the largest known phages at the time; again, interesting, but is this really an impactful find? Was this a major addition to our understanding of microbiology, or is it just a neat addition to the list of already known large phages?

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Has this person received a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level? According to the article, they were nominated for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship; the NSF website states that they plan to issue 2,300 GRFs this fiscal year. Does this qualify as a "prestigious award at a national level"? "Prestigious" is obviously subjective, but I was under the impression that this referred to something closer to the level of, say, the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, of which twenty-four are issued each year. As for their other listed accolades, being on the Forbes/Arab America 30 Under 30 lists does not constitute an academic award, and thus does not apply here.

The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).

I do not believe any of these apply here.

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

I do not believe this applies here.

The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Does not apply here.

The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Does not apply here.

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

I do not believe this applies here.

The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Does not apply here.

It seems like the only argument for keeping this article is that their research is "significantly impactful"; as I've said above, I believe this assessment to be highly subjective, but I personally do not feel that their contributions meet this threshold. At best, these seem like contributions that should be mentioned in the articles for Archaea, CRISPR-Cas genome editing, and Bacteriophages (as they already are); were any of these discoveries so ground-breaking that their (in some cases, co-) discoverer merits their own page?Xardwen (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete because the research is not "significantly impactful" by Wikipedia's criteria. The individual behind the now-deleted accounts @Xerxescience and @Pantrail worded the content of the article to sound more impactful than it actually is. For example, why is it that Mr. Al-Shayeb "led" the work (as written in the Wikipedia article in question) that he co-first-authored with others while being supervised by his graduate school advisors, yet Mr. Al-Shayeb "supervised" the work (again, as the now-banned accounts wrote in the Wikipedia article in question) that was first-authored by another individual? For example, Mr. Al-Shayeb's co-founder and CEO, Dr. Jacob Borrajo, is first author on the most recent manuscript mentioned in the Wikipedia article in question and is also continuing to move the work forward as a current executive of Amber Bio (apparently without Mr. Al-Shayeb's "supervision"). In this example, it is clear to anyone in the field that Dr. Borrajo made the most substantial contributions to this work that is one of the Mr. Al-Shayeb's key accomplishments, yet Dr. Borrajo does not have a Wikipedia page. The same could be said for some of the other co-first authors and supervisors on the studies listed on Mr. Al-Shayeb's Wikipedia page.

If one were to argue that Mr. Al-Shayeb somehow meets the WP:NACADEMIC standards, then all 2000-3000 people issued an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship each year should have a Wikipedia page. Forbes 30 under 30 is not an academic award and uses irrelevant metrics such as how much wealth someone has as key criteria for selection, but if it were, then do we give all 600 people recognized with the Forbes 30 under 30 award each a Wikipedia page? And the tens of thousands of people who graduate with PhDs from prestigious universities and contribute work to renowned scientific journals; do we give all of them a Wikipedia page? No, because the line must be drawn somewhere. In this case, Mr. Al-Shayeb clearly falls on the side of the line that does not warrant this page to exist. Hemelina (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: To the closer: Please treat the now-blocked accounts Pantrail and Xerxescience as being the same person for the purpose of determining a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete.~~

I think this article should be deleted because the subject clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The subject is not listed on any academic institution's website as being currently affiliated. There is no publicly available evidence that the subject has ever held an independent position at any academic institution that wasn't under the direct supervision of other faculty members. The subject is presented on the article as a "biotech executive", yet the subject is not currently listed as an executive on any current company's website. Disturbingly, two now-blocked accounts who turned out to be the same person, @Pantrail and @Xerxescience, repeatedly deleted verifiably true and well-cited edits made by multiple independent contributors. I will remind the individual behind these accounts that information cannot be libelous or defamatory if it is true. The individual behind these accounts, who I deduce is either the subject of this article or financially tied to the subject of this article, also reverted the article to present misleading information that promoted the financial interests of the article's subject. Wikipedia is not the place to advance individual financial interests. Please delete. Hemelina (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hemelina, first, you can only cast one bolded "vote" so I have struck your duplicate vote. Secondly, you have only been editing a week and have made a total of 12 edits, most of them to this article and AFD. You have no other global contributions with this account so I'm assuming you typically edit with a different account since you seem to have the Wikipedia jargon down pat. So, at least for me, your opinion carries less weight. I'd still like to hear from some "uninvolved" editors as all participants seem to have some sort of COI with this subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We really need some uninvolved and non-sock editors to review this article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete

Note, this guy is a predoc fellow as per Google Scholar, which by definition means WP:NACADEMIC almost certainly does not apply. His H-Index is extremely high for a pre-doc, as per google scholar. [3], so maybe WP:NACADEMIC could apply in the future, but it is nowhere near high enough to apply right now.
Much of the sourcing is not independent or reliable or only mentions the subject in passing. Much of the sourcing that talks about his start up seems like promotional PR that goes along with any business.
The current writing on the article is strained and tortuous. At one point, there is a mention that Shayeb’s work is cited by a Nobel Laureate? I’d half-argue for WP:TNT even if the subject was notable enough.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

also… what the heck happened that editors have a personal vendetta against a pre-doc scientist? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong delete. The only content in this article which could form a basis for notability is scientific output, within WP:NPROF. With an h-factor of 20, 3000 total citations and no senior awards he does not come close to any of the qualifications. This is an AfD where the case for delete is exceedingly strong, one of the strongest NPROF I have seen, but a lot of "noise" has been generated including many inappropriate personal attacks. Fortunately experienced editors/reviewers ignore inappropriate comments. For reference, I have no connection with anything here, but have done a fair bit of WP work. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments on sources (as requested). As mentioned above he does not qualify under WP:NPROF by a long distance. The points made in the article about the startup receiving funding count towards whether Amber Bio is notable enough to merit a page. However, they do not count towards his WP:GN, just as a notable book does not necessarily make the author notable. As some specifics on the sources:
1. ORCID was duplicated (cleaned)
2. Article contains significant WP:MILL for an academic, such as being a peer reviewer -- these should be deleted as irrelevant.
3. Many authors in the papers. While not as large as HEP, this has to be considered for impact.
4. Citing a Nobel Prize presentation is not what I would consider to be a strong source, particularly as the article comes from his supervisor -- WP:PEACOCK.
5. Forbes cite on paper in Nature was invalid, removed
6. Claim that genome editing system reported in Science Magazine was unsourced, deleted
7. Claim of methane-oxidizing archaea reported in Nature is not verified, deleted
8. Claim that he "supervised research" is not validated by source, which states "co-supervised". Changed
9. Claim that he was listed as an "All-Star Alumni for his scientific contributions" not verified, so "for his scientific contributions removed".
Ldm1954 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Further comments on sources.
1. The article claims that he coined the term "Borg's", but C&EN says that came from Jillian Banfield’s son. I trust C&EN.
There certainly are (were) substantial liberties taken with the sources. They do provide coverage, but I do not see anything in the sources which prove sufficient peer recognition for him. Several might support the startup, but that is out of context here. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete and create protect per WP:SIGCOV, WP:PROF, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTRESUME. There’s clearly a lack of a minimum of three articles or books with significant coverage about this person in reliable and independent sources; I count precisely zero. He’s not a named professor or similar academic. His $26 million startup is one of dozens in the world today working on CRISPR. I took a graduate course online in summer 2021 where AP Biology teachers were taught how to use the technology (the only reason I didn’t use it was because I registered at too late to do the lab portion of the class, but I still earned an A for my final project). So it’s nothing special. Finally, in 2024, everyone knows that Wikipedia doesn’t exist to help people with publicity; we are an encyclopedia. Many of our readers don’t grok how we handle notability, but even 14 year olds understand that we have standards; to claim otherwise is to deny one’s own agency in the age of Internet 2.0. We are a charity, and not just a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Deletion Review

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