Jump to content

User:Ace111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MediaWiki version 1.46.0-wmf.2 (2600406).

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.
Council of Clermont
Illustration credit: Jean Colombe
The Signpost
10 November 2025

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
English Sinugboanon Deutsch Français Svenska Nederlands Русский Español Italiano Polski
7,091,709 6,115,864+ 3,069,651+ 2,720,586+ 2,619,294+ 2,202,474+ 2,071,653+ 2,074,435+ 1,944,615+ 1,675,082+
More than 65,932,437 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,489,420 articles.


Russia

[edit]

Vek Perevoda

[edit]
Vek Perevoda (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)

Nonnotable website --Altenmann >talk 07:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

2025 Dagestan Kamov Ka-226 crash

[edit]
2025 Dagestan Kamov Ka-226 crash (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 chose to wait a week before making this nomination. Despite being an awful tragedy to occur, it has not been covered much outside of Russian media. There are sources in this article that should not be used, such as the one from Xinhua, a Chinese state-run news agency. This article is likely going to remain a WP:PERMASTUB and would be better off redirected to 2025 in aviation, with a short paragraph in the November section. 11WB (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I've seen numerous viral videos about it from across the world. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
How would that contribute to notability? Most of what I've seen termed as a viral video is from self-published platforms like YouTube or social media. Notability for events requires a subject to receive lasting, significant coverage in reliable sources (coverage beyond simple announcements that an event happened, that an accident investigation was concluded, etc.). nf utvol (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or Draftify. Doesn't seem to have the requisite coverage for WP:NEVENT and considering how common helicopter crashes like these are, I doubt it ever will. However, since it happened barely a week ago perhaps sending it back to draft for incubation might be the best move. nf utvol (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
    I did wait a week to see if there would be any more coverage. There is, however it is from news outlets such as this, The Sun being completely deprecated per WP:THESUN. The Xinhua reference I mentioned definitely should not have been used. Honestly, I think draftifying would present the same problems as a PERMASTUB. 11WB (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nothing here indicates this is anything but an ordinary helicopter crash. None of the sources here indicate lasting coverage. Zaptain United (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Draftify The incident received international news coverage, including in the UK (The Daily Telegraph)[1], the US (CNBC)[2], France (Le Parisien)[3], and Poland (TVP World)[4]. The investigation is being covered by Russia's Kommersant, with the last report being from 11 November[5]. However, I agree that it is better to draftify it until its lasting significance is clearer. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    The Telegraph is reliable. CNBC has questionable reliability per this RS/N discussion. At the moment there isn't enough. Draftifying is fine, but that's only under the assumption more reliable coverage will surface in the future. 11WB (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    That questionable reliability is mainly related to their coverage of cryptocurrencies. At the same time, one editor claimed, Regardless, it sounds like we are all in agreement that their news coverage overall is reliable. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Ashchebutak air base

[edit]
Ashchebutak air base (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. I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this airfield. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Vranyo

[edit]
Vranyo (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)

None of the sources can be considered reliable when it comes to the Russian language and culture. I tried searching for any reliable sources in both English and Russian, but none support the definition of “Vranyo” given in the article.

Most of the sources used in the article are political opinion pieces written by journalists, where the concept of “Vranyo” is mentioned in passing to support a larger point [1,2,3,4,8,9,10].

Out of the sources where that isn’t the case, [5] is indeed written by a Professor of Russian and Slavonic Studies. However, it is still an opinion piece, and very remotely supports the definition of “Vranyo” given by the article. It also uses “one wag on Reddit” as one of its sources, raising questions regarding the academic quality of the piece.

For sources [6,7], the article gives a quote of a Russian-American professor of history, but nothing in the sources indicates that the given quote has any relation to the concept of “Vranyo”.

[11] is a book on workplace practices, also mentioning “Vranyo” in passing to support a larger point. The author is a Professor of Sociology with nothing to suggest he’d be an authoritative source on Russian language and culture.

As one of the editors in the old talk suggested, it does seem to be the case that the concept of “Vranyo”, as used by the article, is a concept that a small group of English-speaking journalists have decided to label using the Russian loanword "Vranyo", completely detached from the actual word “Vranyo” in the Russian language.

In this regard, it is quite interesting, but requires more original research. If the original contributor would like to completely rewrite the article, I am not against incubating the article, but as it currently stands, I would suggest DELETE

--Deliberate Baobab (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, and the article is sourced. The article has over eleven references, all of them including the word/concept, including experts and scholars, Russians and non-Russians, but it doesn't seem to matter since this article appears to have struck some kind of nerve.
This is the English Wikipedia, so if “Vranyo” here has a different connotation than it does in the general Russian language or on the Russian Wikipedia, that's fine. If you want a more Russian POV, you could provide reliable sources for that rather than suggesting that the entire article be deleted, given that whether some people like it or not, this definition of “Vranyo” does exist and it would be silly of a neutral encyclopedia to delete it per WP:NPOV. I'm not against adding some good Russian sources if they can be found, if simply having "in Russian, the literal translation is x" would make you feel better. TylerBurden (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS None of the cited sources are written by experts in the appropriate field. Please refer to my commentary in the orignal message regarding the quality of the used sources. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
If you don't think they're experts, then that's your POV, some of them are literally described as such by secondary references. For example, "Galeotti, an expert and prolific writer on Russia".
We're just in WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory, I get that this might not fit with certain people's own narratives about Russia or that it might even be considered offensive to some, but thankfully we have WP:NOTCENSORED. TylerBurden (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources (WP:RS). Yes, Galeotti is an expert, but an expert in Russian crime and security. He is not a reliable source on Russian language and culture, and his opinions do not represent the mainstream academic view. With all the sources being not unlike this one, the article currently puts undue emphasis on a WP:FRINGE theory held by a minority.
Now, the article is not completely hopeless, and could be rewritten in a draft space so it is up to the standarts of Wikipedia, but I would argue there is not enough quality research on the topic yet. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
This isn't only about the Russian language, it's about the term in English, because we're on the English Wikipedia. If it's a fringe view, then go ahead and provide some sources debunking the term and concept, because surely someone would be calling it out when high profile sources cover it. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps due to how niche this is, I wasn't able to find any authoritative sources discussing the topic at all, whether supporting the view of the article, or opposing it. But I'll try searching again.
All in all, I believe I made my argument on the non-reliability of the sources, so I'll let more experienced editors weigh in from here on.
On an unrelated note, in your experience, do interested editors usually come upon AfD discussion such as this one on their own, given time, or would something like a post on a Wikipedia noticeboard by neccessary here to get more opinions? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
So there's all the sources cited on the article (over a dozen at this point) actually supporting and discussing the term and you can't find a single one debunking them or the concept itself, I don't buy the excuse of it being "niche", because if it was, there wouldn't be this amount of sources covering the topic. It seems the actual WP:FRINGE view here might be the one that this is some imaginary thing invented by western journalists.
I don't think it's necessary to do anything further than await input from others. TylerBurden (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Perhaps worth a note to reviewers, this new account appears to be a WP:SPA. TylerBurden (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Draftify per nom - over half the references used in the article mention vranyo never or only have passing mentions.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 17:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Every single reference specifically mentions the term, this is a blatantly false statement and the timing here is also convenient since you added this the same day you started engaging in a content dispute with me on Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). TylerBurden (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I already checked them before submitting this !vote. Source 7 doesn't mention it. Sources 10 and 8 are duplicates, sources 1, 2, and 3 are paywalled, source 11 only mentions it twice and doesn't delve further into it. There is also nothing showing vranyo is a Russian concept in particular, rather than just a concept that happens to be part of Russian culture. For me, the sources don't show that vranyo merits its own article just yet.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 11:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Draftify. As the article stands now, the sources fail WP:SIGCOV, but reliable sources can be found. If I search for "vranyo" in quotation marks, a search on Google Scholar yields 106 results, a search on EBSCO yields 95 results, and a search on JSTOR yields 19 results. Z. Patterson (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2025 (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. ✗plicit 23:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Anastasiya Danchenko

[edit]
Anastasiya Danchenko (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)

having a runner-up performance at an international challenge event doesn't meet WP:NBAD, moreover i cannot find any credible source that passes GNG or SIGCOV. zglph•talk• 15:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable, not a good source in sight, just do away with it. CabinetCavers (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Cannot find any sigcov. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2025 (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.

Jia Lissa

[edit]
Jia Lissa (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)

Nothing here rises close to the standard of meeting the notability standards for a BLP. Fails GNG, N and ENT. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, the keep !voters are not making a convincing case regarding sources. For example, the claim "Plenty of availablity of Russian sources" does not identify any actual Russian sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per [6], [7], [8] and other numerous sources which gives enough significant coverage to the subject. Passes WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
    Did you even read these sources. 1 & 3 are interviews and therefore not independent to meet RS/GNG and 2 is next to nothing, has no byline and reads like a reheated press release. Nowhere near enough to stand up notability. Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)


Others

[edit]



Draft

[edit]
Shortcuts


Science

[edit]

Qing Wang (scientist and biotech entrepreneur)

[edit]
Qing Wang (scientist and biotech entrepreneur) (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 article was created by a WP:COI editor. The whole article is WP:NPOV. Beyond self published sources, I also could not find much information proving that this article passes WP:GNG. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 22:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @LuniZunie, thank you for taking the time to review the article. I am one of the editors who contributed to the page on Dr. Qing Wang. Dr. Wang has been a long-standing collaborator of us in cancer genomics and clinical proteomics research, and his work has been covered by a number of independent, reliable sources, including reports from Johns Hopkins Medicine, Wharton/University of Pennsylvania, GenomeWeb, and major venture capital news outlets. These references were included specifically to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia’s verifiability and reliable-source standards.
If there are specific concerns regarding the current sourcing, tone, or notability criteria that you believe are not met, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss and improve the article accordingly. My goal is to ensure the page meets Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, verifiability, and biographical notability.
Thank you again for your review, and I welcome any guidance on how the article can be strengthened to address your concerns. Ryanvwang (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Robert Kunzig

[edit]
Robert Kunzig (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 pass WP:GNG and has no WP:SIGCOV. Notability issue has been tagged since 2013. No major improvements. Arbaz Thakur (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. Passes criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST for winning the Walter Sullivan Award for excellence in science journalism from the American Geophysical Union. His win is covered in this journal article from Physics Today. Passes WP:NAUTHOR for winning the Aventis Prize for Science Books. There's lot's of reviews of that book such as [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. jolielover♥talk 04:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Criterion 4 is absurdly vague but this still doesn't pass that – if this prize was significant, there would be more than such a brief mention in a topical magazine about it. Same of NAUTHOR – this is a prize, but not a "significant" prize that garnered substantial coverage such that GNG can be thrown to the wind. Since all of those reviews are of Mapping the Deep, perhaps that book is notable, but there should be some sort of biographical sourcing to justify a biographical article. Reywas92Talk 05:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found 18 published reviews of three books, enough for an easy pass of both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG (these are 18 reliable and independent in-depth sources about Kunzig's works). There is no requirement in GNG and no reasonable expectation that the sources need to detail his life story; the sourcing for authors should mostly cover their works of authorship, just like we would expect the sourcing for sports figures to mostly cover their sports accomplishments and the sourcing for politicians to mostly cover their political accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. That is a lot of reviews. WP:NAUTHOR pass Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily notable. Lots of reviews of his books, and he was the winner of the Royal Society Science Book Prize, which is definitely a big deal. (Not that this proves it's a big deal, but the person who won it the year after him was Stephen Hawking...) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above comments, this seems like a keep as it qualifies under journalist criterion. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Academic visibility

[edit]
Academic visibility (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)

original reasearrch of a dicdef --Altenmann >talk 13:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment. This article has never been well-cited, but most of the content was deleted in this edit last year. It would be preferable to restore the former content temporarily so editors here can see what the content was supposed to be, rather than judging the article based on this stripped-down version. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Unreferenced content is never "supposed to be" in Wikipedia. The article was in original essay state since 2011. --Altenmann >talk 14:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    Delete The blank References section says it all. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Scientific technique

[edit]
Scientific technique (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 article is entirely unsourced. A BEFORE reveals mostly generic usage applied to any number of "techniques" that may be described as "scientific" but no well defined, consistent meaning; or references to the scientific method. Note: I would probably not redirect to Scientific method as these are not exactly synonymous. Edit: And certainly do not merge with Scientific method as there is not useable content here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Edited. 19:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Delete - no sources, no useful content. I wonder whether the original creator just picked the wrong term and meant scientific method? Lijil (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    That doesn't seem to be it—it's basically always looked like this and does describe one very limited way of defining "scientific techniques". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't think how to frame this topic, but this surely isn't it. JMWt (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to scientific method where the term "technique" is mentioned repeatedly. Protocol (science) almost seems better, but the term is not mentioned there. But this is a plausible search term and merits a redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I'd also redirect to Scientific method as I think "scientific technique" is more likely to be a useful general search term for people interested in a scientific approach to knowledge in general; anyone looking for a specific scientific technique is unlikely to find it via such a general search, nor is Protocol (science) going to help them a lot. Elemimele (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete No source, no article. Do NOT redirect or merge as this concept and scientific method are two different things. The scientific method refers to an intellectual framework for empirical investigation; this article is talking about different types of experiments. It would be like merging or redirecting "treatments for cancer" to "medicine". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Scientific method. I view the term "scientific technique(s)" is a flawed concept that some might use in a search. I think we should redirect anyone who searches on this to the valid term and approach "scientific method". Pointing them towards something valid is better than a failed search.Ldm1954 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Methodology: If someone was actually looking for "scientific techniques" they may be better served with a redirect to Methodology, which does actually describe "technique". -- Reconrabbit 18:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Do not merge with or redirect to scientific method. This appears to be an attempt to describe methods to obtain data from a scientific laboratory experiment, but is woefully inadequate and fails general notability and fails WP:NOTAMANUAL. If anything, redirect to Laboratory#Techniques, but that article needs a lot of TLC. --Lexiconaut (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Where has our policy based thinking gone on this discussion? This is a core science concept that clearly would pass WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV as its a fundamental concept in the sciences. This is a related concept to the scientific method but is not synonymous. The scientific method is a systematic, structured process for investigating phenomena and answering questions, while scientific technique refers to the specific tools and procedures used within that process, such as conducting an experiment or analyzing data. Any test used for measurement in science is a "scientific technique". This is such a fundamental concept it would be like deleting the article on the earth. Come on guys, any research methods book used in introduction to scientific research courses is going to cover this in-depth. Sourcing is not hard here. What the article really needs is someone to rewrite it, but it is clearly a core science topic.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
    Well as nobody else has addressed this. No, that's not correct. There is no overarching "scientific technique" because there isn't practice that links completely different parts of science. There isn't anything to say which applies to astrophysics as well as microbiology. You can't apply techniques from one field to another.
    What there is that links these things together is a philosophy of science, ideas which describe what one is trying to achieve by scientific experimentation and methods.
    Whilst it is true that overarching WP articles exist, this isn't one which can be incrementally built without being misleading. It's also not needed; individual sciences can describe the methods they use without pretending that they apply to everything else. Other than feeding AI what can possibly be the utility of this page? JMWt (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the substantive points rasied by 4meter4, and to determine a target if redirect is the consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: We already have an article about the "scientific method", this is a duplication of that, but unsourced. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think this is correct. When one thinks of the scientific method one is describing the kinds of thought processes that go into the methods and which obviously apply to all science. Scientific techniques are something else - how to fill a pipette, how to use a microscope, how to test the chemical composition of rocks etc. Specific practices which clearly vary enormously depending on the activity described. JMWt (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Scientific method already exists. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Any attempt to build a page with this title would be an exercise in essay-writing and/or synthesis. At least three different articles mentioned above would have a claim to being a redirect target; none are compelling, in the sense of being obviously synonymous with what a reader looking for "scientific technique" should find. Delete it and move on. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Jack Rechcigl

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jack Rechcigl (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 on an academic administrator that was not rigorously checked for accuracy. No evidence of a pass of WP:NPROF, with relatively low publication record. Too many claims (such as selected publications) that fail verification, and evidence from his image of COI. Note that his "research professor" appointment is not a "distinguished" chair, and being a capable administrator does not qualify as a NPROF pass. There is so much dubious information here that I think we must TNT this. Someone can try again later with verifiable information, but my BEFORE suggests this is unlikely to succeed. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt the University of Florida website would allow their employee bios to falsify content of that nature. The UF is the #7 ranked public research university in the United States, and has high visibility. That type of fact would get reported quickly if it were falsified and would ruin an academic's reputation and career if they got caught. Doubting the truthfulness of it seems ridiculous.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@4meter4, this page is an exception. Please check the page history and you will find content removal by myself, Christian Edmundson, Iamnilesh0321 and Timtrent as well as removal of promo by Drmies. Even in what is left there is unverifiable information. For instance the 1st paragraph claims he used AI citing an article without a year or volume and a 1999 award report. Of the 4 pubs, the ISBN of the first is to a book by someone else (see recent history wrt Bobby Cohn), while my searches failed to find 2 & 3. Note that the page used to claim that he edited the "Agriculture and Environment monograph series", a series which does not come up in a search. The books all had two editors, he co-edited. I view omitting a co-author as academic dishonesty, but then I have a zero tolerance policy. Last, but not least, note the obvious undeclared COI of the original editor uploading a picture of Rechcigl taken in his garden. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
To be fair, I would not trust any post-secondary institution in the US at this moment, given how they've had to comply with the whims of Mr. Trump in order to keep funding coming through, and the State of Florida in particular. That would be considered a primary source regardless; even in the best of times, we wouldn't use it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my view this was borderline to accept. Rather than allowing it to languish I chose to accept it from this draft and allow the community to reach a conclusion. I reman steadfastly neutral when any AFC acceptance ny me is discussed at AfD. This diff shows how much the article has been edited since acceptance. I'm grateful to the nom for alerting me to this discussion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • We have to go by what we know. I find no evidence of the honorary/fellow claims. I cleaned up the publications, which were hopelessly incorrect and perhaps misleading, and found he is the co-editor of five of those books (yes, the "Agriculture & Environment Series" exists, though there is no evidence that he was the editor-in-chief or whatever, and three of the books were indeed edited jointly) and has some journal articles to his name. But a search through JSTOR revealed no reviews of those books so it's hard to establish whether #1 of WP:PROF actually applies. Sure, one may feel like being the director of that soil program is a notable thing, but again, that's a feeling (without evidence) and there is no secondary sourcing that supports that. I mean, there IS no secondary sourcing as far as I know. So going by the book, I have to be a Delete. I'm setting aside the other things mentioned here--possibly misleading citations and resume info, COI creation, etc., since they don't really matter for a deletion discussion. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. There seems to be some confusion here. As the infobox shows, his legal name is John Rechcigl and a search under that name (or just Rechcigl) shows he was elected a Fellow of the ASA in 1998 and of the SSSA in 1999. These are separate the societies with separate boards. The qualifications for these honorary fellowships are similar to those for other societies even if not worded exactly the same, and limited to 0.3% of the members. As a delete vote said in the 2008 AfD, High level recognition by the Soil Science Society of America or International Union of Soil Sciences would tip the balance to notability. He had been made a fellow in 1999, but searching for Jack rather than John makes it hard to find. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    Or not so hard to find. The fellow awards in the 5 September 2025 version of this article were sourced to an archived ASA web site. So I am am even more confused. @Drmies, any academic's article can be criticized for sounding like a resume since the material covered is the same. They can be rewritten rather than taking facts out. It is not appropriate to remove the fellow awards and the society references that support them and then say you can "find no evidence of the fellow claims". I know we get swamped with promotional articles, often by admiring students or university PR people. But nobility of a person is independent of the state or origin of an article, and "wonderfulness" can be tossed out as you capably did. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    I retrieved the much earlier sources for his being elected as a fellow.
    1. The one from ASA is a real source. I checked the numbers for the fellows of ASA as of about 2012. Counting the list gives ~1,800 total fellows and their membership (from Board meeting minutes) was ~8,000.
    2. The source for SSSA does not have enough information for verification. I even joined SSSA to look at his member profile, and it has no information beyond his name. I therefore tagged that source as unverified.
    3. I have reservations about the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences as this is an organisation founded and run for many years by his father Mila Rechcigl.
    N.B., I do not have access to the version of the page that was deleted in 2008. Since his being elected as a fellow predates that deletion by 10 years it seems plausible that they were not viewed as notable then. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Gscholar shows he has 2400 something citations, but the discussion above doesn't seem to indicate much else is notable. I can't find any book reviews or news articles about this person, or any confirmation for the followships (besides primary sources), so it's a !decline. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've added better sources for the ASA and SSSA fellowships, and both are available through WP:LIBRARY. The ASA one, in Agronomy Journal, contains a good page of significant coverage for a biography, though I haven't woven this into the article yet. For me, these fellowships together meet WP:NPROF#3. I agree with Ldm1954 that the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences one is rather dubious in terms of independence, and can't contribute to notability. I also improved some of the existing references with online sources and added an archive-url link for the CV. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Denis Yarats

[edit]
Denis Yarats (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)

Delete or Redirect to Perplexity AI : The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics or entrepreneurs. Most references resemble LinkedIn or primary/self-sourced material. Even though he is a co-founder of a company, the other founders themselves do not have established notability. Overall, the article reads more like a professional portfolio than an encyclopedic biography. Bech07 (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Fails to meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is no evidence of independent recognition or sustained coverage establishing encyclopedic notability. Also fails to meet the criteria for academics (WP:PROF) and for organizational figures (WP:ORG). Bech07 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep There's very little reliable biographical info, but he does meet NACADEMIC. Lamona (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge with Perplexity AI Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Perplexity AI per Bearian. WP:NACADEMIC applies here but the sourcing is very low quality. Policy typically comes first. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion

[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Deletion Review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ace111&oldid=812247595"