Jump to content

User:Ace111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MediaWiki version 1.45.0-wmf.8 (103cda9).

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.
William Rankine
Photograph credit: Thomas Annan; restored by Adam Cuerden
The Signpost
24 June 2025

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
English Sinugboanon Deutsch Français Svenska Nederlands Русский Español Italiano Polski
7,018,338 6,116,291+ 3,029,357+ 2,694,569+ 2,612,622+ 2,191,370+ 2,053,132+ 2,045,824+ 1,925,118+ 1,662,423+
More than 65,157,854 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,417,075 articles.


Russia

[edit]

The Encounter of a Lifetime

[edit]
The Encounter of a Lifetime (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)

nn Soviet fil --Altenmann >talk 03:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Person of Jewish ethnicity

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

The central topic of the article should be the Russian phrase "person of Jewish ethnicity" and its use in the Soviet Union. However, the article's spends more time on discussing antisemitism in the Soviet Union and the use of the word "Jew" in English than on the Russian phrase.

The phrase is also not notable. There seems to be only one source that provides any support for the notability of this phrase. This is an obscure encyclopedia of Soviet "Newspeak". The lack of sources is likely because "person of X ethnicity" was a standard construction that was used for all ethnicities, not only Jews.

For context, this phrase is similar to the use of the phrases "persons experiencing homelessness" or "birthing person" in modern English. Neither of these phrases have Wikipedia pages discussing their etymology. Vinidapoo (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

List of Soviet straight-winged jet fighters

[edit]
List of Soviet straight-winged jet fighters (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)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST, we don't have lists like this for other entities. Unsourced since 2017. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Abubakar Nurmagomedov

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

He does not fulfill WP:MMANOT, having been #59 at highest in the Fight Matrix rankings and not having very notable wins. There is independent coverage for his involvement in the McGregor/Nurmagomedov altercation at UFC 229 but in my opinion it falls under WP:1E. Ticelon (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • weak keep: The controversy section has articles about the person, rather than just match reports. ESPN also has this about him [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
The controversy section seems to me to be WP:BLP1E while the ESPN article is basically an interview with him, along with some comments from the president of the organization he was then fighting for (definitely not independent). I'm leaning towards delete but I'd like to see if any other sources exist. Papaursa (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom. Does not meet MMA guidelines #59 at highest rank. The controversy is WP:BLP1E and is mostly about Khabib, as he played a minor role in it. Lekkha Moun (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)


Others

[edit]

Draft

[edit]
Shortcuts


Science

[edit]

Non-extensive self-consistent thermodynamical theory

[edit]
Non-extensive self-consistent thermodynamical theory (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)

Not notable. The article is about a theory proposed in A. Deppman, Physica A 391 (2012) 6380. The article has 66 citations in Google Scholar, and most of those are self-cites. The article was written by User:Deppman. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Rigaku

[edit]
Rigaku (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)

Julian in LA (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but wound up sending the talk page to AfD instead. Their rationale follows:

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria. A search of Newspapers.com, Google and JSTOR revealed no notability. Ldm1954 commented that "They are a famous maker of x-ray equipment." Fame is not the same as notability and nothing in the sources indicates that they are more widely known than dozens of other multinational technology companies.
— User:Julian in LA 18:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

My involvement is merely procedural; I am neutral and offer no opinion or further comment (beyond that Ldm1954 (talk · contribs)'s comments are in the context of declining a PROD). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Procedural, to clarify, @Julian in LA did nominate it via a PROD which I contested . They then inappropriately nominated it for AfD on the talk page, which I reverted indicating that it needed to be done at the main page. Since they meant to do an AfD let's run with this. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

A fuller explanation is at Rigaku#Proposed deletion of Rigaku. Julian in LA (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Technical correction, the location is Talk:Rigaku#Proposed deletion of Rigaku, which is for the original PROD. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. The nom is a new editor, and I do not think that they did a proper WP:Before and are not that familiar with how we define notability. These instruments are used in many academic and technological areas. All major research universities have several x-ray diffractometers, and a good fraction of these are from Rigaku. They are heavily used for quality control in industry in areas ranging from metallurgy to pharmaceuticals. Even conservatively with one paper per week per university using this equipment, we reach many thousands per year, which is what there is. A Google Scholar search on Rigaku yields > 400K hits. If you just limit it to "Rigaku diffractometer" then it is ~14,000, and a similar search just on Google yields 25,000 Unfortunately it appears that the nom did not search appropriately. I have seen people arguing that a few mentions in Google Scholar and/or JStor is enough to justify a commercial page; the number here is way beyond that.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - I am finding sources in a before search on Google Books, Scholar, news, JSTOR, and etc. I am flummoxed as to why this was prodded and then nominated for deletion. Perhaps the nominator can elaborate? Netherzone (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Rigaku is covered by reliable independent sources. For example, News Medical Life Science), Forbes, and Reuters. The company has a long history and extensive scientific use, meeting WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    I nominated two out of a dozen or more pages on [Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests] to see how the community regards WP:COMPANY and WP:LISTED.
    These pages are written by PR firms and contain little other than the company logo, a statement that they are "leaders in" some vaguely defined industry, an equally vague list of their products, the stock price, the current CEO and a long, long list of other companies they have swallowed up. This is of interest only to investors who can't afford a subscription to Morningstar and tax accountants who can't afford a subscription to Capital Changes Reporter (https://www.nypl.org/node/424884).
    The fact that one or more of the company's products are widely used suggests a product page under WP:PRODUCT or perhaps a mention in a more generic page on the product category, such as x-ray diffractometers. It is unlikely that the researchers who use these care who the current CEO is and what mergers they have made. In other words, having a notable product or having an entry in a notable market does not make the company notable. Julian in LA (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Cryptic (geology)

[edit]
Cryptic (geology) (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. The only reference is to a figure in a 1989 book that contradicts modern definition of the Hadean. — hike395 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Dietrich Stephan

[edit]
Dietrich Stephan (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 clearly the subject of sustained promotional editing for quite some time. No progress has been made on the article since the fat was trimmed, and looking into it myself, I can only find routine coverage discussing his appointments, and one interview. I don't believe there's enough sources here to actually build an article upon. MediaKyle (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Management, and Science. MediaKyle (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep . The sources are weak, one failed verification (marked) and some claims such as "co-founded 14 biotech companies" are unverified. However, with an h-factor of 71 (now added to his page) I have to reluctantly conclude that he probably passes WP:NPROF. It is a weak keep because most of his citations are team papers, and I do not see evidence of awards. N.B., I also added an academic page in External links. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Living Intelligence

[edit]
Living Intelligence (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)

There is inadequate sourcing to establish notability for this concept, which can probably best be summed up (albeit rather uncharitably) as "big picture LinkedIn-style thought leadership"—or, even less charitably, it is a thing someone made up but for business executives.

The HBR source, the AOL (which syndicates Motley Fool, and is a transcript of a video interview) and the 'Future Today Institute' source aren't independent of the author who originated the concept. A brief web search identified a few other pages that are broadly in the same genre.

The Hesham Allam source cites a wholly different source for an idea referred to as 'living intelligence' (namely someone called Anna Bacchia) that predates the FTSG/Webb/Jordan formulation. It is also mentioned only in passing—not significant for the purpose of the notability guidelines.

The Robitzski source predates the invention of the concept, and thus does not do anything to establish notability.

The 'Analytics Insight' source looks extremely unreliable. According to their bio, the author of the piece "excels at crafting clear, engaging content", apparently. Last week, on Friday, they produced seven articles for 'Analytics Insight' in one day, on topics as wide-ranging as staying at the top of Google search results, knowing the difference between OLED and QLED televisions, the best travel credit cards, discounts on Android phones, smart mattress covers, and using AI to generate video. An optimist might commend this industrious work ethic; cynics might draw the conclusion that this feels like a low quality content farm (the massive flashing adverts for ropey looking cryptocurrencies don't help).

The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing.

The Inc. article by Aiello does look to be reliable, and independent, and provides significant coverage, but probably isn't enough alone as "multiple sources are generally expected" (WP:GNG).

There was another source listed which I removed. It's generated by Perplexity AI. Literally, just AI generated text. It's here (and on the Wayback Machine, but the overuse of JavaScript makes that version unusable). It is pretty much a case study of AI confabulation.

The AI generated text reads: Amy Webb and Gary Marcus, two prominent figures in AI research and forecasting, offer contrasting perspectives on AI's trajectory in 2025. Webb predicts a convergence of key technologies, including AI, biotech, and advanced sensors, leading to what she terms "living intelligence". At this point, there is an inline footnote which points to an article titled The great AI scaling debate continues into 2025 from a website called The Decoder. Said article does not discuss "living intelligence" or Webb. The Decoder article talks about Gary Marcus and AI scaling, so the AI generated source is at least half right. To be fair, the Perplexity source does go on to point to a podcast interview which... might establish notability if you squint a bit.

So, in terms of sourcing that establishes notability, we have an Inc article and a handful of podcasts/interviews. But the convergence of AI-generated text and the somewhat spammy promotion of futurist/thought leadership suggests this should be deleted (or possibly merged/redirected into Amy Webb). —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Technology. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Also pinging User:BD2412 as the AfC reviewer. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as, indeed, "a thing someone made up but for business executives." Honestly, anything made with "sources" from Perplexity or other slop machines should be deleted on moral grounds. They're the opposite of reliable; using them is by definition not being here to build an encyclopedia, and the results should be treated accordingly. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per last user, WP:MADEUP, and the use of AI-generated sources, which is a flaming red line for me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep or restore to draft. I was pinged to this discussion and am mulling this over carefully. I don't think that Amy Webb being the coiner of the term is disqualifying of a source for which she is the author. It's not like she's selling "Living Intelligence" as a product for her enrichment. She is an academic in the field, and her opinions in the field carry weight. I have never seen Harvard Business Review questioned for its reliability. With this along with the Inc. article, I would expect that if this is a notable concept (and the article describes something that certainly should be), then additional sources may be found. BD2412 T 01:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for this. Two points: the Harvard Business Review do publish sponsored content on behalf of corporate partners. Some of which is emabrassingly mediocre research that would get a failing grade as student coursework. The source in question doesn't seem to fall into this category, thankfully.
    Also, at risk of being excessively cynicial, the thinktank/thought leadership world are selling a product. Taking a vague trend of New Stuff, and self-publishing a report that gives it a label is exactly what goes on in futurist/thought leader circles in order to promote yourself so corporations and others will pay you for consulting and speaking gigs etc. I drew an analogy with WP:MADEUP becuase hand-wavy futurist thought is often "a PDF of a thing I made up on my own website" rather than getting subjected to peer review. Whether the idea actually is notable is a question for other people to determine, hence why our notability guidelines look to independent sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    "Amy Webb being the coiner of the term" is "disqualifying" of any source that she wrote, insofar as it means those sources are the opposite of independent. A source that Webb wrote isn't completely useless for all purposes, but it carries zero weight in evaluating the notability (in the Wikipedian sense) of the concept.
    To paraphrase Tom Morris' second paragraph above: a label is a brand is a product. We absolutely should treat a thinktank/thought-leader person writing about their own label in the same way that we would treat a business owner writing about their own business. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    These concerns are not alien to me, which is why I would support restoration to draft as a WP:ATD. BD2412 T 03:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Draftify - Confused about the Perplexity AI issue address above but not sure if it matters. I did find this from The Week but that only makes two if you take Inc. into consideration. I would not fully discount the HBR just because she is the coiner of the phrase; however, being that there is not a lot of other references talking about it, I am not sure we can consider her the expect on the topic either.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Igor Ivitskiy

[edit]
Igor Ivitskiy (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 a young Materials Scientist which claims that he is a mathematician, but has only published on polymers. According to this page he was in the Department of Chemical, Polymer and Silicate Engineering described here. While there are claims that he is a Professor, the relevant staff page does not currently verify this. Page makes many claims, for instance 200 scholarly works but he only has an h-factor of 13. (An h-factor of 13 is at about the level of a senior postdoc in Materials Science, to at most a starting assistant professor. If he was truly a mathematician then an h-factor of 13 might be acceptable.) Page has major refbombing and a fair amount of peacock. No indications of anything close to a pass of WP:NPROF on any count, or any other notability criteria. Page was previously PROD by nom, then indirectly challenged by Jars World here. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, and Ukraine. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: As stated in the nom, this appears to be ref-bombed. I'm not convinced by the 30 or so links, my search doesn't bring up much of anything about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    I find social media, youtube... The name is too common to find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - passes GNG because he is a known young mathematician in Ukraine with significant contributions to fluid dynamics, non-Newtonian materials, and advanced computer modeling. He earned a PhD and a habilitation (Dr. Sci.) from the Institute of Mathematics, NAS of Ukraine, with research focused on nonlinear differential equations and Galilean invariance. He holds a professor title granted by the Ukrainian government for his scientific and pedagogical achievements and currently. General notability also comes from the high profile government awards. --Jars World (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level, which in Ivitskiy's case is the President of Ukraine’s Prize for Young Scientists. Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

On My Own Technology

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

WP:NORG doesn't pass, no sigcov in article, and I suspect WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Transformer effect

[edit]
Transformer effect (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)

Mutual inductance and Inductive coupling already have much more information here. The transformer effect certainly is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this, either. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Physics, Ldm1954 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Not delete - what are you suggesting should happen? Christian75 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree with the nom that the term is rarely used. It refers to the effect in which an emf is induced by a time-varying magnetic field. (see [2] and [3]). It is usually discussed in electrodynamics textbooks under the topic Faraday's law of induction. Given this, I propose that we merge to Faraday's law of induction, and create a redirect from the more common term, transformer emf, to that page. The coverage at the target article should also be expanded. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    I've added discussion about transformer emf to Faraday's law of induction. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Transformer. There is nothing useful in this article to merge, it is high-school physics without sources. The name is not in common use, and I suspect is a literal translation from another language. It seems to have been created much earlier in WP history when the policy about what to include and verification was more open. I would also be OK with a simple delete, as a Google search mainly brings up pages on Transformer-syle robots. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Transformer, as there is not any brilliant prose or even cited content worth preserving via merge. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Technically, transformer seems like a wrong target. In those sources that care to define "transformer effect", e.g. this, it includes any effect from changing magnetic flux to a stationary circuit, similar to transformer emf. In particular, it includes the interaction between a circuit and a moving magnet, which is unrelated to what happens in a transformer. That's why I suggested Faraday's law of induction above. If we decide that it generally does not have a well-defined meaning, then we should delete it or link to Electromagnetic induction, which is the broadest article in the topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    I would be fine with either of those as redirect destinations. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Inductance#Mutual inductance, where Mutual induction also redirects. In 2006 the first sentence of the first version of this article read The Transformer Effect, or Mutual Induction, describes one of the processes by which an electromotive force (e.m.f.) is induced. So it was meant as an article on what we usually refer to as mutual induction. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria 💬 12:53, 28 June 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"