Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 24

1467:

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?

1240:

synthesis of information. Knowledge (XXG) 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.

1221:

these people do not have Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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."

1604:

Al-Shayeb "supervised" the work (again, as the now-banned accounts wrote in the Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) page.

1418:

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,

1405:, 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. 1166:; 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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. 930:

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.

1676:, 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. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to advance individual financial interests. Please delete. 1332:. 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 1701:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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. 4435:. The ideas of "No continued coverage" or "no lasting effect" is readily shown to be wrong by the second source, a 2023 academic book discussing the topic over multiple pages. In addition, we currently have multi-language coverage. "Video conference" should not suggest unimportance given the scope and period - event included 500 political parties and 10,000 individual representatives and was conducted in 2021 when China was still quite protective on COVID19 matters. 1634: 1612:

600 people recognized with the Forbes 30 under 30 award each a Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.

1196:

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.

160: 35: 1668:

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, @

1060:

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 Knowledge (XXG) is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta.

1224:

I call on Knowledge (XXG) 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

1175:

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

486:

forms of metalworking are both distinct (the place is significant to the craft of brassworking) and locally economically important (brass working is significant to the place). On my own doorstep, an article on 17th to 19th century brassworking around Bristol and the Avon valley would be very welcome.

3095:

As Bill Hansen, he is in the credits as an editor for a variety of television programs and related media that may become Knowledge (XXG) articles in the future. Most of all, he has composed music with a variety of notable composers. The other references can likely be found, as requested in the first

1611:

standards, then all 2000-3000 people issued an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship each year should have a Knowledge (XXG) 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

1185:

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

1074:

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

1577:

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

1466:

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

1417:

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

1052:

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.

1051:

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

948:

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 Knowledge (XXG) for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am

940:

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

3036:

There are no secondary sources that provide information about this person; the entire article is based on primary sources and the article itself admits that little is known outside of government copyright documentation. As a result of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources,

1481:

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

1323:

Relisting this discussion. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) policy which, along with

1153:

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

1059:

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

1239:

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

1220:

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

1055:

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

1205:

To the extent that my actions have violated Knowledge (XXG)'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

1195:

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

485:

But I'm not convinced that 'brass and brasswork of Benares' isn't a thing, just based on the sources already attached to the article. Is brass manufacture a significant and distinctive industry specific to Benares? Now that's certainly a thing, and there are many such locations where particular

3632:

and it has sigcov on him. I kept a notebook with the content discussing him that I'll have to find. I believe one scene had a player saying something like 'here's newspaper headlines I kept on all of our players' – so it's clear that the players (especially the significant ones like Yang) had

929:

I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'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

2268:

in the paper's text. The book written by Carter, the "social scientist," is self-published. (The author appears to be a corporate trainer/consultant.) The article by Gobodo-Madikizela has a single reference in it to "black fragility": "What concerns me is the trap of black fragility, when the

1603:

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 Knowledge (XXG) article in question) that he co-first-authored with others while being supervised by his graduate school advisors, yet Mr.

1408:

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

1667:

I think this article should be deleted because the subject clearly does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'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

1379:(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 944:

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.

1344:. 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. 2360:, comprising mostly a three-paragraph quote (!). This is not the Manhattan Institute website, so we should not be hosting entire articles based nothing on that think tank's publication. Even if there were all the sources in the world about this subject, it's still a complete 1397:

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

2642: 1075:

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

2521: 2263:

Of Cortador's sources, the first two papers (by Steele) are actually the same paper published in two different venues (one a journal, one a book chapter, still the same article). Apart from the headline, the term "black fragility" does not appear

2478: 3234:

in “The Business” like ASCAP or IMDB. I hope everyone understands why we strive to be more reliable. This page has to be deleted because there’s not enough information about the person, other than a bare minimum of what he edited. According to

1056:

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?

215: 210: 4326: 1905:

and others. Two SPA's are creating numerous articles that all connect back to Lerro (hence the "walled garden"), whose article on Italian Knowledge (XXG) has been deleted for lack of notability. The whole group of articles are WP:PROMO.

3857: 2269:

reaction to the behaviour of racists is interpreted as if the particular racist actually is in a position of power in relation to the person who is the target of the racist slur." Thus, Steele and Gobodo-Madizkizela do not constitute

3005: 1578:

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?

1186:

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.

1426:), 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" 4283: 3814: 933:

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:

2962: 2763: 1142:

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

3239:: “Biography articles should only be created for people with some sort of verifiable notability. A good measure of notability is whether someone has been featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources.” Sorry. 2054: 1854: 898: 4207:

Relisting. Clear consensus to Keep but it's not clear that sources verify content and establish GNG. This is the second relisting comment on this subject so if they do, please state that rather than give a "per"

3486: 382: 2451: 2446: 2455: 628: 719: 4648: 1927: 1089:

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

2438: 2515: 1499: 3110:

from other composers he may have worked with, or from projects he may have worked on that may (or more likely may not) be notable. What we need is reliable, secondary sources. Can you provide those??

1901:(who "invented" Empathism and wrote it's manifesto), and the "award" given to the people who adhere to Empathism. Other articles of questionable notability are the other "members" as well as Lerro's 4454:: I'm not sure how notable the book source cited is, as it's not an online reference. I can bring up news coverage of the event in 2021. Sourcing is largely in academic journals, into 2023 at least 2372:

and adding a line there about some critics using "black fragility" (which would, of course, mean omitting most of the sourcing identified in favor of those which explicitly talk about DiAngelo). —

3187: 1935: 106: 82: 4320: 3851: 1482:

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.

1477:

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

754:

It's been a while since I've looked at this topic. All things considered, before I research the topic any further, perhaps changing it to a stub article would be a better move than deletion.

4256: 4251: 2368:

not notable, as far as I can tell. As per Dclemens1971's analysis above, we have exactly one independent reliable source. The question is where to redirect it. I'd recommend redirecting to

4260: 2999: 2246: 3787: 3782: 2115: 1005: 977: 133: 128: 65: 60: 55: 51: 4243: 3791: 2935: 2930: 2569: 2581: 438: 2939: 3925: 3554: 3774: 4701: 3905: 3534: 703: 413:"Benares brass" isn't a thing; it's just brass items made/sold in Varanasi. Just like there isn't a page for "Benares trinkets", there doesn't need to be one for Benares brass. 2922: 2442: 1225:

violating Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Knowledge (XXG) community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform.

3195: 2843: 2720: 1017: 1013: 1276:

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

4705: 2815: 679: 2757: 4394: 3965: 3945: 3594: 3574: 2839: 2585: 2169:

the concept itself, to the extent it exists, or evidence that it's a unified concept among the scholars who have deployed it. I also don't see an appropriate redirect to

2048: 2011: 1848: 1811: 892: 855: 711: 707: 434: 3480: 1931: 1009: 376: 1258:

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.

103: 4390: 3443: 3066: 2589: 715: 339: 2434: 2426: 622: 4642: 4398: 3070: 1939: 3656:

per above. Just realized from this that documentaries can count as sigcov, thanks! May be able to write some articles based on subjects covered in documentaries.

3191: 2601: 1487: 97: 2536: 2403:

Final relisting. With the source review, I'm not convinced this is a Keep but we do need consensus on the outcome and whether or not a Redirect is appropriate.

585: 2503: 3368:

Relisting. We need reliable sources to verify notability, not editors' opinions that a subject is important. You have a few more days to find those sources.

4247: 1254:

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

100: 4605: 252: 1444:

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:

3778: 4697: 4386: 4341: 3183: 3062: 2835: 2577: 1923: 1460:

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

1001: 699: 430: 195: 2926: 4308: 3872: 257: 3708:– Due to the lack of sources, the tendency is for it to be deleted, but in fact this seems to be one of the most relevant players in North Korea. 2497: 1145:

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

3839: 1389:

These discoveries are influential in the fields of microbiology and gene editing, as independently outlined by multiple different editors in the

3267:

The more I research this, the more it seems like the television and film projects could be valuable resources for the Knowledge (XXG) community:

3020: 4239: 4231: 94: 91: 79: 2987: 21: 2693: 2688: 2493: 109: 88: 180: 175: 3770: 3762: 3739:

Relisting. Please provide a review of sources, if they don't provide notability, then perhaps draftification is the more realistic closure.

2697: 185: 4302: 3628: 3138:

There is an abundance of information on ASCAP of his music as well as who performed his music. However, it is challenging to understand.

2918: 2910: 2659: 2619: 2543: 1984: 1979: 1784: 1779: 828: 823: 85: 1548:

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

1453: 153: 34: 3833: 2680: 1988: 1902: 1788: 832: 1595:

because the research is not "significantly impactful" by Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria. The individual behind the now-deleted accounts @

1538:

appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

205: 170: 70: 42: 17: 4419: 3986: 3615: 3416: 3411: 3216: 2864: 1328:

and comments should be made in reference to whether or not this subject can be considered notable by this standard or, less likely,

1038: 740: 459: 312: 307: 4298: 4026: 3674: 2981: 1277: 1110: 3230:. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t have biographies on every single person who ever lived and worked in the movies or on TV. 2085:

This article covers a definition of a term used by one person, it does not appear to be a broader subject of academic discussion.

4181: 3829: 3420: 1971: 1771: 1368:- The article text demonstrates that the subject's research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline and beyond. 815: 316: 2778: 1126: 1176:

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.

232: 4348: 3141: 2977: 2745: 2509: 2069: 1869: 913: 190: 3403: 2242: 558: 553: 299: 4362: 3879: 3501: 2036: 1836: 1376: 880: 397: 146: 2158: 3468: 3253:

I do want to add that it is the biography of an editor who went by a pseudonym to write music with notable songwriters.

1478: 562: 364: 4503: 4196: 4090: 3728: 3357: 3027: 2881: 2630: 2392: 2320: 2193: 1725: 1312: 1116: 774: 643: 504: 4578: 4573: 4663: 610: 4609: 4582: 4287: 4177: 3818: 3447: 2966: 2724: 2482: 2015: 1815: 1486:

The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a

859: 589: 545: 343: 4630: 937:

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

4741: 4714: 4689: 4544: 4528: 4490: 4466: 4444: 4424: 4378: 4314: 4222: 4185: 4168: 4148: 4119: 4079: 4052: 4036: 4019: 3991: 3957: 3937: 3917: 3897: 3753: 3717: 3700: 3684: 3665: 3646: 3620: 3586: 3566: 3546: 3526: 3382: 3342: 3262: 3248: 3221: 3166: 3152: 3133: 3119: 3082: 3054: 2901: 2869: 2827: 2807: 2417: 2381: 2344: 2309: 2290: 2258: 2222: 2182: 2140: 2107: 1951: 1915: 1750: 1712: 1685: 1657: 1621: 1587: 1439: 1358: 1293: 1267: 1249: 1234: 1215: 1084: 1069: 1043: 993: 958: 794: 763: 745: 691: 671: 524: 495: 464: 422: 4073: 2739: 789: 519: 4358: 3845: 4565: 4479: 2134: 2101: 2030: 1830: 1568:

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

874: 3462: 2993: 1893:. This article is one of a series of promotional articles (a walled garden of sorts) surrounding the so-called 482:

alloy. I may be wrong - place-specific alloys do sometimes turn up, owing to oddities of local material supply.

418: 358: 2735: 4737: 2026: 1826: 1531: 870: 759: 604: 478:

I would agree that 'Benares brass' isn't a thing. At least, not in the metallurgical sense, as a particular

2150: 969: 4624: 4049: 4033: 3697: 3681: 3458: 3162: 3115: 3078: 3050: 2684: 2286: 2178: 1775: 1471:

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

1435: 1289: 1245: 491: 354: 4045:- played at the Olympics and managed the national team, clearly notable - needs improving, not deleting. 3107: 2785: 1886: 1608: 1325: 660: 223: 4733: 4540: 4486: 4440: 4414: 4066: 3981: 3661: 3642: 3610: 3338: 3258: 3211: 3148: 3129: 2859: 2305: 1033: 784: 735: 514: 454: 2076: 1890: 1876: 973: 920: 600: 1736:

Relisting. We really need some uninvolved and non-sock editors to review this article and its sources.

1372: 4620: 4514:

Relisting. So, participants, do you believe the existing sources are sufficient for establishing GNG?

4144: 3953: 3933: 3913: 3893: 3582: 3562: 3542: 3522: 3508: 2119: 2086: 1975: 1947: 1911: 1503: 985: 819: 404: 4455: 4366: 4656: 4569: 4462: 4334: 3865: 3494: 3013: 2771: 2597: 2565: 2529: 2374: 2173:

since the article does not currently use the term in discussing McWhorter's criticism of DiAngelo.

2062: 1862: 1206:

above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are.

906: 636: 414: 390: 4725: 4001: 3236: 3231: 2270: 650: 4114: 3713: 3407: 2823: 2803: 2615: 2336: 2254: 2217: 1681: 1653: 1617: 1230: 1080: 1065: 755: 303: 4729: 4680: 4670: 2751: 4046: 4030: 3694: 3678: 3244: 3158: 3111: 3074: 3046: 2676: 2668: 2282: 2174: 1673: 1645: 1596: 1583: 1431: 1285: 1263: 1241: 1211: 954: 487: 3042: 2553: 2357: 2205: 2042: 1842: 1498:

of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g.,

1419: 1163: 886: 4536: 4482: 4436: 4403: 4374: 3970: 3657: 3638: 3599: 3334: 3254: 3200: 3144: 3125: 3097: 2848: 2301: 1517: 1324:

consensus, is how AFD discussions are closed. In this case, the standards for notability is

1280:

after multiple warnings. I will also note the interesting presentation of the same typos as

1022: 724: 443: 4102: 3474: 3038: 2795: 2557: 2361: 2278: 2274: 1329: 370: 4161: 4140: 4014: 3949: 3929: 3909: 3889: 3578: 3558: 3538: 3518: 2369: 2170: 1967: 1959: 1943: 1907: 1767: 1759: 1414:

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

1394: 1390: 981: 811: 803: 549: 2235: 4535:

Yes for me, and I also incorporated the 2023 academic source identified by Oaktree b's.

2593: 2561: 1633: 616: 4458: 687: 667: 4636: 3693:- played at the World Cup, Olympics, and managed the national team?! Clearly notable. 4475: 4109: 3709: 3399: 3391: 2819: 2799: 2643:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team

2611: 2330: 2250: 2212: 1898: 1698: 1677: 1669: 1649: 1641: 1613: 1600: 1491: 1402: 1386: 1380: 1281: 1255: 1226: 1076: 1061: 295: 287: 1558:

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

1383: 3240: 1579: 1273: 1259: 1207: 1159: 1155: 950: 4599: 4277: 3808: 3437: 2956: 2714: 2472: 2005: 1805: 1099:

The Knowledge (XXG) guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows:

849: 579: 333: 2238: 4370: 1535: 4006: 3106:

Future notability is not a consideration at AfD. And his notability cannot be

2552:

Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable secondary sources to meet the

2154: 541: 533: 4709: 4684: 3275: 1894: 683: 663: 1423: 4457:, where it's discussed as part of China's larger influence in the world. 4176:

per GiantSnowman has played in the Olympics and managed the national team.

151: 4561: 4553: 4519: 4213: 3744: 3373: 2892: 2650: 2408: 1741: 1703: 1409:

authority and extensive record of impactful research in their discipline.

1349: 2610:– There is no Brazil women's under-18 team, only under-20 and under-17. 1516:

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of

1534:

appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a

1648:

as being the same person for the purpose of determining a consensus.

1495: 4471:

Thank you for spotting. We should incorporate more journal articles.

3322: 2149:. This term doesn't appear exclusive to Loury. McWhorter uses it ( 479: 2356:- Not even close. First of all, the article is a wild failure of 4474:

Current book academic source I referred to is from the notable

1500:

Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

29: 4506: