Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

4363:

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.

4344:

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."

4541:

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,

4528:, 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. 4289:; 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. 4053:

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.

4455:. 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 640:. The technical details of the pager are not important, but the supply chain is. Note, that other weapons (talkie-talkies) were also used in the attack. The key question the article needs to answer is who made the pagers and who is responsible for their safety, Gold Apollo or BAC Consulting. Protecting Gold Apollo from bad publicity is not a reason for deleting the article. If they go bankrupt because of this, they fully deserve it. They had a responsibility to protect their trade mark. 293: 550:. I can find no mention of "Gold Apollo AR-924," "Gold Apollo AR924" or "Gold Apollo AR" outside of news sources reporting the Israeli bombings. "Gold Apollo pager" returns only results for these news articles, the company's website, patent documents, and similar. The sources currently cited at the article fail the criteria for addressing the article topic "directly," as in the "significant coverage" criteria of 4319:

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.

56: 1585:. 6 sources on the page. 1 2,3,4,5 sources can not be reached and 6 is just a table of different universities and the subject does not even have entry in it. Even if there was entry, it still is a poor source with no significant coverage. Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails 4183:

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.

4347:

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

4298:

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

2738:

I've expanded it a bit today - it does get quite good coverage in mainstream media, has been running for 21 years, has quite a lot of incoming links, and IMO passes GNG now, if it didn't before. Gaming is also another topic which probably receives less coverage in WP than its popularity would suggest

5002:

by an Assistant Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada seems promising but he admits in the post to having lacking "expertise in that area" thus his post doesn't meet the expertise guideline for self-published sources. As for the blog posts, YouTube videos, and other primary sources, they

4308:

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

4197:

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

4540:

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

4175:

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.

4174:

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

4071:

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

4063:

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

821:

Many thousands of these devices exploded the other day, injuring, maiming or killing nearly 3000 people. This device is now by far the most notable pager/beeper ever made. This device is at the very center of one of the most dramatic and historic espionage and irregular warfare operations in human

4446:

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

4276:

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

4182:

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

1251:

The first AfD was... somewhat disrupted, but the rationale is substantially the same as that one, I just kinda forgot to renominate after the DRV (oops). In my judgement, there is no way in hell the subject in question meets ORGCRIT, whether in english or non-english sources, and nothing I've seen

708:

as a front. This implies that this was a multi-year Israeli operation, started in 2022 at the latest. This covert operation is distinct from the bloodshed that happened in Lebanon this week. I am redirecting BAC Consulting, to the article, as evidently the fake company had no other purpose than to

4784:

It is also worth noting that this subject has a significant amount of traction on social media websites like Twitter/X, Reddit, and even LinkedIn. This is difficult to directly cite due to its lack of centralization and login requirements. Still, I would like to think that this subject is notable

4362:

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

4343:

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

4178:

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

4328:

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

4318:

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

4938:

However, recent developments within the 3DPF community are concerning, as they seem to focus on further lowering the barriers to entry for producing 3DPF. Noteworthy developments include the ‘Nutty 9,’ an improved bolt design for the FGC-9 consisting of nothing more than four nuts and two bolts

4052:

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

663:

This is very flawed. The weapon was the explosives. Stuxnet was specific malware that exploited four zero day Windows vulnerabilities, and the article is about the engineered malware, and not about the model of USB drive it initially infected. But also that argument is off the point. The pager

4531:

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

3515:

needs to be used with caution as a reference. Either way, in the ToI references cited, Mishra is only mentioned in passing, and is not the subject of any of the articles. Merely being in the Civil Service and getting quoted briefly in the newspaper doesn't automatically confer notability per

4502:(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 4067:

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.

4467:. 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. 4816:. Right now I lean heavier towards deletion as the only sources relevant to the actual gun itself are from what looks like the designer's own website- the other sources make no mention of the gun. Getting social media traction is not in and of itself a qualifier for notability. 3330:

Poorly referenced promo piece / CV on a non-notable civil servant. Declined at AfC but moved into the main space by the author. A bit too old to draftify now, and in any case BEFORE finds no evidence of notability either, so probably no point in prolonging its misery. Fails

589:

No other model of pager produced by the company exists on Knowledge (XXG), information related to this product should be at most made a small section on the manufacturer's page. Beyond recent events, it is otherwise completely irrelevant to anything other than the company.

4785:

given that it achieved its publishers' requirements for quality. That said, this subject is relatively new, and I am sure that, in time, more direct evidence of notability will become available. Any suggestions to rectify this in the meantime are appreciated.

844:

that details how umbrellas have been rebuilt into a murder weapon - but without creating an article on the actual model of umbrella that was modified - exactly because the make and model of the modified implement does not in itself provide it with notability.

822:

history that is certain to be studied and analyzed for many years to come. Already, numerous reliable sources worldwide are discussing this device in great detail, and it boggles my mind that some editors think that this article should be summarily removed.

2753:

What sources have you added that you think are independent and reliable? They’re still mainstream sources talking about their own wins in the awards (and thus not independent), self published sources (not reliable) or trade publications (not independent).

4520:

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

4198:

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

1087:. There are already articles for both the attack and the company who had the pager manufactured. Some information could go there. There are a lot of sources mentioning the pager, but only in the context of the attack. Specific coverage is lacking. 4179:

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?

1450: 5311: 1824:

and a double pass of #C2, if we agree that those are national-level awards for scholarly contributions and a highest-level honorary membership in a major scholarly society. Are they? He also has what looks like a strong citation record

989:

Is it? What sources do we have? I asked this above and so far we have been presented with no sources to consider. We are looking for significant coverage of the product in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. No amount of

4309:

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.

4549:), 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" 2678:

for this niche regional industry awards program. All of the coverage is either on the award program's own site, or it's in news outlets touting their own journalists' wins and nominations and thus not independent. A handful of

4666: 1407: 570:

this particular device, there seems to be no claim to notability outside of this single event, for which we already have an article. Thus, I believe this article fails to establish notability for the topic, and our status as

1939: 905:

the information about the attack is highly important. A separate article on the pager that itself is notable only for the attack prevents a centralized and well organized presentation of the information on these explosions.

4948: 5268: 3548:

somehow the colonialist mentality is prevalent here, I remind you that India and Pakistan have not They are under British rule and yoke and that does not mean they are irrelevant in history or in their own decisions. Auch

2412: 752:

You should only bold one of your keeps. By convention at AfD we only bold our !votes once. Also you have not specified a speedy criterion. I don't think any are eligible. I think you mean you are moving from keep to keep.

3468:. No significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. I cannot find subject's work that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy nationally or internationally. 3299: 4056:

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:

3634:

used to be a reliable source, but its standards have fallen, and I’ve seen some AfDs recently that depend heavily upon that as the source that they claim proves notability. I don’t see significant coverage in any case.

2643: 2869: 4265:

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

440: 4021: 2187: 1700: 3791: 1220: 146: 479:, and doesn't appear to warrant a standalone article. Article did not exist prior to the explosions, nor seemingly any reliable sources covering it, failing the "sustained coverage" requirement of NPRODUCT. 1807:. This is one of those odd instances where Wikidata and the article history include what look like several claims to notability that are completely unmentioned in our present article. He is a Fellow of the 4212:

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

1760: 4623: 557:

While the particular model of pager is likely to receive a good amount of (temporary) media scrutiny from a few outlets, this will likely be only in the context of the above-mentioned bombings. Although

96: 2011: 1061:

I am a deletionist when it comes to mobiles, and similar devices. But as this device was a centre/key point in a major attack, many reliable sources have covered the device significantly (thus meeting

704:. It is becoming evident that the AR924 was not just some random Gold Apollo pager intercepted by Mossad (presumedly), but it was designed and manufactured by the Israelis using the Hungarian company 1177: 1123: 1118: 1896: 1444: 299: 5305: 1380: 1375: 1384: 2369: 5241: 5236: 2480: 139: 3063: 5245: 1367: 4128: 4100: 3855: 3256: 2945: 2937: 1764: 5037:

Relisting as there are three different suggested Merge target articles. Of course, content can be merged to multiple articles but we need a primary article in order to close this AFD.

4994:

yet, though it might be close. The mentions in the academic papers are insufficient to establish notability since they are only trivial, passing mentions with no detail. However, the

4660: 2600: 664:

product is only notable if there are reliable independent secondary sources that significantly discuss the pager (not the attack, but the actual pager). Do we have any such sources?

5228: 1933: 859:

The point is that the discussion of this device and the supply chain should be in the main explosion article, which is currently a small fraction of the size that would warrant a

2406: 1252:

since the aforementioned discussions move the needle in the slightest. Here's hoping if anyone brings up new sources that they're at least vaguely plausible in therms of meeting

5435: 3847: 2826: 4348:

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.

3293: 4140: 3859: 3563:

If colonialist mentality were the problem, then we would expect all Indian newspapers to be judged unreliable on Knowledge (XXG). But the consensus on Knowledge (XXG) is that

2708: 2637: 2472: 1317: 397: 132: 4399:

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

186:. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps: 5370: 3843: 2863: 2720: 2243: 1550: 1281: 333: 434: 4750: 4722: 4015: 3978: 3066: 2492: 2488: 2181: 2144: 1694: 1657: 1321: 500: 4596: 4591: 5431: 4132: 2949: 2251: 2239: 2019: 1772: 1518: 516: 512: 91: 4600: 4381:

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.

3785: 198:

to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the

5374: 4730: 3360: 2712: 1289: 508: 112: 1214: 209:

to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

956:. The event is a historical first time. This product became important, indeed people looked on Knowledge (XXG) for this article (and it is good that they found it). 3748: 3388: 3368: 2476: 1522: 4995: 4915: 4583: 164: 86: 76: 1869: 1864: 1818: 1812: 4999: 1113: 4946: 4882: 3038: 1873: 1371: 108: 4377:

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

2342: 2337: 840:

The flaw in this argument is that the exact make and model of pager that was manipulated does not provide justification for an article. Similarly, we have

5232: 2346: 1856: 720:. In the Stuxnet case the article on the weapon is ten times as long as the article on the attack itself. I believe we will see a similar trend here. -- 3517: 2056:(red link will be fixed shortly). Neither has standalone notability per sourcing I've found and can be amply covered in the soon to be target article. 3229: 3224: 1465: 5427: 5366: 4718: 4124: 3839: 3356: 2933: 2704: 2468: 2235: 2007: 1756: 1542: 1514: 1313: 1277: 496: 215: 168: 120: 81: 63: 17: 5326: 3233: 2573: 2568: 2329: 1432: 5293: 4268:

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

2577: 1363: 1355: 738:. I have suggested that it be merged to Gold Apollo AR924. The company is a fake front, established solely to produce the AR924 killer pagers. -- 4512:

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

202:

as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.

3605:. Even if the said publication didn't have reliability issues, these articles still would contribute nothing towards his notability. HTH, -- I 3216: 2799: 2794: 5676: 4701:, no independent reliable sources about this. Being offered on some sites is not the same as having the necessary sourcing about the subject. 239: 5224: 5216: 2803: 2560: 2223: 1490: 370: 365: 794:. The parent article has existed since 2014 and has plenty of room to house this information, which is already there in its essential form. 243: 5193: 5133: 5106: 4983: 374: 4681: 2986:

or otherwise. (Also, so poorly referenced that one wonders where all this information came from, but that's not a matter for this AfD.) --

1426: 649:, but no article on the attack itself or the damage it caused. The Stuxnet article focuses on the weapon and on how it was delivered. -- 5342:

This exists, but even the very stubby article doesn't prove it. Its own website server fails to respond. Not inherently notable. Fails

4648: 3951: 3946: 2786: 2117: 2112: 1954: 1630: 1625: 5560: 5287: 4587: 3955: 3652:: could not find significant coverage for this person besides the TIA reference, which I wouldn't consider reliable. There was also a 2427: 2121: 2053: 1921: 1634: 357: 281: 183: 179: 5460: 5063:: I'm not sure the new second amendment is what we're looking for as far a sourcing goes... This is about all the coverage there is 4771: 4451:

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

4161: 3880: 3409: 3314: 2394: 1793: 1571: 1422: 1342: 5008: 4400: 4233: 2658: 1062: 5283: 3281: 5556: 4846:

Also, it is notable that It is the first Bullpup submachine gun/PCC that anyone can make in the world and not based on the FGC-9.

4491:- The article text demonstrates that the subject's research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline and beyond. 3938: 3721: 3716: 3041:

where he did his postgraduate studies doesn't appear to award doctorates, and the article doesn't mention an honorary doctorate.

2884: 2625: 2219: 2104: 1617: 4249: 455: 5681: 4916:

https://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ARES-Research-Report-No-8-Desktop-Firearms-2023-Update-EARLY-ACCESS.pdf

4299:

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.

3725: 2851: 1472: 1301: 1265: 4036: 2202: 1715: 422: 5333: 4642: 2278: 1860: 1150: 1145: 4499: 4003: 2169: 1682: 235: 4949:

https://ctc.westpoint.edu/printing-terror-an-empirical-overview-of-the-use-of-3d-printed-firearms-by-right-wing-extremists/

4941:

Urutau—a soon-to-be-released hybrid pistol-caliber carbine—that is said to be significantly easier to build than the FGC-9.

4883:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yveilleuxlepage_about-an-hour-ago-the-files-for-the-urutau-activity-7231845456090165248-8Leu

3806: 1915: 4579: 4571: 3708: 1808: 1154: 547: 476: 5639: 5498: 5155: 5026: 4435: 4239: 3897: 3773: 2388: 1235: 4638: 2333: 1815: 3686: 3275: 3171: 1202: 284:

for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

277: 5272: 4627: 3982: 3752: 3260: 2830: 2744: 2619: 2604: 2373: 2148: 1911: 1900: 1661: 1411: 1181: 1137: 401: 4060:

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

3034: 1486: 1438: 572: 3058:- I couldn't find SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. The best I could find was passing quotes from him in the 2845: 2384: 5299: 5064: 4877: 4688: 2078: 2062: 1975: 942: 889: 416: 3271: 2529:

The podcast received two awards and was a major factor in its host's being inducted into the Podcast Hall of Fame.

2301:

and others would be considered "poor sources" by the nominator; please explain the rationale for that assessment.

783: 5011:

of the quality, independence and verifiability of the ARES Research Report can be found, I would change my vote.

3997: 2615: 2564: 2163: 1961: 1852: 1844: 1676: 3220: 5659: 5628: 5595: 5576: 5543: 5522: 5487: 5465: 5420: 5389: 5358: 5209: 5180: 5145: 5118: 5089: 5075: 5051: 5015: 4972: 4929: 4898: 4864: 4825: 4794: 4776: 4742: 4710: 4562: 4481: 4416: 4390: 4372: 4357: 4338: 4207: 4192: 4166: 4116: 4081: 3917: 3885: 3831: 3827: 3669: 3644: 3614: 3584: 3558: 3529: 3498: 3477: 3456: 3432: 3414: 3380: 3348: 3198: 3151: 3147: 3132: 3111: 3094: 3077: 3050: 3017: 2995: 2973: 2925: 2841: 2763: 2748: 2732: 2696: 2541: 2522: 2504: 2460: 2434: 2310: 2260: 2227: 2083: 2067: 2043: 1999: 1837: 1833: 1798: 1748: 1598: 1576: 1534: 1506: 1347: 1305: 1269: 1096: 1077: 1047: 1025: 1003: 984: 965: 946: 932: 915: 893: 872: 854: 831: 813: 762: 747: 729: 695: 673: 658: 618: 599: 579: 528: 488: 4909:

Urutau is mentioned in Armament Research Services (ARES) Research Report 8: Desktop Firearms Desktop Firearms:

3767: 1811:

and the 2023 recipient of their Harold Spencer-Jones Gold Medal for an outstanding contribution to navigation

632:. This is a weapon used in an attack. With up to 4000 victims, the event can have multiple articles. Possibly 412: 4953:

Urutau was mentioned in the 3D-Printed Firearms and Terrorism: Trends and Analysis Pertinent to Far-Right Use

3593:: I proposed this article for deletion because it doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. The three 3321: 2790: 798:

this highly searchable term since it is a verified product which has been rendered notable by recent events.

5141: 4821: 4790: 3993: 3610: 3376: 3344: 2991: 2665: 2500: 2456: 2325: 2317: 2159: 1820:. They are all personal honors rather than indirect through his company. That looks arguably like a pass of 1672: 1196: 1074: 717: 683: 254: 4092: 3212: 3204: 3005: 5114: 4968: 4925: 4894: 4860: 4558: 4412: 4368: 2891: 2759: 2740: 2728: 2692: 868: 595: 524: 484: 361: 4654: 4448: 3763: 3572: 3568: 2274: 928: 860: 559: 462: 5515: 5455: 4786: 4766: 4156: 3875: 3662: 3404: 3167: 2073: 2057: 1788: 1566: 1337: 938: 885: 743: 725: 691: 654: 5105:(the primary article) as the gun won't have been designed if FGC-9 did not exist and merge it into the 4096: 4043: 3712: 3564: 2448: 2209: 1927: 1732: 1722: 1192: 1070: 1031: 563: 472: 27: 4495: 5552: 5548: 5539: 5535: 4108: 3942: 3580: 3525: 3473: 3428: 3073: 3046: 3013: 2556: 2548: 2400: 2306: 2108: 1621: 1594: 735: 4813: 3813: 3030: 1586: 1482: 787: 5319: 5205: 5085: 5071: 4674: 4525: 4329:

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

4199: 4184: 4029: 3823: 3799: 3452: 3307: 3287: 3143: 3008:, who like Mr. Gupta works for both SAAM CorpAdvisors Pvt Ltd and the ITU-APT Foundation of India. 2877: 2651: 2514: 2420: 2195: 1947: 1829: 1744: 1708: 1458: 1297: 1261: 1228: 1043: 999: 827: 758: 669: 448: 4934:

Printing Terror: An Empirical Overview of the Use of 3D-Printed Firearms by Right-Wing Extremists:

2901: 2680: 2675: 2631: 2533: 2072:

Now exists. I think it meets N:ORG regardless of how this closes, but it makes sense as a target.

1242: 791: 5654: 5414: 5383: 5352: 5137: 4817: 4809: 4353: 4203: 4188: 3606: 3554: 3541: 3494: 3486: 3372: 3340: 3190: 3107: 3090: 2987: 2782: 2774: 2518: 2496: 2452: 1530: 1502: 1092: 911: 850: 841: 805: 614: 5610: 5343: 3575:

is regarded as a completely unreliable source, and is generally removed from articles on sight.

2857: 2270: 795: 428: 5572: 5483: 5475: 5402: 5110: 4964: 4921: 4890: 4856: 4554: 4408: 4386: 4364: 4334: 4077: 3640: 3489:, my position is to maintain in some way there is significant coverage and evident notoriety. 3160:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3128: 2755: 2724: 2688: 2537: 2298: 1020: 979: 961: 864: 520: 480: 353: 345: 4542: 4286: 4009: 3681:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

3465: 3445: 3166:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

3120: 2683:

coverage items as well but that doesn't contribute to notability and thus this subject fails

2175: 1971: 1821: 1688: 1253: 1035: 538: 5509: 5444: 4755: 4447:

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

4403:

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

4145: 3864: 3657: 3393: 2290: 2286: 1777: 1739:- *maybe* you can argue that the company is relevant? But he as a person doesn't seem to be 1555: 1326: 739: 721: 713: 687: 679: 650: 264: 5197: 4991: 4452: 3538: 3508: 3441: 3336: 3332: 2983: 2684: 1736: 1066: 551: 104: 5623: 5012: 4537:

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

4517: 4513: 4104: 3934: 3926: 3779: 3682: 3576: 3534: 3521: 3469: 3424: 3069: 3042: 3009: 2302: 2282: 2100: 2092: 1613: 1605: 1590: 1141: 591: 3822:

Does not meet NCORP, no reliable sources; superficial and WP Trivial media coverage only

1826: 246:

etc.) related to Technology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except

5408:

template, refusing to discuss it. I am not averse to a merge if deemed appropriate 🇺🇦

3102:. No, it expands the coverage of notability, my position is to delete or send to draft. 2277:

in major, notable German newspapers over a period of years. I cannot understand why the

1208: 5590: 5201: 5081: 5067: 4738: 4706: 3448: 2255: 1740: 1293: 1257: 1039: 995: 924: 902: 823: 754: 705: 665: 637: 576: 225: 5004: 4698: 2444: 182:. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at 5670: 5649: 5409: 5378: 5347: 4509: 4503: 4404: 4378: 4349: 3590: 3550: 3490: 3184: 3103: 3086: 2968: 2920: 2038: 1994: 1526: 1498: 1088: 907: 846: 799: 609: 4506: 2739:(and one I know little about), and these awards are highly prized in that industry. 5568: 5479: 5196:. Reference already exists within FGC-9 article as well, the subject does not meet 4396: 4382: 4330: 4282: 4278: 4073: 3704: 3696: 3636: 3124: 2294: 1828:

in a field whose citation patterns are unfamiliar to me, arguably enough for #C1. —

1015: 974: 957: 937:

Votes are not counted, consensus is determined based on the strength of arguments.

5262: 4617: 4222:

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

3972: 3742: 3250: 2820: 2594: 2363: 2138: 1890: 1651: 1401: 1171: 973:. The device is notable. Whether or not it was notable a week ago is irrelevant. — 391: 4872: 3485:: The man was a Civil service and the sources that support him are reliable like 1731:

No evidence of notability besides a few academic sources, doesn't appear to meet

4878:

https://3dprintgeneral.com/portfolio/the-brazilian-jstark-ze-carioca-3dpgp-ep19/

3597:

articles referenced do not provide significant coverage of Mishra: they are not

2218:

Likely not notable company that does not fulfill NCORP guidelines; poor sources

779: 5132:

or at least not totally deleting the article, and I agree with Richard Ye that

5615: 4961: 4959: 4841: 4836: 1133: 1103: 546:

This particular model of pager seems to be notable only in the context of the

5066:, rest are un-RS. Seems like PROMO with most of the sourcing being primary. 4920:

I think this is enough independent reliable sources about the Urutau right?

4887: 4734: 4702: 3545: 5080:

Merging to "3d printed firearms" is probably the best place to send it to.

4546: 159:

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to

3423:, I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. 3142:

This subject does not seem notable and does not have enough news coverage.

3004:

Yes, there's likewise a lot of unsourced information in article creator's

607:

was a completely non-notable model of pager until this recent news story.

5171: 5042: 4532:

authority and extensive record of impactful research in their discipline.

4472: 3908: 2954: 2906: 2024: 1980: 5589:

It was a vandalism-only account so their comment should be disregarded.

4912:

Emergent Small Arms Craft Production Technologies 2023 update page 30-31

646: 3544:

you should look at it with caution, but the same does not happen with

2451:. I didn't find any coverage in reliable sources when doing a BEFORE. 5166:

We still have two target articles being proposed with equal support.

296:

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

4939:

screwed into a printed connector piece, and the development of the

2513:: tagged for multiple notability issues since 2021. Nothing better. 55: 5102: 4998:

is an independent source with several paragraphs on the Urutau. A

4987: 1974:. Couldn't find any significant coverage. I suggest a redirect to 1494: 178:

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at

3677:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

5642: