Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

This listing is for biographical articles on academics. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles in general and WP:ACADEMIC for the widely-used notability standard for academics. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools for deletion debates about educational institutions.

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academics and educators. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. 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:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} 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 edit summary 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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} 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.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators

Satish R. Devane

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

The subject does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NACADEMIC and has only served at non-notable institutions and small colleges, further limiting eligibility for inclusion. There is also no evidence of WP:GNG as an alternative for retention. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and India. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aikande Kwayu

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

Contested draftification. Promotional bio that appears to be written by an editor with a COI. I recommend returning this to draftspace and salting the page since the editor has re-created the page several times now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Religion, and Tanzania. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites far too soon for WP:Prof so Salt for a few years until notability is established. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources (included or found) suggest WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC are met. Promotional piece by a COI editor. I am minded to agree with SALTing too, given that the creator repeatedly moved the article to mainspace against clear opposition, and appears to have gamed the system to enable them to do that in the first place. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional: a photo caption including " She offers her professional work and services in English and Swahili." shows how unencyclopedic this article is. PamD 09:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It smells like promotion. I haven't found a reliable source but maybe others will manage to find one. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no evidence of GNG-based notability as argued above, citations are too low for WP:PROF#C1, the other PROF criteria look out of reach, and I didn't find any published reviews of her books that might contribute to a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bayme

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

Delete or redirect to American Jewish Committee as WP:ATD. Not notable under WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE in the context of Bayme's work for AJC. Academic work and standing is not significantly impactful. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Judaism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found multiple reviews of his books on JSTOR but they were all co-edited volumes: Yitz Greenberg and Modern Orthodoxy, JSTOR 48733587; Rebuilding the Nest, JSTOR 352754; American Jewry's Comfort Level, JSTOR 25834912; Facing the Future, JSTOR 42941514, The Jewish Family and Continuity, JSTOR 23450196, JSTOR 42942533. If even one reviewed book were authored it might push me over to a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nissrine Chaoudri

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

Non-notable artist. None of the sources are independent, and the article is promotional in tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Morocco. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, no sourcing used that isn't primary. I can only find [1], she organized a festival. I don't see a listing in the Getty ULAN either [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete G11, promotional with no kernel of notability to rescue under the promotion. No evidence of being in the collection of bluelinked museums or other accomplishments that might pass WP:NARTIST. I note that the version of the same article on the Spanish Wikipedia has recently been deleted as promotional and the French one has been proposed for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Subject seems to have no notability, seeing as the only sources to account for the individual are their own sources. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly promotional, primary references, nothing that isn't from her. Procyon117 (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No speedy deletion, seriously? The "sources" that are primary are from YouTube, Instagram and Facebook which are not reliable, this person is not notable. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dennis Clark

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

Industrial scientists don't generate much coverage that we can use to determine their actual influence in their field. This expert on zoom lenses has a single monograph with 80 citations reviewed in Optics & Laser Technology and a self-published book about his own physics theory. Doesn't meet NPROF and I can't find any in-depth coverage that would meet GNG. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement for a fringe "theory". XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were multiple reviews of the zoom lens book we could consider having an article on the book and redirecting there, but I only found the same one as the nominator [3]. In any case one book isn't going to pass WP:AUTHOR, his Google Scholar profile [4] shows nothing else of significance, and the fringe theory WP:COATRACK is a likely ongoing problem that would be solved by deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Walker

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

The press releases and similar do not pass GNG, and the Bru Times News appears to be paid / vanity press. I do not see citations for WP:NPROF. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Academics and educators. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Gonzalez

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

The subject fails the notability guidelines for WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF. The sources cannot establish that the subject passes the General notability guidelines. The first source is a Linkedin page, the second source is an interview and the last source is a personal website. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, and United States of America. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been corrected with plenty of external sources. The point of this entry is partly to bring light to a highly accomplished & important figure. 2601:195:C480:DFB0:5166:6B4B:96EF:DC75 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the article does nothing to suggest notability but its last line, membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (the much stronger of the two AAAS's) is an automatic pass of WP:PROF#C3. This was present in the article as nominated, but I'll give the nominator a pass for missing it because I missed it too the first time I took a look at this. The linkedin source is bad but the academy's own profile of her [5] is adequate to establish notability for this criterion, as the specific criterion notes 3b make clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Thank you for your thoughtful gesture. I noticed the AAAS nomination but the three sources provided initially were either primary source or social media link. However, I noticed that the article has been improved with a lot of sources, though majority of them are still either primary or unreliable sources. However, the main important one, the AAAS source is not accessible from my end. Please, ping me when you confirm it is accessible and I am going to withdraw my nomination. Thank you. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you would have trouble accessing it; it's not a subscription-only link. That said, notability is about the subject, and the sources that exist anywhere, not about the article and the sources given in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein, and I've added the AAAS to the lead to clarify her notability.Pam D 09:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. What a great team effort to rescue this! Bearian (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack D Films

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

Non-notable YouTuber. No reliable sources present, and all sources online are about one of his videos, not him in general, so no significant coverage. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under WP:G11 as a promotional page. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declined; I don't see anything at all promotional here. If there's a speedy deletion criterion this comes close on, it's WP:A7, but having 17 million subscribers is probably a WP:CCS. None of which is to say he's notable, just that the article has earned its week at AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be promotional but sourcing is clearly not good enough to meet WP:GNG. My guess is that this was created by some kid rather than a PR team. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources to back up notability conpared to any other YouTuber. Urchincrawler (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced and written almost like an ad. Fails GNG with no reliable sources on a search. Madeleine961 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching found some tabloid coverage of his videos. I don't think it's reliable enough to count for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, I don't think the article was intended to be promotional, but it was likely written by a (young) fan DarmaniLink (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Rose Papandrea

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

WP:BLP of a lawyer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for lawyers.
As always, lawyers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to be the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their careers in third-party sources independent of their own personal control -- but this cites no GNG-building sources at all, and instead is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources self-published by directly-affiliated non-media organizations (e.g. staff profiles and press releases self-published by her own employers), and media hits that briefly namecheck her as a provider of soundbite in an article whose principal subject is something or somebody else, none of which constitutes support for notability: the stuff that's about her isn't reliable, and the stuff that's reliable isn't about her.
Note that this has already been speedy-deleted at least once as a G11, and has gone through more than one round of move-warring as it was sequestered in draftspace by established editors before being moved back into mainspace by its creator without substantive improvement to address the reasons why it was getting draftspaced.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The named chairs (one of which is explicitly labeled as a distinguished professorship) make this a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. She also has good citations for law (often a low-citation field) [6] making a case for #C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even a PROF pass still has to be supported by reliable sources, not staff profiles and press releases. Bearcat (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF#C5 states "publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source". [7], [8] are exactly this. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 06:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 0162739p (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. It seems rather odd to refer to "criteria for lawyers" for a person whose basis of notability is clearly their professorship and academic output. BD2412 T 02:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 0162739p (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the person who approved this submission at AfC per WP:NPROF #5 because she has distinguished professorship positions cited in the article. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note on the alleged "move warring" in this AfD nom that the creator of this article, User:0162739p and the person who submitted it to AfC, User:Psquintero, have not moved the page once.

I'm a reviewer at AfC who accepted it initially per NPROF #5, then it was "draftified" without reason from a user who says they are part of WP:NPP but doesn't have the perm and only has less than 140 edits and a history of reversed bad draftifications (Gratefulking).

It came back up on the AfC feed because it was re-submitted. I accepted this submission again because the criteria was met, leaving a nice comment on Gratefulking's and the article's talk page explaining about WP:NPROF in case they weren't familiar with it.

If this was a WP:INVOLVED action as I previously reviewed it or if it counts as move warring, I am sorry. Please let me know if this is the case (courtesy ping Bearcat) and I will never re-review submissions I have reviewed in the past. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 0162739p (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe we need to focus on academics on Wikipedia and work on creating their articles. As for this subject, it clearly meets the criteria of WP:NPROF. Even the authority control databases indicate the same. Baqi:) (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein et al. and the PROF test. This creates a presumption of notability that I think isn’t rebutted. While not a rule, she easily passes my standards for attorneys: named professor at a major law school and a clerkship at SCOTUS. Bearian (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Keeperman

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

No longer a notable personage. The sources included mostly concern the article's previous subject, the small company Passage Publishing. This may well change in the future, but, over all, there are very few RS that could be used to rectify this issue. Roggenwolf (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears that the nom is based on WP:DEL-REASON #8, but the nom fails to show how the article does not meet the standard. Notability is not a past/present thing, so there's no such thing as "no longer a notable personage". If he "was" notable, then he "is" notable. Second, the nom's purpose in proposing deletion seems to be that "most" of the sources are about Passage Publishing. Interestingly, the article was just moved for the exact opposite reason - that sources focus on Keeperan rather than specifically on the Passage. A brief review of existing sources and potential as of yet unused sources indicates there's enough to sustain an article. The article is start-class, although it needs content refocus, but that's enough to warrant alternatives to deletion. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. I often weigh in on academic deletion discussions but the embarrassing connection to my employer gives me too much of a COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough news coverage to get over the notability bar. I concur with the above !vote that notability is not temporary. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I requested it be moved, as noted above, for the opposite reason. There are no notability proving sources for Passage Publishing outside of ones that concern Keeperman. If you think he doesn't meet it, I disagree, but the company extra doesn't meet it given how strict NCORP is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original author of the article here. I am new to wikipedia but my immediate impression is that this change didn't make sense, and this rationale doesn't make sense.

The intention of starting the page for Passage Publishing is that they are a publisher, and the works and authors they publish are notable. I believe a page for Passage Publishing should be evaluated under N:PUBLISHING not NCORP

"A publisher is notable if they have published a notable individual publication or a series of publications that are collectively notable."

Whether or not a page for the founder is sufficiently notable seems like an entirely separate issue. Instead of changing an article to an obviously different subject, I would propose that a page for Passage Publishing should exist, and whether or not there should be a page on Jonathan Keeperman should be discussed entirely separately.

Why not revert the change, create a page for Jonathan Keeperman, and have this debate there? Or, do I need to recreate the article for Passage Publishing? Bluetik (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M Aminul Islam

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

The subject does not have multiple SIGCOV coverages from reliable secondary sources, hence failing to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the subject is not an elected member, thus failing to meet WP:NPOL. According to sources, he is a “Special Assistant to the Chief Adviser” who will handle the “Education Ministry” until the Bangladeshi interim government ends. Technically, they have the powers of State Ministers, as source also confirm that they will receive the salary, allowances, and benefits of a State Minister. Therefore, I doubt notability, so taking it to AfD. GrabUp - Talk 15:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 15:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basically the same page was moved to draftspace on 11 November (Draft:M Aminul Islam) and it should be incubated there so that issues about notability etc. can be ironed out. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and this. ~~Delete per nom~~/~~Comment: Recently created unsourced BLPs don't necessarily require an AfD nomination. Draftification may be a more constructive approach to address the issue.~~ TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBirdsShedTears: Draftification is not an option when challenged. AfD is the only option when draftification is challenged. Read WP:DRAFTNO. This article was recently draftified by Josh. If I could have draftify it, then why would I not draftify it? GrabUp - Talk 15:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice it until reading the comments from SunloungerFrog and you. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article gives no clue what kind of academic M. Aminul Islam might be, and the only Google Scholar profile I found [9] looks like a mishmash of articles by other people, not all with the same name. A regular minister of a national government would pass WP:NPOL but I don't think a special assistant to an interim government does. So the article, in the state it was nominated in, does not make a convincing claim for notability. But with that as background, the sources clarify that he is a physicist from the University of Rajshahi and former vice chancellor (that is, head) of Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. Here's a source for that, with dates: [10]. I think that should be enough for WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the Vice-Chancellor of a university is notable. Withdrawing the nomination. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 19:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog and TheBirdsShedTears: Do you agree that as a former vice chancellor he is notable as an academic administrator, or do you wish to maintain your recommendation to delete? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce:, thanks to David Eppstein for carefully reviewing the sources. I changed to "keep". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - very happy now to keep, on the basis of the current state of the article. It is perhaps a pity that the creating editor did not do all of this in draft space when the article was first draftified on 11 November, to save the shenanigans of AfD. SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein passes WP:PROF#C6.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahaman

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources provided do not demonstrate that the subject meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or the specific guidelines under WP:SNG for Academics. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Bangladesh. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are mostly column writings by the subject themselves (More likely a biography). other references are not enough to establish the subject as Notable.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Portal cbnbd.com is obscure, with no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. The tone of the article there ("Deprived of his father's love, this bright child of Varuakhali grew up with poverty as a blessing. Like a forest, the human society continues to grow above all the surrounding barriers ...") does not ring of reliability. The Japanese piece is tagged as a paid article, and the other three sources are written by the subject. Searches of the usual types found nothing better about this Mizanur Rahaman. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susmita Bhattacharya

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

Since the subject does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NACADEMIC, it requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Currently, the subject is supported by primary sources and has only an h-index of 7, which is insufficient to establish notability by academic standards. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and West Bengal. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: University presidents are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree with Eastmain that the question is whether being principal of Jhargram Government Medical College and Hospital (founded in 2021 and affiliated with West Bengal University of Health Sciences) is sufficient. If this is essentially a medical school loosely attached to an older university, then perhaps not? The GS profile[11] gives top citations of 83, 69, 58 and then a big drop off, which does not meet my definition of WP:PROF by citations in medicine. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not, we never consider deans/presidents of medical schools or hospitals for C6. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf-Peter Horstmann

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

Despite notable achievements in German academia, the article seems to lack any indication of having WP:PROF criteria, i.e. notable citation etc. Xpander (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Germany. Xpander (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He probably meets WP:AUTHOR, if nothing else. Here and here are published reviews of his Cambridge Elements book on Kant; here is a review of his translation of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil; here is a review of his recent book with Paul Guyer. I've not searched for reviews of his various German books. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, his professorship meets criterion C5. Note that the German system doesn't have the plethora of named chairs found in the US system, but a full professor and Dekan in a good German university is of at least comparable level. Elemimele (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm puzzled at this editor's behaviour in creating this article and then immediately asking at AfD for it to be deleted. If there is a sincere desire to delete, then I would have actioned a WP:G7 given the trivial nature of the edits of others. But now we're here, I agree with J Milburn that WP:AUTHOR is likely to be met, and with Elemimele that WP:PROF is probably met in the chair at Humboldt University of Berlin; additionally, looking at Google Scholar, top citations appear to be 221, 89, 69, 65, 56, which seems reasonably healthy for someone writing predominantly in German in a low-citation field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Espresso Addict, I tried this since it didn't violate any clear guidelines. To learn better how articles are evaluated on AfD. One can learn a lot from fresh new and professional perspectives. Best. Xpander (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty more reviews of his non-English books. Some are edited volumes rather than authored works but still I think he passes WP:AUTHOR. Reviews of Seminar: Dialektik in der Philosophie Hegels: [12] [13]. Reviews of Ontologie und Relationen: [14] [15]. Review of Hegels Philosophie der Natur: [16]. Reviews of Hegels Logik der Philosophie: [17] [18]. Review of Transcendental Arguments and Science: [19] [20]. Review of Die Grenzen der Vernunft: [21]. Review of Theorie der Subjektivität: [22]. Review of Zweifel und Gewissheit: [23]. Review of Les frontières de la raison: [24]. Review of Hegels vorphänomenologische Entwürfe zu einer Philosophie der Subjektivität in Beziehung auf die Kritik an den Prinzipien der Reflexionsphilosophie: [25]. Review of Hegels Philosophie des Rechts: [26]. Review of Rousseau, die Revolution und der junge Hegel: [27]. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorenzo Manganiello

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think much has changed since the last AfD. Most of the sources are insignificant/primary: quotes, mentions, interviews. Does not pass WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. Frost 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Finance, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost, Sir/Madam, I have used those references that are not merely quotes or mere mentions. These are news articles that gets published or covered by third party sources. These are not promotional content se. Still, you are more experienced editor than me and can guide me as I have done my research and can share references that fulfill the criteria of WP:BASIC. Your guidance will be highly appreciated. ~~~~ Fanalrino (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have cross checked again. All of the mentioned sources are secondary sources and not simply mentions or interviews and I think so passes the WP:BASIC. So, the subject passes the Notability criteria and should be there on wikipedia. Fanalrino (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are more experienced than me and can help in editing all relevant reasons for deletion, please do highlight so it can be fixed instead of nominating it for deletion. Your input on this matter will be highly appreciated. Fanalrino (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF. For GNG, I see press releases, a few passing mentions in reliable sources, and unreliable sources. I do not think it is enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It does fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG as majority of citations are from secondary reliable sources and do not have passing mentions only. There are complete articles on the subject and about his business. I do agree with the fact that it does not fall under WP:NPROF but it does fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. It specifically cover the clause titled as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Also, it adhers to clause "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." So, I think so it should not be deleted. Fanalrino (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. For complying with WP:GNG, I have added news article sources that are considered secondary sources and these are not mere trivial mentions but specifically written articles about him and his company. They are not interviews and sources like Business Insider or Saudi Gazette, or even Cryptonomist are secondary sources and subject's coverage on these sources clearly shows that he does fulfill the criteria of Notability according to wikipedia guidelines. Also, any additional information that is not backed easily with strong secondary references has been revmoed earlier. So, I would request that Deletion notice should be deleted. Thanks Fanalrino (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I would also like to strengthen my case with following arguments:

General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG

Manganiello's activities, such as co-founding LIAN Group and PolarDC, have been covered in reliable, independent sources like Financial Times, Business Insider, and Digital Infra Network. Coverage demonstrates significant attention beyond mere mentions, highlighting his influence in venture capital and blockchain. Academic Notability WP:NACADEMIC

Manganiello's role as a professor at Geneva Business School and ambassador to the Global Blockchain Business Council suggests academic impact in blockchain education, an emerging field of global importance. Entrepreneurial Contributions WP:NPROF

Founding sustainable blockchain firms (e.g., Cowa) addresses pressing industry challenges, earning him accolades like Blockchain Expert Switzerland. His contributions align with public interest criteria. Reliable Sources and Secondary Coverage

While there is one keen source that is primary (e.g., Geneva Business School), there are substantial secondary sources discuss his ventures, philanthropy, and investments (e.g., Techerati, Cryptonomist), meeting WP:RS It is not only press releases that are about him. There are multiple secondary source articles that are discussing his achievements and of his company. Public Interest and Context

Blockchain and sustainable crypto are critical global discussions, and I think so figures like Manganiello, backed by notable funding and initiatives, enrich this discourse.Fanalrino (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I have improved the article further after its nomination for deletion. The keen issue was of references and I have fixed that by citing majority news articles about the subject that are secondary and not trivial mentions. Also, I have removed extra information that was backed by primary sources. So, I hope it does fulfill the criteria now and it should not be deleted. If there is a further room for improvement, you guys are more expereinced than me and your guidance will mean alot. Thanks Fanalrino (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if we consider it according to WP:THREE, [28], [29], [30]], [31]], [32] all qualifies as secondary sources and are following the guideline provided in WP:GNG stated as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

One last point, I would like to add that I did check the previous nomination and in fact those sources were not sufficient according to wikipedia guidelines. But now, majority of the references are new and secondary and are fulfilling the criteria set according to WP:GNG. The article has been improved alot since its nomination and new references and content of the article is improved. Fanalrino (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nurida Gadirova Ateshi

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. REFBOMB and promotional concerns…All of the sources are not adequate for notability. Kadı Message 21:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Azerbaijan. Kadı Message 21:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Kadı Message 21:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing Prof or GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:ACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject clearly meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria. Several articles by them are available on Academia. Besides, if you think there is a WP:REFBOMB' you can fix it, and you can also remove the promotional content. I don't think deleting it would be a good idea. Baqi:) (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannatulbaqi, Could you please indicate the valuable sources by providing links which you are referring in your opinion? Kadı Message 22:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. With many book publications, WP:AUTHOR is plausible, but only if we can find multiple reliable-published reviews of multiple books. I didn't find any in Google Scholar and JSTOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to give this discussion a little bit more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cihan Erdal

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

WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, Turkey, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure getting arrested for your beliefs is notable. Certainly doesn't meet academic notability. Coverage is about the arrest, but I don't think that's enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice there is some book coverage in google books by some major academic presses. For example: [33], [34], [35] The diversity of the sources and prolonged coverage over a couple years suggests that the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Cihan Erdal would pass WP:NEVENT. Perhaps repurpose this an event page instead of a WP:BLP?4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sing-yung

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

Seemingly written by someone close to the subject, fails WP:PROF. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Medicine, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding IS ∩ RS ∩ SIGCOV at this 2016 article, this 2016 article, and this 2023 article; IS RS discussion of his work without SIGCOV at this 2009 article and this 2019 article; and an RS SIGCOV 2012 interview which I'd consider to be IS as well even though interviews are sometimes borderline.
Fails NPROF for sure, but looks like he meets NAUTHOR (or maybe it's ANYBIO or GNG; notability guidelines confuse me). The article is a bit curriculis vitae (which is probably the wrong declension, but "CV" tends to mean "copyvio" here so expanding); this can be fixed. Not super convinced by COI hypothesis: this article is indeed the first major contribution by Singering88, but a. creating it as their userpage is a fair and common rookie mistake; and b. the subject was born 1939, lived in and was educated in Taiwan, then emigrated to the US— at no point in this chain would it be intuitive that a COI editor would choose to render the subject's native name in 簡體字 (which it has been since the initial recension).
I could see a case here for COATRACK, since a fair portion of the prose actually deals with the subject's research into the Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan. But I am seeing notability here, so landing at improve and keep. Folly Mox (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoc simulat curriculum vitae, perhaps? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No GS profile but there seems to be substantial citations, top 410, 305, 265, 226, 169 and further ~five >100 citns, which makes a case for meeting PROF by citations for the thyroid hormone work. Seven mainstream published books are also likely to have generated enough reviews to meet AUTHOR. The article is probably readily salvageable simply by deleting all the unrelated material. If there was COI originally, the article was submitted to AfC and accepted by DGG, so that's not a reason for deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nileena Abraham

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

Despite winning an award - which many translators appear to win and that does not inherently make them eligible for a Wikipedia article – I am concerned that this subject does not meet WP:GNG. The citations are all primary or unreliable and I can't find any other reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant way.

Please assume good faith in this nomination. It's nothing personal! Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Would having been the Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji Professor of Bengali at the International School of Dravidian Linguistics, Thiruvananthapuram count as a named chair for the purposes of meeting WP:PROF? Also is the Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M considered completely unreliable? (Although the Google Books link given is incorrect, the subject does appear on pp. 7–8.[36]) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it very odd for someone with only Master's degrees to hold a C5-qualifying named chair. And the school isn't even notable itself! JoelleJay (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay I think it's easy to become very US/UK centric with these named chairs.

On the question of GNG, I found a substantial material on Abraham in JSTOR .5325/complitstudies.53.2.0359, which has substantive (~3pp) coverage of her work translating Arogyaniketan by Tarashankar Bandyopadhyay, with some bio material. Considered together with the award, and Who's Who entry, and given that the above source is talking about work in 1961 and not in English, I feel that further expert research offline by someone who speaks the relevant languages is likely to uncover more material, so I'm going with keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict who has has convinced me that this person meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[37] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [38][39]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 149 publications in google scholar seems to be a significant number, and his citation count is high for a low citation field. I think this would probably meet criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be around the average professor in this area. Here are the Scopus stats for McNulty and his 80 coauthors with ≥15 papers:

Total citations: average: 3110, median: 1975, McNulty: 1121.

Total papers: 70, 53, 46.

h-index: 26, 23, 19.

Top 5 papers: 1st: 399, 245, 142. 2nd: 258, 197, 85. 3rd: 186, 144, 68. 4th: 150, 121, 62. 5th: 128, 100, 58.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got a little press for his analysis (not discovery) of Homo floresiensis but he's not even cited in that article (unlike his coauthor on the analysis Karen Baab). I don't think this is enough for WP:PROF#C1 and if we're going to try to claim WP:GNG-based notability based on this then I think it falls short of passing WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Anuradha Seneviratna (via WP:PROD on 29 November 2024)
Charles Jurine (via WP:PROD on 29 November 2024)
Abu Tahir Marwazi (via WP:PROD on 26 November 2024)
André Pichot (via WP:PROD on 26 November 2024)
Roberta Langtry (via WP:PROD on 25 November 2024)
Judith Yates (via WP:PROD on 25 November 2024)
~~Marilla North (via WP:PROD on 22 November 2024)~~