Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.


Purge page cache watch


Academics and educators

[edit]

Patrick Juola

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

Does not meet WP:N standards. WP:BLP1E may be applicable Djibooty (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hewa S. Khalid

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

As far as I can see, there isn't a single secondary reliable source independent from the subject to count towards the subject's wikinotability (actually, most if not all of the sources were created by the subject). Can't find a passing criteria from WP:NACADEMIC nor any significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

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

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]

Elio García-Austt

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

Fails WP:BIO - no independent, reliable source I could find in my WP:BEFORE talks about him in detail. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire page in wiki is based on this - https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Elio_Garc%C3%ADa-Austt.html Mike, the regular nose job (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mike! The bottom of that page says "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Elio_García-Austt". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia.", so actually that page is just a mirror site for the (completed unsourced) Wikipedia article. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try looking at GS where you will find a little. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Georges-Claude_Guilbert

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Georges-Claude_Guilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not fit criteria for academic relevance and possibility of self promotion Paul John Dedalus (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[5]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Gertoux

[edit]
Gerard Gertoux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All prior XfDs for this page:


I accepted this at AFC after requesting the create protection was lifted in mainspace. I now have strong doubts that Gertoux has anything other than faux-notability, and believe that I was in error.
I have subsequently, with consensus, removed undue weight from thge article. However, I am struggling to check and verify references in the detail required. At AFC I needed simply to accept based on what I believed was a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. It has done that - there was no immediate deletion process.
Now I am looking in greater detail I have found that it has an impenetrable referencing scheme, which often links in a tortuous manner to Gertoux's own works. Quotations in the references often do not match the alleged fact that is cited. Some I have removed. However, when studied in detail, each references appears susceptible to challenge in some manner.
My conclusion is that this is a WP:SOAPBOX and a WP:COATRACK for the ideas and concepts attributed to Gertoux. Furthermore that he fails WP:BIO, WP:NPROF, and WP:GNG.
If deleted it should again be salted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His only claim to fame is not finishing his PhD, and accusing his professors of the "great French academic conspiracy against fundamentalism". The reason for not allowing him to continue his PhD wasn't his religious affiliation, but his insistence to peddle WP:FRINGE fundamentalist claims in his dissertation. Because which church he attends in his leisure time is not relevant to getting a PhD. Belonging to a tiny religious movement could be frowned upon, but it is ultimately a private matter which does not concern writing a dissertation. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, being personally a fundamentalist does not concern the university: that's what he is during his leisure time. Writing a fundamentalist dissertation does concern the university. MIVILUDES is more of an organized whistleblower than an organization exercising political or juridical power. E.g. when I was a Christian fundamentalist I managed to get a BSc from the University of Amsterdam, which is considered a bastion of atheism by many. When a professor wrote to him that he is a fundamentalist, the professor meant that his dissertation is fundamentalist. Otherwise, French professors don't tell him which church he should attend. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion of theological orthophony
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment on JWs coatrack presumption: Since the 19th century, Bible Students have used the form Jehovah in their worship and in general in their movement, and since 1931 they have been using the name Jehovah's Witnesses for their denomination for almost a century, I do not believe that they need Gertoux's support to justify the inclusion and use of the term Jehovah, or that they are interested in it because I typed in the web search engine and found that the JWs cite George Wesley Buchanan, Everett Fox,[6] and dozens, but never Gertoux. Regarding pronunciation, JWs have always affirmed:
  • that the form Yahweh is the form most accepted by scholars
  • that there are other pronunciations such as Iao (i.e. 4Q120) or Yaho, and others, and it is not possible to know the original pronunciation
  • that they use Jehovah because it is well known and familiar
  • that it is possible to use the pronunciation of an individual's choice
  • JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen in their publications
Even Gertoux claims that he limits the Yehowah pronunciation only to the 1st century CE,[7] because going further back is a mythical rather than a scientific quest. So can Gertoux give support to the JWs, to use the pronunciation proposed by him, when the JWs do not need it? Reference has been made to soapbox and coatrack, which is not clearly what this is about, or, how to prove that it is? Although there is no clear relationship in the coatrack and soapbox, I can well think that researchers who have also attracted attention in these contexts are relevant, JWs are a fairly large community. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that JWs have been using the form Jehovah for a long time has no bearing on an attempt to make their (and similar groups') views appear more legitimate by a purportedly independent scholar presenting that view as 'mainstream'. The assertion that "JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen [sic] in their publications" is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah. (The denomination's Watchtower Library uses Yahweh a total of 732 times compared to Jehovah appearing 360,095 times.) See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Gerard Gertoux.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to: "is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah", this it is not true [8]. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though this is straying outside the point, the objection is also wrong. The 1 January 1982 issue of The Watchtower referenced above (on page 9) quotes The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (which uses Yahweh), and then alludes to that quoted form again (the only times Yahweh appears in that issue) before suggesting Jehovah as the preferred alternative on that page and then in more detail on page 14. That issue of the magazine uses the form Jehovah 83 times. This also goes to the reliability of the editor cherry-picking sources to push the narrative about the 'correct' pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More irrelevant material on the rejected thesis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment: Gertoux's book The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story has been included among the references of articles in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity and the Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγυκλοπαίδεια (ΜΟΧΕ). Some reviews of two Gertoux's books:
    • Winedt, Marlon (2004). Lind, Sarah (ed.). "Biblical Studies § OT § Gérard Gertoux. 2002. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story. University Press of America. Translated from the French Un historique du nom divin. Un Nom Encens (L'Harmattan, 1999)". TIC Talk. Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation Information Clearinghouse. 57. United Bible Societies.
    • Lee, Won W. (2003-10-09). "Notes on Recent Publications § The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. by Gerard Gertoux". Religious Studies Review. 29 (3): 267–316. doi:10.1111/j.1748-0922.2003.tb00391.x. ISSN 0319-485X. OCLC 909876699.
    • Gee, John (June 2004). "Gertoux, Gérard. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002. Pp. 328. Paper. $47.00. ISBN 0761822046". Review of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature. ISSN 1099-0321.
    • Sion, Brigitte (2000-04-07). "Un historique du nom divin: un nom encens, par Gérard Gertoux (1999)". Revue Juive de Genève. LouvreBible: 24.
    • "7789 Gertoux, Gérard. Un historique du nom divin : Un nom encens / Gérard Gertoux. Paris : L'Harmattan, 2001, c1999. - 222p. : ill., facsims., 22cm. ISBN 273840616". קרית ספר: רבעון לביבליוגרפיה של בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים. 71 (3–4). Jerusalem: בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים: 705. 2001.
One version of The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story is stored in 130 libraries according to Worldcat. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem argument. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ad hominem at all. Block evasion is a breach of policy.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On examination of the two editing styles, it is more likely that this was a form of collusion rather than one person evading a block.--Jeffro77 Talk 21:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The substantial amount of extraneous comment about some mythical being named (probably) Jehovah is not germane to this discussion and distracts and detracts from the pure policy based discussion on whether Gerard Gertoux ought to be kept of deleted. It is pure blether, dancing very close to bludgeoning. This discussion is not about a mythical being. It is about the deletion or retention of the article. Since I am the nominator I do not feel I ought to be the one to collapse it. "Soneone else" should be, after mature reflection. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I am unfamiliar with studies of the Tetragrammaton, nor biblical studies in general, judging by WP:PROF...
  • Gertoux does not appear to be or have been a fellow of a major scholarly society with a prestige comparable to the Royal Society, nor has he ever assumed the highest-level office of a scholarly journal or a major institution of research.
  • In other words, if Gertoux's most notable work, which this article seems to suggest was the proposal of an alternative theory of the ancient vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, has not had a significant impact on related fields of studies or outside of academia, then this article should be deleted & salted per WP:NACADEMIC.
  • While I have little knowledge on the subject to determine whether the scholarly sources citied are sufficient enough to invoke criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC, I would like to note that the wiki pages of at least four cited academics: Pierre Villard, Claude Obsomer, Thomas Römer, Max Reisel, were all created by @Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco. Again, I am not arguing that these articles are WP:COATRACKs; they may very well meet WP:GNG independently of Gertoux.
00101984hjw (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Gertoux has had a remarkable influence for his Tetragramaton studies in the academy, as commented on by many scholars in independent and secondary, or even tertiary sources in an encyclopedia (not if it is necessary to bring an avalanche of citations and comments to his work, but there are some on the discussion page Talk:Gerard Gertoux#Requires editing#Scholars' opinions). I have read of only two who have written that they disagree with Gertoux Tetragrammaton's thesis (unfortunately one is self-published and the other person does not deepen his critique). In this sense Wikipedia:GNG is fulfilled. Gertoux does not object that only Yehowah is the ancient pronunciation, but rather that it was one of those used in the first century CE, among which there was probably also Yahweh and Yaho. Most scholars would not abandon the Yahweh form for Gertoux's argument, but agree that his study offers vision for research, and this has resulted in it being selected among reference works such as the encyclopedias mentioned above. D. N. Freedman said that Gertoux "probably solved the puzzle". Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes: Gertoux "has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a problem in their academic discipline".
As for the argument that the sources are not good, I advocate for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics: "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as 'academics' for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". In any case, the alleged problem of the sources could perhaps be solved by reworking, or cutting the main text.
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals: It is satisfied 1 for being recognized for his studies on the Tetragrammaton, it is satisfied 2 for "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", i.e. arguing that Yehowah was used in the 1st century, it is probably satisfied 3, for having 5 reviews (2 in French and 3 in English) of the same book, only in different language.
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics: Gertoux is cited in Scopus, although he has no ID of his own, and his books are in 130 libraries according to WorldCat.
Although the sources claiming that Gertoux is a victim of discrimination are the human rights institutions (secondary sources and not Gertoux himself), I do not know if it applies Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, medicine, physics, etc., because the density of publication in the field is so much lower, and there are many fewer than 1% as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable person to be cited. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the coatrack: on the discussion page of the Gertoux article, reasons were expressed as to why it was presumed to be a Coatrack. However, since the deletion nomination, the editors have worked hard on the article and it has undergone drastic changes to address the alleged problem. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It remains a coatrack. A great deal of the original fluff and clutter and other extraneous material has been torn down, it is true. That does not remove the rationale for the nomination. There is a point where answering every point in a discussion becomes WP:BLUDGEON. You have been told about this on your talk page by me, and by an uninvolved editor, albeit that they told you after you had made this additional comment. The is a request, here, to cease and desist, while recognising that you will plough your own furrow. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The closest approach to a notability claim made in all the above is that one book was recognized. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. (And the claim is not even very solid. The Religious Studies Review, for example, is a superficial notice.) No other relevant standard (WP:PROF or WP:GNG) is met either. Given the article's history, salt it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Timtrent, I initially also though that this can be salvaged as a short-ish biography on the grounds of WP:BASIC at least, but no. Not enough secondary coverage for a sensible encyclopedic biography.—Alalch E. 17:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT per XOR'easter. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inman Harvey

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

Does not meet standards of WP:NACADEMIC. Limited references, no significant expansion since last AFD in 2016, could not find more references.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I understand it, the nature of citations is that they are monotone increasing, so that once several qualified editors (Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, Vanamonde93) have opined that the subject passes WP:PROF on citation record, they keep on passing PROF indefinitely unless some sort of mistake in the editors' reasoning can be pointed to? One of the editors in the previous debate, and the only one to engage in detail with the PROF 1a claim, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Deliberately not linking to avoid canvassing. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, as the nominator does not seem minded to withdraw, that's a keep vote, especially given the below comment by David Eppstein, who is certainly qualified to judge Harvey's contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see nothing presented that might change my previous opinion that he passes WP:PROF#C1 by virtue of his highly-cited publications. Note that in the British system, his previous senior lecturer position is a regular-rank research and teaching faculty position somewhere between the US assistant and associate professor levels rather than (as it would be in the US) a teaching-only position. I suspect his current "visiting senior research fellow" position really means "retired but still active in research". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not intimately familiar with the US system (and have not yet looked into Harvey at all), but "senior lecturer" in newer research universities (ie founded post-WW2, but not as a polytechnic) that do not use a Reader grade (such as the University of Sussex, I think?), can cover anything between what David Eppstein discusses and one step below department head (ie Reader) and would definitely imply a partly or predominantly research position. (I see our article mentions "principal lecturer" but I don't recall ever seeing that in use.) I agree that "visiting senior research fellow" position is essentially emeritus whatever position the subject held at the time of retirement. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "highly-cited publications" are mentioned, but only one publication is in the article now and it's been awhile since the first AFD. If there are many of them, where are they and why are they not within the article? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the GS profile. Certainly a few of the highest-cited could be added to the article, but I will defer to David Eppstein as to which are most important. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a matter of cleanup and expansion, that's fine. But it's been eight years since the last AFD. Again, if these are important somehow, why have they not been added during that time? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: if this was the first AfD I would vote Delete as it is a high citation field, with the caveat that a prior editor mentioned "ISAL awards" (which I cannot find so cannot verify). I think that if we previously decided a page (BLP) was notable we stick with that unless there was a clear error. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kif Augustine-Adams

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

None of the eight criteria at WP:NPROF applies to Augustine-Adams. It is true that she holds a named chair, but in my view she still does not satisfy criterion #5 because the BYU Law School is not an elite school that has the requisite "reputation for excellence and selectivity", as the specific notes say, like a Harvard or Yale would.  White Whirlwind  15:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Malodia

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

The sources do not provide sufficient significance to justify an independent article. News articles emphasize "concise promotional" content. While the article weakly meets WP:BIO standards, it falls short of meeting WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. — MimsMENTOR talk 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gramlich

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

I could only find one non-primary source talking about this person, so in addition to the other issues with the page I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

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

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to improve it, though gutting articles during an active AfD is often disruptive to the process. I don't agree that reviews in specialist journals don't count, surely they are the best way of assessing reception in the specific field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this article. I want to clarify that I have never touched it or asked anyone to edit it on my behalf. It is based on a page from a wiki for Shimer College, which was created without my knowledge or input, by an alum I have never met, who has no apparent familiarity with my writing. I agree that it is of very low quality, and if the community decides to delete it, I will understand. Adam Kotsko (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The "Theory and Event" and "Philosophy in Review" citations above are critical reviews of his book. The rest is gravy. We have enough to pass author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have paged through all of the umpty-dozen revisions in the article history since the last AfD was closed in 2017. It does not appear that a cleanup tag (other than a sentence-level tag) was placed on the article at any point during that time. Even supposing that AfD was an appropriate way to address article quality issues (it isn't, not at all), if that's the actual concern then it's a little weird to go directly to AfD (again) without even asking for cleanup.
    FWIW I do agree that the article has a WP:BLPSELFPUB #5 issue in its current state. That would seem best addressed through expansion -- but BLP is a serious matter and I am unlikely to be a participant in that work, so although I stand by the remainder of my comment I have stricken my "keep" above. -- Visviva (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further reflection: draftify. Although there doesn't seem to be any serious question of article-worthiness, a BLPSELFPUB violation should not just hang out indefinitely in mainspace. The necessary expansion work can be done just as well in draftspace, if anyone is so inclined. -- Visviva (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No dispute that he passes NAUTHOR, draftification is pointless for any article that isn’t new. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say draftify. The article has potential, but leaving it out there the way it is now reflects poorly on the subject and Wikipedia. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:
- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).
- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Issaka Kriese

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

Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
And no, the fact that a smattering of campaign coverage happens to exist is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL -- every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely meaningless and unenforceable.
But there's no strong claim to preexisting notability here, and no particular evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test in and of itself -- even the campaign coverage is entirely a two-day blip of "presidential candidate announces running mate", with no evidence of substantial or sustained coverage for any other reason shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the election, but she isn't "inherently" notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

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

My nom concerns from the first AfD discussion still hold. This subject fails WP:NPOL and still fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. From cursory search, nothing useful was found too. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I am concerned. There are no credible claims of significant/importance here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I can't find anything notable about the topic on the article nor online, and most news articles about them are months to years apart. Deuxde (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous reports in the Albanian media. euronews al shqiptarja Cna alPolitico al telegrafi reporter al Τhere is no reliable Albanian journalistic website that does not host news and comments about him. He is certainly an important Albanian political figure whose article will be deleted only because there are no sources for him in English - LefterDalaka (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LefterDalaka, sources do not have to be in English. I looked through the sources provided in the article before !voting. I also looked through the ones you posted here, also. The Euronews and CNA do not appear to be independent of each other. All appear to be rather glancing coverage. I'm having trouble determining reliability of the publications, but I see some tabloid type concerns. What do you think the WP:THREE best sources for WP:SIGCOV are? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware that Euronews and Cna are somehow linked. Do you know something I don't know?😊 Actually I brought these sources to highlight one's encyclopedic nature by combining them all together and not just one. Let's say he is a person who is included in the Barometer, he appears on TV channels on various issues, he is now the chairman of a party, in general he is a completely recognizable and influential person in Albania. LefterDalaka (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our sources do not have to be in English. They do, however, have to be substantive, meaning that they have to contain detailed coverage and analysis about him doing something noteworthy, and it isn't enough that sources can be found which just happen to have his name in them. For instance, an article "about" public opinion polling on his popularity or unpopularity does not support notability, and a very short blurb about him commenting on something that happened to somebody else does not support notability. He has to be the subject (not the speaker) of a reasonably long and detailed (not a short blurb) piece of coverage and analysis about him (not just featuring him giving a soundbite comment about somebody else) before that source starts to support notability, and even then there have to be several sources of that high calibre (not just one) before he's cleared the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not seeing anything here that would meet WP:PROF. No publications appearing on GS at all? With a PhD in 2020 would seem likely to be a case of too early career on that front. No opinion on press coverage in Albanian. Would be happy with redirect/slim merge to Nisma Thurje if no other source of notability emerges. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakiv Pavlenko

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

Article by a novice editor of an academic with unclear notability and which has too many unsubstantiated claims. H-factor of 28 with 2574 cites so does not pass #C1. Page contains both significant WP:MILL (e.g. giving a seminar) and unsubstantiated claims such as "published more than 300 papers". GS shows 141 total, many uncited conference papers. Editor claims that he qualifies under #C2 which I am very dubious about since at most the Ukrainian State prize comes close. I tagged the page with notability questionable, and asked for verification of claims. Appsoft4 ignored request, so now it needs a wider discussion of notability (or not). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the author has strong views on this article but has been temporarily blocked from editing. In the interest of fairness, please consider this diff, which they indicated were their views on the AFD. OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject is not completely unnotable under PROF, the citations appear reasonably healthy. As the subject recently died, it is possible that more obituaries will be published (there is one in memoriam already in the article) which will provide GNG. There's a uk article that appears to predate the subject's death and was apparently not created by Appsoft4. Perhaps draftification is an option? Although the creator appears to have been quite disruptive, imo blocking them from participating in this AfD is not really in the interests of assessing whether or not the article subject meets our threshold. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were warned and asked repeatedly to stop removing the AfD tag and blanking this AfD but refused. They did so at least 10 times. AusLondonder (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine you are a newbie who has written/translated an article on someone who has recently died, whom you strongly (and not irrationally) believe to be notable, and someone brings it to AfD. Blocking them such that the AfD will be settled in their absence feels... cruel. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that it is not impossible that he may end up passing NPROF. Not on citations, as it is not a low citation field and many of his papers have multiple authors. Maybe #C2, although I am not convinced. It might be good for an independent editor to cut the MILL, sources & irrelevant material and add other independent material for us to look at. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to copy his arguments here Unfortunately much of this is WP:MILL for academics (memberships), or not relevant (who wrote the obituary). He does not pass WP:NPROF#C1, or 3-8. To me the isuue is:
  • Do we consider the State Prize to pass WP:NPROF#C2. If yes, then we clean the article and keep it. If no it gets deleted.
Ldm1954 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I am somewhat persuaded by the notion that the subject is a notable scientist in Ukraine, if not internationally. The entry in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine could, I think, be considered to pass WP:ANYBIO #3. The obituary certainly would seem to go towards GNG, the Sci Am piece possibly, if Pavlenko were the key author on the exoplanets work, and the three together might be considered to meet GNG. Altogether I'm leaning keep, particularly swayed by the ANYBIO#3 argument. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep based upon the discussion above, sources found, and my own search results. He apparently wrote 316 papers, but not all of them were accepted as peer reviewed and published on Google scholar. Having written at least six papers in physics myself that were not accepted, I interpret this as the difference. Probably some of them were poster presentations or other non-peer reviewed papers. I did a little cleaning and copywriting, and added a citation needed tag for his Doctor of Science degree. Otherwise, I’m leaning towards keep. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can only use those which have passed peer review, as this kind-off makes them RS. Hence I still see no evidence for WP:NPROF#C1.
    What I do see as plausible is the suggestion by Espresso Addict that he passes WP:ANYBIO #3. I note that the text says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" so I am not certain. While I am familiar with WP:NPROF, I am not experienced enough on WP:ANYBIO to make a judgement. Maybe OXYLYPSE, AusLondonder and Praemonitus would like to make comments. Also, Bearian would you consider that he passes WP:ANYBIO? I will abstain on WP:ANYBIO, and will happily go with the concensus on that. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B., I did a bit of cleaning, removing some more WP:MILL and trimming the "Publications". However, there are still 17 which is too many. Unless someone else wants to do it I will just pick the most cited 10 of these (albeit probably not before next week). The description of conference proceeding papers and the refbombing probably needs to be cut/removed, and there is still more WP:MILL such as being an adviser etc. I would prefer to share the load here. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm prepared to work on it if it is kept; I've stopped working on articles during the deletion process (it feels like coercion, to be honest). I've been hibernating since January, so it is possible that things have changed, but I thought meeting ANYBIO #3 was generally considered enough. I and others have started many articles based on the British equivalent and I can't think of a time that I've seen one challenged, let alone successfully. There's sometimes objections for very small countries, but I don't think Ukraine would count there. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - My only involvement so far was in reverting edit warring from RC Patrol. Whilst the article author has been fairly disruptive, it's actually an OK article. WP:ANYBIO is just a guideline, but I think the inclusion in the Ukrainian encyclopedia tips the scales for me. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

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

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators&oldid=1257110005"