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

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: [1], [2], [3] 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]

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 similat 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]

Vincent Czyz

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

I am nominating this article for deletion under wikipedia's notability guidelines.

This article appears to be a PR piece commissioned by the author themselves, or their literary agency. Just a few hours after the first edit, the author made an edit, followed by a long series of edits by the single originating account. The article included some awards which the author paid in order to receive. Anapophenic (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. – robertsky (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was a WP:BEFORE done? Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. Chapter 23 of Shorter Views: Queer Thoughts & the Politics of the Paraliterary by Samuel R. Delany (2011, Wesleyan University Press) is devoted to a lengthy analysis/discussion of Cyzc's Adrifit in A Vanishing City. Book reviews in independent secondary WP:RS: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. Other WP:RS: [14], [15] Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough reviews in article and above to meet WP:AUTHOR. Not seeing anything particularly unusual in the edit history. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Murray (scientist)

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

Potentially notable academic. Currently fails WP:NPROF. Been on the cat:nn list since 2010. No indication of significance but could be. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Science, Iowa, Maryland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF. Although the page does not directly say so, the subject is an adjunct research professor at a high-tech satellite campus of UT-Knoxville (https://www.utsi.edu/people/faculty/george-m-murray/, https://www.utsi.edu/about/). I don't see enough citations of their academic work to justify C1 of WP:NPROF and nothing else seems to apply either. This could be revisited in the future since the subject seems to be an active scholar and inventor, but not enough here to keep the page, I think. Qflib (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Somewhat agree. I see no major indications of peer recognition through awards, and he does not have that many publications. The reason I have a Weak is because his initials overlap with at least one other so I cannot properly check his citations. I am also uncertain about his patents. If there was an award or two I would definitely reverse my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A major award would be enough to satisfy Wikipedia:NPROF, and if something like that were to crop up I would also swing. But the only award seen here is one given by his own university, and internal awards are not suitable for this purpose. Qflib (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS[16] shows top citations 392, 167, 114, 101 but then a big drop off. They all seem to be the same researcher, but with no profile there's no information on h-index. Fifty papers does not seem a lot for a modern chemist, I wonder if his work is mainly unpublished because it relates to patented inventions? Willing to be persuaded either way. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think fifty papers and a bunch of patents is a decent body of work, but if they aren't being widely recognized then they don't establish notability. Qflib (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not enough per the usual standard of notability. There is no patents on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 20:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of coverage of patents on Wikipedia; see as one small example List of software patents. I don't think patents should count as contributing to WP:PROF#C1, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've hadn't seen this. There are not used in biographies, blps to clarify. I've certainly not seen any. It needs a major update unfortunatly. scope_creep^Talk 04:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: What is your view on this? scope_creep^Talk 04:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Given that his top papers are on detecting nerve agents and purifying uranium, I suspect that the publication drop-off may have something to do with performing classified military work. Regardless, if it's not something we see it's not something we can credit for notability. I'm not very familiar with the citation patterns in analytic chemistry (if that is what this is) so not very confident in my opinion, but I don't want to base a keep only on what looks like a borderline citation record for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see anything else aside from that to provide notability. There are a couple of minor and local honors listed in [17] but not enough to count for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fausta Shakiwa Mosha

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:PROF. As far as I can tell, this person is a reasonably accomplished academic with some publications under her belt, and has held some medium-high level positions at the WHO, but that's it. She does not have any of the achievements laid out in the academic notability guideline and is the subject of almost no independent, significant coverage. Based on the article's promotional tone and the fact that the creator has made no edits to Wikipedia other than the creation of this article, I believe it was made by someone with a COI. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and Tanzania. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears a case of a meritorious but not out-of-the-ordinary career that does not yet reach encyclopedic notability. Not seeing anything that would meet WP:PROF at this time. Some of the promotional wording appears to have been added recently by an IP, the original version isn't so bad. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my mistake on the timeline of the addition of the promotional language. But yes, I agree on the overall assessment. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. I want to address the concerns regarding notability and the perceived promotional tone of the article.

1. Notability and Independent Coverage: Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha, while indeed an academic and professional within the public health sector, has contributions that extend significantly beyond ordinary academic achievements. Her role as a Senior Laboratory Advisor at WHO, along with her previous positions at WHO AFRO and WHO EMRO, position her as a key player in international public health. Her work has directly impacted policies and practices in over a dozen countries across Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East.

a. Sources and Coverage: Dr. Mosha has been instrumental in significant projects such as the East Africa Public Health Laboratory Networking Project funded by the World Bank and has played a pivotal role in the implementation of cooperative agreements with the US CDC, which have had substantial public health implications globally. I will add citations from these projects and her 49 scholarly articles and a book chapter that contribute to her standing in the field.

2. Academic and Professional Achievements: Regarding WP, Dr. Mosha's career includes high-level advisory roles and directorial positions that have shaped laboratory practices and epidemiology training programs across continents. This involvement goes beyond medium-level academic positions and includes leadership that has effected measurable change in international public health strategies.

3. Promotional Tone: I acknowledge the concerns about the promotional tone. Changes have been made to ensure the language is neutral and factual, focusing on her contributions and roles without subjective embellishments. I urge the community to review the revised content, which adheres more closely to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality.

In conclusion, Dr. Mosha's contributions are not only notable but have a lasting impact on global public health infrastructures, making her a subject of encyclopedic interest and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Her extensive body of work and leadership roles provide significant independent coverage and recognition within her field, fulfilling the notability criteria.

Thank you for considering this response, and I look forward to further constructive discussion. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Would you mind clarifying if you have any off-Wiki relationship to the subject of the article? --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your follow-up question. I would like to clarify that I do not have any personal, professional, or financial relationship with Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha. My interest in contributing to this article is purely based on my recognition of her significant contributions to public health, particularly within the realms of global health security and epidemiology, which I believe warrant an encyclopedic entry due to their impact and scope.

I am committed to ensuring that the content on Wikipedia is accurate, neutral, and verifiable and have endeavored to present Dr. Mosha's career and achievements based on reliable sources and factual information. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were a case for notability, it would be great to keep this article about a woman scientist. But the referencing in both the version at the time this AfD discussion was started and the current version is poor. The article doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I've searched and cannot find references to add. Tacyarg (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jeglic

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

Reviewed for NPP. Entirely cited to passing mentions and things written by the topic of the article. She is the co-author of two books which may or may not be notable, but I don't think that's a large enough body of work to pass WP:NAUTHOR. NACADEMIC is hard for me to understand all the subtleties of, as I don't know what a good or bad h-index is in psychology, so she might pass there but I am not sure. If she does pass NACADEMIC it needs to be far less promotional. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, not my area. Her GS profile is [18]. This states an h-index of 52 which is, I believe, considered good in most fields. There is a healthy citation profile with three papers with >200 citations, and a further fifteen with >100 citations, none of which appear heavily co-authored. She's top of the GS topic "Sexual Violence Prevention", for whatever that's worth (it doesn't seem a commonly used tag.) The co-edited books with Springer tend to support that she is considered an expert in those areas. Agree the article needs considerable work cutting out promotion. For what it's worth the creator is enrolled in an educational programme, so it appears to be a good-faith first attempt from someone unconnected with the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict How many authors count as "heavily co-authored"? All of the papers she has written appear to be coauthored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually used to talk about massively co-authored papers eg in physics where everyone who ever touched the apparatus is listed (hundreds, sometimes thousands). Most modern research papers across many subjects have in the region of 5–8 authors, but this is highly subject dependent. ETA The last time I recall it being used outside the physics field was in reference to [19] which has 33 authors; in such cases it would generally only be counted if the subject were one of the first few authors, or the final one, or was indicated as the corresponding author. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well I wish what is a sign of a pass for NACADEMIC was clearer to people who aren’t in that field, then PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Espresso Addict. The GS citation is enough to meet WP:PROF#4.Shoerack (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terence O'Reilly

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

The article does not demonstrate a notable character. And the editor User:LINCOLN2024 who moved it to the main space has been blocked for WP:SOCK, where he has a string of articles moved to the main space without being checked. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Ireland, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Personally recommend restoring to draft - reverting the unilateral action of the socking editor. And that the draft be progressed through WP:AFC before any decision is made on moving it back to the main/article namespace. I recommend this as, after a quick WP:BEFORE, there appears to be some coverage of the subject as a topic in his own right (Granted mostly obituary-style journal articles and the type of coverage we typically see for academics, but someone with more familiar with WP:NACADEMIC would ideally take a look.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Membership of the Irish Academy would tend to pass WP:NPROF C3, and having an obituary written in an academic journal [20] tends to suggest NPROF C1. OTOH, before the work of Guliolopez, this would have been a speedy G4. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and the article is now a pretty clear Keep, per WP:HEY. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to the existence and content of the obits in Bulletin of Spanish Studies and Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review indicating notability: (Msrasnw (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Along with the pass of WP:PROF#C3 through the Royal Irish Academy, and the now three published academic obituaries/remembrances used as references, we have enough reviews of his books for a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Royal Irish Academy membership meeting WP:PROF, book reviews of multiple books meeting WP:AUTHOR, and multiple obituaries meeting GNG. Article appears to have been cleaned up and, as it was not created by the blocked user, would not fall under G5. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ACADEMIC#3 and WP:AUTHOR are clearly met here. Shoerack (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the rest. Well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Gouk

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Most of the sources are articles by her rather than third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Low citation count as well. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing much grounds for encyclopedic notability here, looks like a meritorious but not unusual career so far. Plant pathology citations are generally fairly low in my experience, but there's only a single coauthored paper with moderate citations (59) that I can see. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, most of the references are not significant and fail WP:GNG Kaizenify (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Abdurrahman Farajajé

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

The only source that appears at all credible is the article "Whatever Way Love's Camel Takes: Remembering Baba Ibrahim Farajajé," which reads as more of a posthumous tribute than anything establishing notability, almost like an obituary (granted it was published a few years after his death, but the sentiment seems similar). All the other sources are either closely affiliated with the subject or do not appear to be generally reputable. An online search seems to return mostly the same things already being used as sources here, with an additional article on Google scholar that again appears to be a simple tribute. This individual certainly led an interesting life, but I see no evidence that they managed to attain notability. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloated bio of a scholar who appears to have made almost no impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
weak delete: More than a few journals remembered this individual after their passing, the one given in the article and this one [21]. With a book tribute here [A Legacy of Afrocentric, Decolonial, In-the-Life Theology and Bisexual Intersexional Philosophical Thought and Practice], but these all seem to be after this person passed away. I don't see much from when they were still alive. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Religion, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - hang on there is a 2023 festschrift dedicated to him - see, meeting WP:PROF criteria 1c Lajmmoore (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't have time right now to work on it further, but these sources might help someone who does here, here (in Spanish), here Lajmmoore (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyone who gets a festschrift devoted to them (from non-fringe publications) is notable. Wow this article needs to be rewritten though, lot of NPOV issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use some improvement, but he's well-cited in scholarly literature. Yuchitown (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the cites? In GS there are only 9, and we usually expect several thousands. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Rachael Meager

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

I could not find indepth coverage in google news or books to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF, not a full professor and citations count is relatively low. Also an orphan article, which is unusual for an acadenic. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Economics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass yet of WP:Prof. Maybe WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NPROF. No WP:SIGCOV of the subject. They may become notable in the future, but not today.4meter4 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-digit h-index and minor academic awards not good enough yet to show a pass of WP:PROF, no other signs of notability in evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a PhD in 2017, I think this is just a case of too-early career. There's one or two highly cited papers, then a big drop off. No prejudice to recreating in a few years. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON, not notable (at least yet), no visible impact of their contributions yet, no major achievement, and lack significant coverage. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they lack significant coverage and it’s too soon in their career. Bearian (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Fayad

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

From what I can tell this individual does not meet WP:NBIO. The article had two sources, but one was completely unrelated to this man at all and was instead about The Crown (TV series). The only remaining source is simply a link to his ResearchGate account. I'm not getting much of note on a BEFORE search, although it does seem to be a fairly common name, so someone else might have more success. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, and Egypt. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. If he actually founded all the things the article states he did, then I think he'd be notable, but I agree sourcing is a problem. He seems to have published as "Ibrahim M. Fayad" or "I. M. Fayad", and there are publications that match his areas of expertise on GS. ETA: It seems to have received a variety of edits from new editors over the past few years (tagged Newcomer edits), which have been of variable quality; I think that's where the spurious The Crown reference originates. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a notable physician in Egypt. He has an entry in this Arabic-language encyclopedia: [22]. Generally we include anyone with an entry in a published encyclopedia under WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a user-generated source, ostensibly "verified" by "specialists", but anyone can submit articles. It's not RS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage for a good doctor. It’s literally his c.v. written four ways. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 19 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!} 21:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshata Krishnamurthy

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

Page does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC, reads more like a self-promotional page, and focuses more on what the subject's projects have achieved rather than the subject themselves. Tammy0507 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per half agreement with nom. Although we can rewrite the article, if NACADEMIC is not met, there is no point Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject could meet GNG and not PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting when a user's first edit on Wikipedia is to nominate a page for deletion, as is the case here. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, it is rather strange. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 19:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added Fortune India's Most Powerful Women List reference, and other interview references. Subject passes WP:GNG as there seem to be sufficient WP:RS. Shiv989 (talk)
Comment. I don't believe WP:PROF is met by citations; if one removes the heavily co-authored papers the highest cited on GS is 13. I am concerned that this nomination is brought by a new editor, and that a previous prod was made by another new editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: And the article was created by a new editor as well. Your point being...? Tammy0507 (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for new editors to find the deletion processes early in their career here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of us are looking for a WP:CLEANSTART :) Tammy0507 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - four of the sources are actually from one issue of Forbes India. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2024 (UTCIpigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage to meet general notability. Probably much more in the Indian press.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. We don't usually put so much weight on the kind of listicle coverage as in Forbes. Apart from that, I see only press releases, the subject's own articles, and early career awards. Looks WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - might be worth noting coverage, mostly in Indian press - [23], [24],[25], [26], [27], [28], [29].. --Shiv989 (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Economic Times article (which is, if you read it, admits to being basically a reproduction of the subject's Instagram page), and to a certain extent the News18 report, I would cast serious doubts on whether the cited sources are actually reliable sources. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would like to remind editors what constitutes a reliable source and refer to WP:Reliable sources/News Organizations:

Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news)

I do not see any source in this article and discussion that does not qualify as Human interest reporting. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 45 sources for a three-para article? Good grief. No, you're not getting a source analysis, but the sourcing is clearly (as has been noted extensively above) problematic. The awards are, not one of them, bluelinked. Fails WP:GNG - a lot of window dressing, clearly a talented individual, but we lack the substance required for notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article notes that the subject was the recipient of awards from the International Astronautical Federation the Zonta International Foundation, MIT, and NASA, which should satisfy the second condition of WP:ACADEMIC.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of those awards are significant, ie: bluelinked... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above that subject meets WP:GNG with articles in Indian press including Mint reference that notes subject is the first Indian citizen to operate Mars rover. The article could use some cleanup. Removed some non-relevant references in article and stated reasoning. Nnev66 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject meets WP:GNG and has notable coverage. I agree that the article needs cleanup. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted above meets WP:GNG and also WP:ACADEMIC with Luigi G. Napolitano Award and publications. Referring to WP:ACADEMIC:

The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?

The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Other academic profiles for precedence: Anita Sengupta, Mark Adler, Farah Alibay, Bibhusita Das, Katherine Aaslestad --Shiv989 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fortune's listing is enough for me, and there's a lot more than just that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, more on the basis of WP:GNG than WP:PROF. That sort of notability is not about whether she has the accomplishments to deserve the coverage she has been given; it is merely about what coverage there is and on how reliable and independent we take it to be. I place more credence in SSPI and in the Luigi G. Napolitano Award as being closer to the profession than, say, Fortune India, but regardless, I think there is enough coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 22 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.[30]) 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]

Hewa S. Khalid

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iraq. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also an apparent WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and it was previously tagged as such before its prompt removal by the article creator. Aintabli (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not believe that the subject meets WP:PROF at this time per GS profile,[31] though perhaps someone more familiar with Kurdish studies could comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 13 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!} 05:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither his Google Scholar profile linked above nor his employer academic profile [32] give me any reason to believe he passes WP:PROF, and as a recent PhD (2019) this is in any case unlikely. It's not a subject I have much familiarity with so I could easily have missed something, but we can't keep an article based on nothing but speculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 21 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.[33] -- 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 [34][35]. 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]

Michael Robert Watson

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 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]

Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
(I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[36]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 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!} 08:04, 16 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!} 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gosh everyone seems to be dancing on the fence here and it's as clear a fail as GNG as I've seen for a while. "Watson completed his PhD thesis at Goldsmiths College, University of London, in the department of Visual Cultures, under the supervision of Alex Duttmann, moderated by Howard Caygill and Peter Hallward." Oh the loving detail! Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Olamide Samuel (via WP:PROD on 21 November 2024)
Joe Flood (policy analyst) (via WP:PROD on 20 November 2024)
Andrew L. Erdman (via WP:PROD on 20 November 2024)
Alwin Kloekhorst (via WP:PROD on 20 November 2024)
Sardarwali Pashtunzooy (via WP:PROD on 16 November 2024)
Nagarjuna G. (via WP:PROD on 15 November 2024)