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:PROF 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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Seth

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 15:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete no results on search, no references as well.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notable reliable sources not found for Bio. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nearly enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Jun

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of an economist and television presenter, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion standards for either occupation. As usual, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- but the only "reference" here is his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, not any evidence of third-party coverage about him in media outlets independent of him. And while I've also had to strip a bunch of WP:ELNO-violating offsite links from the body text, they also weren't reliable source coverage in media, but the websites of organizations or people named in the text and/or other language Wikipedias, which also aren't notability-building sources. Again, the notability test is not "he exists" -- it's "his work has been externally deemed as significant by media outlets that don't issue his paycheques", but there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Dexxtrall (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources using "Huang Jun" and "黄峻" as search terms and in reviewing the articles about him on the other Wikipedia language editions (zh:黄峻 (房地产经济师), arz:هوانج جون, and ar:هوانغ جون). The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. STSC (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vageshwari Deswal

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

Citations included are just the articles written by the subject. After doing WP:BEFORE I'm convinced that the subject fails WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:Professor. Important and noted academic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:NPROF, and WP:BASIC. This article has been revised and had sources added since the nomination, and notability appears to be sufficiently supported by Deswal regularly writing legal commentary published by The Economic Times and The Times of India, and having written for Yahoo News India, as well as being quoted for her expert opinion by The Quint, The Times of India, and ABC News (Australia), per criteria 7 of WP:NPROF and WP:BASIC. Her work has also been cited by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and the blog of the International Journal Of Advanced Legal Research. Deswal therefore appears to be "notably influential in the world of ideas." Beccaynr (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not pass WP:NSCHOLAR, not sure what the above editors are looking at. And WP:HEY would be appropriate, if there were in-depth references about the subject, but there aren't. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not the article it was when this nomination was made. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been updated with some very low-quality references, Amazon and annoucement/event pages. What is the purpose of that? Is that reference stacking? There is no standalone secondary refs that point to her being notable. Her Google Scholar entry is super low at [1] even for a lawyer. According to the university profile: [2] she is not a full professor, she is an Assistant professor. According to Academic ranks in India, it is the lowest rank on that scale. If the lassie got her PHD in 2007, she is likely to be at the very beginning of her career. For the two book entries, I can't locate any reviews. The other coverage for work outside academica, is mostly blogs, it is not under editorial control, with the occcasional real story, which is WP:SIGCOV. However, I don't see any secondary reporting that tells me she is notable. Essentially it an assitant professor who been asked to keep a blog and write a couple of stories. I think it too-low a bar for for me. scope_creep^Talk 15:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had added a source from the Delhi Journal of Contemporary Law that describes Deswal as an Associate Professor. Another editor had added a source from Bennett University describing Deswal as a "very eminent speaker and expert in the field" and a Professor. Additional research may be needed to confirm her exact current status, but it seems clear that she is no longer an Assistant Professor. Also, Deswal's legal commentary blog is published by major newspapers in India, and according to Muckrack, there are over 40 entries. It is true that there had been one reference to Amazon to verify one of her books, but it has been removed, and there is only one blog from an academic journal citing her work, as well as several news outlets, as noted above, quoting her as an expert. Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather go with the official university profile than the WP:PUFF both in the book and the Wikipedia article, in presenting her as a full professor, when she is not. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an official university website for the Delhi Journal of Contemporary Law, stating "Dr. Vageshwari Deswal, Associate Professor, Law Centre-II, University of Delhi," a 2020 notice from the university describing her as an Associate Professor, and a January 2021 article in The Quint describing her as an Associate Professor. Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. This has been improved significantly and, as a lawyer, she appears to pass my own standards and WP:GNG. As an academic, she would probably not pass because she's just an assistant professor. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: perhaps you would expand your reasoning for a GNG pass? The article was just relisted for the 3rd or so time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further assessment of the sources required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per explained by Bearian meets WP:GNG now. Hulatam (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This article has been significantly improved and expanded by Bearian. Thanks for your works on this. VocalIndia (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate citations now in article, ps wiki editors should not be calling an Indian associate professor a 'lassie' Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate citations now in article, and also not impressed with above wiki editor calling an Indian associate professor a 'lassie'.Melissa Highton (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - recognised expert in her field. Stinglehammer (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of sources is still lacking per the last relist. At most there is counting of citations, which is vulnerable to WP:REFBOMB. WP:HEY is not a replacement for assessment of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 04:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:HEY, she now passes WP:NPROF, and WP:BASIC. Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have continued to remove excess citations from the article, and based on what remains: The Times of India and The Economic Times are both major conventional news outlets in India that frequently publish Deswal's legal commentary, and describe her as an expert in her profile, i.e. "an academician, feminist and activist teaching at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi." The "frequency" is documented by MuckRack, which claims to automatically update online portfolios, so it offers at least an estimate of Deswal's publication rate. WP:PROF states that it is a guideline, not a rule, and "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (emphasis added, because in this instance, Deswal is frequently published in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area, and based on the subject matter and her profile, it appears to be an expert in women's rights issues). In addition, Deswal is quoted as an expert in The Quint, which appears to be a respected news outlet in India, and ABC News (Australia), which appears to be a public news outlet with editorial independence in Australia. Per WP:TOI, for The Times of India, there is currently "a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government," yet Deswal often appears as an expert calling for changes to the status quo. However, a review of some of Deswal's research suggests that she does work in conjunction with the government sometimes, including with regard to investigating acid violence attacks on women, as well as issues related to farmers and prison reform.

As to Deswal's academic title, there is an undated academic profile from her university found through a regular web search that states she has been teaching since 2000, and that she has 16 years of teaching experience at p.2, so it may be dated circa 2017 due to the dates of workshops listed at p. 4 - regardless, it states she is a Senior Assistant Professor, and by that time, she had also made several televised media appearances in addition to her written commentary noted above, which suggests more sources are WP:NPOSSIBLE to support her notability. As to her academic title, other sources offered in this discussion to support that she is currently an Associate Professor include a December 28, 2020 notice from the university, signed by Deswal, with the title "Associate Professor" and a January 2021 article in The Quint, a respected news organization. Her current title seems less relevant than her accomplishments, but given the disagreement over which sources to rely on and the implication that it may be relevant to her notability, I've included a more detailed analysis. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was asked to comment further, I would add that she seems to be famous for being a public intellectual rather than an academic or lawyer, per se. George Conway is notable as a lawyer; his wife Kellyanne Conway is not famous as a lawyer but as an advisor the the Former Guy, and their daughter might be famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A detailed discussion have already taken place and discussion may be closed.HariSinghw (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think there's a case here for the subject as a public intellectual per WP:NPROF C7. It's very much verging on WP:TOOSOON, but the consistent record of blogging for the India Times organization (note that the Economic Times and Times of India appear to be co-owned, and certainly have a common blog platform) is something. The subject also appears to be frequently and somewhat substantially quoted on matters surrounding her legal expertise in India. The combination brings me to a (very) weak keep. The case would be more solid if there were more evidence of impact for the blog; I do note that it seems harder to find such evidence for a blog for the Economic/Times/ of India than in a comparable US-based publication. I agree with concerns of Aseleste about WP:REFBOMBing, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Failing to see the subject clearly qualifying WP:Academic Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jothydev Kesavadev

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

Potentially notable, senior physician, but low h-index and low cite. Fails WP:NACADEMIC scope_creep^Talk 20:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The awards he has received do not appear notable or even particularly competitive. Looking at his 20 most recent papers and comparing him with the 71 coauthors with 10 or more publications, I would say he does not meet NPROF C1 from citation metrics either: Total cites: average: 4452, median: 1245, Kesavadev: 356. Total pubs: avg: 130, med: 69, K: 49. h-index: avg: 21, med: 14, K: 11. Highest citation: avg: 633, med: 250, K: 46.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelleJay (talk • contribs)
Delete, in terms of the level of promotional content, this page is well into TNT territorry, perhaps G11. The various hyberbolic achievement claims dont jibe with the very modest (particularly for the field) h-index of 16 with the top cite of 70. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep: meets gng and basic, article sounds very promotional needs a clean up. as per wp:atd, if article can be edited it should be done rather then deleting it. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TNT. Even assumung the subject is notable, the current version is unsalvageable, unless Hercules is available. Nsk92 (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does the fellowship with the Royal College of Physicians (or any of the other fellowships listed) suffice for WP:NPROF C3? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, depends. These are elected postions; its considered a prestigious position, but when I was doing the James Spence Medal series of articles, I noticed a lot physicians were getting deleted, even though they were FRCP or had some other listing. To become notable within the profession, to make it into the books, they had to have invented some surgical procedure, or advanced research in some way. I think probably, they're is a lot of fellows, but unless they advance the industry, they're not particularly notable. When you look at e.g. Plarr's Lives of the Fellows, and the other archive (the name escapes me), if each one of them had another obit, they would all be notable, but quite a number, don't have that. I think that is the reason for deletion. scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to identify why there is an article, that is the core of it. scope_creep^Talk 17:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it is. scope_creep^Talk 17:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while the page is a promotional eye sore, this publication might meet criteria one of WP:NACADEMIC. Other pubs are borderline. I'm unable to verify Royal * memberships( blame my mobile device if not lack of RS) Vikram 08:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it has been only cited 8 times [3] 2nd row, which is far too low to pass the notability threshold for academics. Having looked at it over the weekend, I've came to the conclusion that he is non-notable. I suspect that there might be an article a couple of decades up the road, assuming there is a couple of obits scope_creep^Talk 12:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. To quote from the explanatory notes in WP:PROF regarding WP:PROF#C1: The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. If the publication had been cited 800 times, there might have been something to talk about in terms of WP:PROF#C1, but not with just 8 citations. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In some domains, papers may not be cited too many times, if it is niche. In this case what stands is the reputation of the publication. Having done some work around paper reviews, I feel #citations may not be an absolute parameter to either accept or reject WP:PROF#C1. Having said that, I dont see any other parameter to support notability and would !vote delete. Vikram 10:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment does not pass WP:NPROF based on publications but after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Jones (scientist) we can hardly argue that we should keep Lisa Jones and delete this article. --hroest 14:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at that. It is a complete double standard being applied on the Lisa Jones article, that completely breaks WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TNT at the least. I don't see a pass of WP:NPROF C1 here -- possibly WP:TOOSOON. I'm uncertain about the case for C3, but since the RCP fellowship is not supported by a reliable source (and I didn't succeed in finding one), I don't think this forms a good keep argument for the article. Meanwhile, there is little from the current text of the article that would go into an eventual article on the subject. I certainly don't think that we should take a no-consensus close on another article (with particularly tart comments from the closing admin about poor keep arguments) as forming any kind of precedent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record doesn't support WP:PROF#C1 and the article is too heavily promotional and padded for me to tell whether there might be anything else of actual notability hidden in it. WP:TNT and WP:CSD#G11 are also relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Sattar Qasim

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and he doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User:onel5969 Hello dear. Abd al-Sattar Qasim's article is an encyclopedic article, because Dr. Abd al-Sattar Qasim was a certified Palestinian politician and a university doctor, and he has dozens of books that talked about international politics, and he is also a scientific researcher in the field of politics and sociology. And Abdul Sattar Qassem died from the Corona virus. He is a Palestinian legal person. I hope to reconsider the topic of deleting the article. Accept my greetings --Osps7 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osps7 - took the liberty of adding a keep !vote to your note above, forgive me if that was presumptuous, but it seemed to be what you were indicating. I also formatted you comment to keep it flowing in the discussion. Please read WP:GNG to see what constitutes notability. I couldn't find any in-depth sourcing to show that this particular person meets the criteria. But there may be sources in other languages which did not show up in my searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a certified politician and doctor is not, in its own right, ample grounds for a wikipedia page. an article needs to demonstrate that an individual is notable, by showing that he has recieved significant coverage. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete 3 out of 4 of this article's links are to material created by the individual, and are not of sources showcasing his notability, the last one is an article about his death, and might be ample ground for keeping the article if more sources are listed at other points in his life, or referring to his various creations Totalstgamer (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - User:onel5969 Hello dear, Abdul Sattar Qassem is influential in the Palestinian people, and has many references in the Arabic language, and he is also a former candidate for the Palestinian presidency. He is a famous Arab academic, you can look at his article in Arabic, and he is also one of the oldest who obtained a doctorate in political science. In the event of a shortage of references, I will pledge to add more and more remarkable references. Accept my regards and respect. Osps7 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly suggest adding more references. as it stands, that appears to be the main reason for this article's deletion nomination Totalstgamer (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on Osps7's comment above, if the result is delete, I would suggest draftifying the article so that they can work on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on this article about his death, it seems the Middle East Eye is a reputable and independent English outlet, so I think this is enough to source the article. --hroest
Keep - from obit found by hroest. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with the statements made by Osps7 and hroest. Rest in peace, Abd al-Sattar Qasim. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A number of "keep" !votes don't have any policy backing. Relisting to evaluate source provided by hroest.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the Middle East Eye there is some coverage extablishing him as a prominent political scientist/national figure, including [4], [5], [6], and more. Described as well known critic and opponent, [7], p. 151-152. There's enough online and in english to provide a viable argument for notability (I'd vote 'weak keep') and that is upgraded to firm 'keep' when considering there is almost definitely much more coverage of a similar type in Arabic and offline. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable person, I agree with the comments in the page. Gianluigi02 ^Talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Strandwitz

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

Fails, WP:Academics. Seems like left academia for industry without spending enough time to develop a notable academic career. And beyond that, there seems to be little else that rises to the level of notability. Hulatam (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got his PhD in 2016 and has just 7 publications, so this looks very much like resumé-padding for future employment/credibility for his business. He does have a couple papers in Nature with his thesis adviser, but that isn't enough for notability. The microbiome is also a seriously hot field right now, with a lot of journals thirsty for material linking it to every and any disease. Anyway, these are the citation metrics of all 36 of his coauthors and 31 of the authors of the 5 most recent papers citing him (who have more than 3 publications): Total cites: average: 3973, median: 570, Strandwitz: 304. Total publications: avg: 72, med: 33, S: 7. h-index: avg: 19, med: 12, S: 4. Highest citation: avg: 675, med: 109, S: 145. Highest first-author citation: avg: 179, med: 47, S: 145. These are of course skewed way down by the low threshold of 3+ papers, which will include a lot of grad students and techs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete a single first author publication in Nat Microbiol. is not enough for WP:Academics. --hroest 16:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. JoelleJay and hroest said it. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitoo Das

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

One line article lacking sources - tagged since 2013. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. External links only to subject's publications, so the article is essentially WP:PROMO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom Padavalam🌂 ► 15:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked this individual up and there appears to be some references about her. I really don't think there's enough to get WP:GNG, but I would encourage further digging for someone that has more motivation than me to look. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 13:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ice

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

This theologian might have a lot of hits on Google and speak at Bible conferences, but I don't think his academic achievements reach WP:PROF standards. The previous AfD is eye-opening in how differently AFDs were decided in 2006. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything that would suggest Ice meets GNG, just brief mentions/quotes (The Atlantic, Beliefnet). The closest he gets to meeting WP:NACADEMIC would be having a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (pre-tribulation rapture), but independent reliable sources demonstrating that don't seem to exist. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 11:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there is absolutely no sign of WP:NPROF, it looks like there are now plenty of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, even on what looks to me like a fringe topic. I cut down the CV-like list of books of uncertain impact to the reviewed ones, and otherwise edited towards MOS. Genericusername57 previously did the harder work of finding reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His first book (coauthored with H. Wayne House) had significant impact; according to Neuhaus[8], it was the "first book-length critique" of Christian reconstructionism, and "warmly endorsed by leading Evangelicals". I don't think that his writing on pre-tribulationism has seen the same response (though this isn't an area I'm particularly familiar with); but there are probably enough book reviews overall to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Cheers, gnu 57 19:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple reliable sources book reviews references have been added that show a pass of WP:NAUTHOR in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not think there are any serious BLP issues: there are some unverified items, but none likely to be libelous. He is clearly an academic and has written several books, which have been reviewed in specialist journals. His theological views may differ from mine, but they are probably widely held ones among evangelicals, so that the views are not FRINGE ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- His works have garnered significant critical attention, reviews published in several independent journals. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ana E. Lita

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

This is more of a resume than anything else. I see nothing that would substantiate a claim of notability under WP:BASIC, WP:PROF or any other relevant policies. The subject has had a career, but does not appear to have achieved any benchmarks for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom. Reads like a resume and check for sources or coverage finds little to nothing except this article and derivatives. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheman Shaik

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP claims to be of a computer scientist, inventor, and an author. I can't find anything strong enough to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Quite low h-index of 5 on google scholar. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep The subject is primarily a computer scientist and inventor with 6 patented technologies with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as follows:

1. Absolute public key cryptographic system and method surviving private-key compromise with other advantages

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Absolute+Public+Key+Cryptography%22&OS=

2. Password self encryption method and system and encryption by keys generated from personal secret information

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/8023647

3. Codeless dynamic websites including general facilities

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7770122

4. Dynamic Language Text Generation http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=24&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7721222&OS=7721222&RS=7721222

5. 3d Mouse For Computers https://uspto.report/patent/app/20200089339

6. Defeating solution to phishing attacks through counter challenge authentication

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=10,880,331&OS=10,880,331&RS=10,880,331

The author profile may not be that strong as per Google Scholar score, I completely agree, but as an inventor Wikipedia should consider the article as patents are granted after due assessment by the USPTO. Regarding general notability, the subject has been highlighted by the leading publications of India and Arab.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/new-data-encryption-technique/article1750219.ece http://www.arabnews.com/node/290802

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patents are meaningless. Anyone can register a patent, but it's only if it's tested in court that it can be found to be an original, enforceable, idea. And it's only if reliable sources report on that that it can show notability. Computer science has one of the highest citation rates of any field, at least on Google Scholar, but this computer scientist has hardly any citations to his work. As the claim has been made that the article subject has notability in an academic field I will put it on the relevant deletion list. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil Bridger, his patents have been tested in court too. Here are the facts and references:

*Patent 8023647

Here is the list of litigants for patent infringement case (all cases closed):

Gucci America, Inc.
VMWare, Inc.
Hewlett-Parkard Co.
Foxconn Technology Group
THG Energy Solutions, LLC
Siemens Corp.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Raytheon Company
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Chipotle Mexican Grill
AT&T, Inc.
Texas Freight Services, In
iReverse Home Loans, LLC
Cashstar, Inc.
True Media, LLC
Startups.co, LLC
Mainstream Technologies, Inc.
NC Financial Solutions, LLC
Verizon Communications
The Rocket Science Group, LLC d/b/a MailChimp
Edmunds.com, Inc.
Marriott International, Inc.
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

References:

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-00498 https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8023647 (under Related Cases, check PTAB (2) and Litigation (23) *Patent 7721222 Litigants in the patent infringement case were:

Walmart
Target

All cases closed. Reference: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UniversalCipherLLCvTargetCorporationDocketNo219cv00163EDTexMay072/1?1614374019

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Authoring patents is not a claim of notability (they can only lead to notability if they gain significant outside attention, not in evidence here) and we have nothing else. He has a few publications on Google scholar but with an h-index of 1 and total citation count of 3, so no chance of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being granted patents doesn't imply notability, and as argued above, there's no chance of WP:PROF#C1. The sources provided above are a puff piece and a passing mention, not enough for the GNG. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete h-index of 1, clearly fails WP:PROF#C1, everything said for the patents so no WP:GNG given. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One correction here CommanderWaterford David Eppstein, the h-index on Google Scholar is 5 not 1 with 214 citations. In addition, on Microsoft Academics, the number of citations are 234.
The significance of the patent No 7,721,222 that helps with non-English text generation can be understood from the fact that there is a growing base of non-English computer, or phone users who prefer to engage with their computer or mobile application using Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, That, Lao, etc. They do internet searching, authentication, email, chat, wireless messaging, document preparation, online advertisement creation, form filling in e-commerce etc., in non-English languages.

The above patent has received 45 citations from 30 assignees including technology companies like Sony, IBM, Microsoft, and Google.

The patent 8023647 has 127 Patent citations, 21 Non-patent citations
As far as GNG is concerned, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) admits that 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. The subject has cryptography and other niche-specific articles on Microsoft Academic and Google Scholar and individual scientific journals like:
International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Application (AJCSEA): http://airccse.org/journal/ijcsea/current2020.html
International Journal on Cryptography and Information Security (IJCIS): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3767403
International Journal of Network Security and Its Applications (IJNSA): http://airccse.org/journal/jnsa21_current.html
Computer Science & Engineering: An International Journal (CSEIJ): http://airccse.org/journal/cseij/vol11.html

Don't you think they establish his notability along with the coverage on leading newspapers like below:

? Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patents are not scholarly publications and do not count towards metrics based on scholarly publications (WP:PROF#C1). They are also explicitly listed as not counting towards WP:PROF#C7, academic impact in the outside world. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein thanks for the attention. Even we ignore the scholarly publications, is there no importance of the inventions? Citations of the patents are also an approval of the importance of the inventions. Don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomwiki 40 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'importance' is subjective. Inclusion in Wikipedia are guided by it's nobility criteria not how we view subject's importance. RationalPuff (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RationalPuff, if 'importance' is subjective, then members should reconsider the deletion nomination. Here are the usability or impact of the patents:

Patent 8,023,647 or its encryption technique is used by over 20 companies including Verizon, AT&T, JP Morgan, and Lockheed Martin.

references: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2019/1/3/universal-cipher-formerly-cumberland-systems-patent-challenged-as-likely-invalid https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8023647

Patent 7721222 or its Dynamic language text generation system and method has been used with phone and tablet devices. reference: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/walmart-target-sued-over-text-generation-tech-patent

Patent 7,721,222 has been cited by leading tech firms like Sony, IBM, Microsoft, and Google. Patent 8023647 has been used as citations by Apple Inc., Microsoft, Oracle and other significant technology firms.Who is citing the patent is more important than how many have used it as a citation.Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Requesting members to review the notability evidences shared on this page. I have improved the article also. Hope it is better now. Despite all, if you think deletion is the only way left, please respond to my comments. Waiting for your response.Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as has already been pointed out, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wisdomwiki 40: to clarify how Wikipedia works. We consider something important (notable) when other independent, reliable, secondary sources discuss a subject. You link to a lot of patents, but those are primary sources that are not independent of the subject - they tell us nothing about notability. Rather, we need to see magazine, newspapers and books that discuss the person. Those sources need to be independent (ie. not paid for or connected to the subject in some way). Reliable (ie. not self-published and known for editorial control). In-depth (not minor or trivial mentions). Multiple sources. Then we can say, yes, this person is notable because other people have decided independently to write about them. -- GreenC 19:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:GreenC what's your thought on citations from the following newspapers-based that are known for quality journalism with unbiased editorial practices:

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:GreenC, XOR'easter, RationalPuff, Onel5969, David Eppstein, TT me, CommanderWaterford, improvements to the page regarding WP:GNG notability done based on citations from independent secondary sources in the print media in multiple languages:

Al, AALEM (Arabic, Monthly Magazine), February, 2007, Tenth Year, No, 94, Muharram 1428 H

References: https://archive.org/details/arabic-al-aalem-magazine-feb-2007-cover-page/Arabic%20Magazine%20Cover%20Page.jpg

Arab News (English, Daily Newspaper) - 2006-08-27

Reference: https://archive.org/details/arab-news-invention-by-indian-can-help-local-business-save-billions/NewsDetails_Invention%20by%20Indian%20can%20save%20businesses%20save%20billions.jpg

Eenadu (Telugu, Daily Newspaper) 2012-07-27: https://archive.org/details/eenadu-paper-clip-cheman-shaik_202102

Telulgu to English Translation: https://ia601502.us.archive.org/21/items/eenadu-paper-clip-cheman-shaik/Eenadu%20Paperclip%20Tamil%20to%20English%20Translation.pdf Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you are making claims about scientific research/discoveries/invention, tabloids coverage rarely hold water. Do you have any technical/scientific/technological secondary publication that are talking about the subject? RationalPuff (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RationalPuff, this book places Absolute Public Key Cryptography, one of the inventions, as one of the key crypto techniques. It's already there with ISBN number under Publications section: https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Surveillance-Technologies/Petersen/p/book/9781439873151 Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That book does not say anything about this technique being "key", but just mentions it as one of the techniques for which patents have been taken out. It doesn't even mention Cheman Shaik, the subject of this article. Sorry, but you are wasting your time arguing here in the light of the lack of citations to the subject's scholarly work. In general, for a computer scientist, we require many thousands of citations, not less than a handful. Why are you so fixated on this article, given the subject's obvious lack of notability? It is very difficult to avoid thinking that you have a conflict of interest here, and that you have been paid to produce this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil Bridger, please check this one. https://archive.org/details/handbook-of-surveillance-technologies-absolute-public-key-cryptography/page/n1/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomwiki 40 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the same thing (hosted at the Google Books site) before I made my last comment. All that link does is to confirm that this book doesn't even mention Cheman Shaik. All that you are doing with your interventions here is to make Shaik look more and more like a patent troll. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, the author has mentioned the U.S. Patent #708882, I'm reading your patent troll thanks for sharing. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are scraping the barrel and wasting everyone's time here. You need reliable and significant coverage that talks about the subject not about the things the subject might have been associated with. It's not Wikipedia's job to fill the blanks. Moreover, with a few obscure citations this subject is not even close to the nobility threshold. RationalPuff (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that this man is probably both important enough and notable enough to have an article. My problem, and I think the problem with searches concerning WP:GNG and WP:Inventor (See Wikipedia:Notability (people)), is that I don't speak a lot of the relevant languages. Indeed, that is a problem of Systemic bias in Wikipedia. I am not criticizing anyone for that; it's a fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He works in the US. If there is relevant local coverage it would be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which disregards the Arabic and Telugu references that already exist in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article are claims in newspapers that he has invented something, which newspapers are notorious for believing on the basis of a press release with no support from academic sources. It's pretty obvious from reading the patents that they only consist of gross generalities - something that patent trolls do. I have been accused before of being a dyed-in-the-wool inclusionist, but can see no reason why we should include an article about this person. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not accusing anybody of anything. And you could very well be right. I haven't taken a position. Thanks for your input. OTOH, reasonable minds may differ on the conclusion. YMMV. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilia Mihaylov

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

Despite the valiant refbombing effort, there's actually very little to even suggest, let alone prove, notability. The refs are all concert listings and similar; the few RS ones are passing mentions — I've not found one that amounts to significant coverage by any definition. The alleged recordings aren't with major labels, most of the sources cited don't mention this person, and the BBC R3 one is actually a radio programme. Therefore fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO / WP:MUSIC. (Note: the article was created by a [declared] paid editor on behalf of the subject, which probably explains this.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both JSTOR and Google Scholar turn up nothing, a Google books search turns up two listings, one in French. He seems notable, but unsure if he's wiki-worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAP
Delete a non-notable musical conductor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Grant (programmer)

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

I'm not seeing how this would pass WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any publications by this subject (even though he is characterized as an "author" in the article) or any independent sources covering him. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, User:Rawkintrevo appears to be the subject of this article, per their self-identification at their user page. They have already made a major edit [9] to the article, introducing WP:COI. The abortive political candidacy for a relatively minor local office is not notable. The edit also mentions a new paper, published in Sept 2020, and a new book[10], with several co-authors, also published in 2020. There is no indication that either work received significant coverage/reviews/citations that could contribute to potential WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability. Nsk92 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will update this today- please give me a week to back fill publications before deletion. 24, February 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkintrevo (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD discussions typically stay open for a week anyway. But as your userpage indicates you are Trevor Grant, it's probably unwise for you to edit the page yourself as it's a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), but can add requests for edits to the Talk page, or make a case for not deleting here, which will be taken into account by whoever closes the discussion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sorry, I didn't realize they stay open for a week- and yes, I did edit- I didn't realize that was a violation. Can we revert my changes, maybe original author will update addressing other concerns? -User:rawkintrevo 24 February 2021
  - I suspect at this stage reverting won't make much difference in practice. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is clearly PROMO. None of his listed accomplishments(?) are remotely close to conferring automatic notability and independent coverage of him is entirely passing or run-of-the-mill. There's also a possible BLP-violating quote embedded in one of the refs regarding opponents in the alderman race. JoelleJay (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this stinky pile? He's treasurer of the Apache foundation, withdrew from an election and served in the military. The title sentence is even repeated twice he's so important. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill computer science person clearly fails WP:GNG. The article is also an obvious self-WP:PROMO exercise. KidAd • SPEAK 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The closest we have to a claim of notability is that he's one of five coauthors of an O'Reilly how-to book. Even if we had published reviews of that one book, it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR (or anything else). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DMySon 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article was created for self-promotion. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 12:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Parkes

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

Potentially notable associate professor. [11] [12]. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a Robert J. Parkes who published US history books in the 1970s that might have enough reviews for WP:AUTHOR, but the dates and topics don't match, so I'm pretty sure it's a different person. This one has enough publications with double-digit citations in Google Scholar to reach an h-index of 12 or so, but that's not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I don't see any other claim of notability in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, this is a c.v., not an article, and everybody knows (as of 2021) that we have never been a resume hosting service such as LinkedIn. Secondly, under WP:PROF, we almost never include associate professors, absent some important reason (discrimination against a female/POC scholar, recent discovery, etc.). Sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. At this point there is rough consensus towards keeping the article at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwendolyn Masin

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

Gwendolyn Masin fails WP:BLP; it's partially not neutral and mostly based upon the knowledge of someone close to the subject. Though, she does seem to have some notability within her field. The article is also filled with external links within sentences, which contradicts WP:EXT. Mikalagrand (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable. AfD is not a place to force improvement. The Banner talk 13:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has some notice in the classical music community, which can support a basic stub article here. However, the article absolutely needs to be cut down to notable and verifiable facts, while removing obvious CV-like minutiae. That is a cleanup job and not a reason to delete. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning slightly towards keep but only if the uncited material is sourced or removed along with the minutiae. I already took out most of the external hotlinks but did not bother to look for, or have the time to find, sources. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disagree about the subject’s notability in classical music. A few articles and a load of unsourced assertions do not make for “notability.” Most musicians with comparable CVs do not meet this threshold; unsure why this person is an exception. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am rather partial because I personally know Gwendolyn and I am a volunteer at her festival in Switzerland. I did some clean-up and added additional sources and I will keep doing that. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisa34 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot count the above vote per WP:ILIKEIT and personal connection. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. No case was made for deletion, then why was this AFDd? I have cleaned the article of some lingering puff. It is still too detailed, as a template clearly states. gidonb (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to have some coverage from multiple sources to pass WP:GNG, and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (on the weak side) -- solo performances with significant symphonies and sufficient reviews for concerts. Weaker on the discography side. I think my assessment is actually similar to CurryTime7-24's but I think that most musicians with comparable careers do tend to meet the classical music bio threshold. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that she's notable... for being covered by media on account of her self-promotion. Oh well. Sandstein 12:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Carson

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

This article was deleted on July 2018 for violating the Rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy (advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content).

It has been rewritten in June 2020, but still without any relevant nor encyclopedic content (a self-published book is not enough).

This article is basically a self-promoting page about a girl who dreamt to be an astronaut, and her dad had enough money to try to realize her dream. They tried to sell the image of her being an astronaut on training for an official mission to Mars (source 1, source 2, source 3), but later the uncorrelation with NASA was revealed and covered multiple times by the media (source 1, source 2, source 3).

So, since this article is basically about a girl who attended some cool summer camps with the "space" word in it (like thousands of other people in the world) and studying astrobiology (like millions of people in this world), I think that it should be deleted in respect of the rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, event if it meets the WP:GNG, because nothing in this article is relevant or encyclopedic content.

PS: Before voting, just take a look at the revision history of the page to see what a mess this article is. It also shows that some users are not super partes in their stances and there might be some kind of collaboration with the subject of the article itself (possibily violating the WP:COI). Theory made probable by the fact that during the first cancellation a former Wikipedia admin declared himself ready to resign in case of deletion. An oversized reaction, to say the least. --Darius Alnex (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (grudgingly), whilst she is not notable in the sense of having done or experienced anything particularly exceptional, she has received a truly exceptional amount of coverage - which is the crux of the general notability guidelines. COI issues can be addressed without deleting. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is overly promotional bunk that does not belong on Wikipedia. She is not known for attending space camp a lot of times, or visitng a lot of space centers, outside of her own mind and the press releases her family has churned out. Wikipedia is not a platform for every young person';s press releases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMHO, Rule 4/WP:PROMO would only apply if the content of the article was not thoroughly backed up by sources. The subject meets GNG and has had coverage over an extended period (2014-2020). There are few things in this article that are not widely covered in a variety of sources. Does the page have issues? Yes. But should it be deleted? No. Samsmachado (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This user, as shown in the revision history of the article in question, its probably affiliated with the subject of the article itself, so IMHO his vote should not be taken into consideration.--Darius Alnex (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Got any proof of that? It seems rather unlikely that a Canadian undergrad who specializes in Canadian feminist theater -- and is conscientious enough to disclose a COI about a medical condition -- is affiliated with an aspiring astronaut from Louisiana. Please see WP:AGF. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: This user created the page from zero after the first deletion in June 2020 (why?), then added awards and filmography on July 2020 (very local awards and very specific tv appareances), then corrected her father's name on February 2021, and heavily fought trough all the deletion attempts. Like you said, since we're not speaking about Billie Eilish, it's a strange connection for a Canadian undegrad to have with a Louisiana astronaut wannabe. Hard to believe that some WP:COI is not happening here. --Darius Alnex (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: This display of bad faith upsets me. I have no COI here and would declare it if I did. I simply hate to see the accomplishments of young women be excluded from Wikipedia because of the bias of older men (the majority of wiki editors) against young women. Her father's name was spelled differently barely a paragraph apart, so I changed it after googling which one was correct. I added awards and TV appearences because that is something I do standardly in my work on articles about women in theatre. I have created many pages about total strangers, many of whom you'd have stronger ground at arguing a COI for (ie. being in the same country). I had simply seen coverage of Carson appearing on my newsfeed and thought 'that's a cool young woman who should be covered on Wikipedia'. Samsmachado (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: If the person in question was called Alex Carson it would have been the same. "I simply hate to see the accomplishments of young women be excluded from Wikipedia"... which accomplisments? She did nothing. She paid to attend space camps and her dad paid some blogs to spoke about her. Is this encyclopedic material? If you think so, vote "Keep". I don't think it's enough, and that's why I applied the page for the deletion. About the allegations, your behavior (and the one of another user, also Canadian) was suspicious, and it was worth pointing it out to the community. After that, vox populi vox dei. The community will decide what to do. --Darius Alnex (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment: You are welcome to launch a formal investigation into my alleged COI; you will find I have none. Otherwise, this verges on harassment. I can appreciate that you do not think her achievements are enough. Plenty of people shared your opinion in the previous AFD and you are free to think as you will. However, more people (or at least people with stronger or more policy-informed arguments) decided she was encyclopedic content less than a year ago. Samsmachado (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was in Newsweek and a CBS News story, enough to be notable, but I agree she just barely attains notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There seems to be a committed effort by otherwise-infrequent editors to try to debunk or delete this article, despite it being well sourced. She might be notable only because of self-promotion, but she is notable. Like it or not, reliable sources have reported on her. pburka (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To clarify my position, I do most of my edits without logging in, since I'm not interested in having a career as a Wikipedia editor. And they're usually made to correct vandalized articles that I'm reading. I don't have anything personal against the subject of the article, since I'm not even from the same continent of her. I'm just an astronomy enthusiast who doesn't think that a wannabe astronaut should have a Wikipedia page until it actually became an astronaut, in accordance with the WP:TOOSOON policy. --Darius Alnex (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anything is too soon, it's this nomination. This article was already debated and kept in July and again in August. What has changes in the last 6 months to merit yet another discussion? pburka (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That I found a probable WP:COI violation. Most of the subject of the article appearences seems to be paid posts on blogs, so it's not unlikely that a couple of Wikipedia editors (and back in the days a former admin of Wikipedia) could have been paid to keep the page alive. I do realize that the "evidences" are circumstantial, but I think that this is a topic the community of Wikipedia has the right to discuss. Besides the fact that the entire article is no way near to have any encyclopedic interest. --Darius Alnex (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - These weak accusations might be a bit more credible if they weren't coming from a WP:SPA. Is a reddit or 4chan forum coordinating this? pburka (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        My edit history speaks for myself and it's coherent with my previous message (you can edit vandalized pages without logging in, you cannot delete one without logging in). Also, I'm not an English speaker, so you can find most of my edits on the Italian Wikipedia. If reddit or 4chan was involved you would have seen more than 3 "delete" messages. I just don't think that a wannabe astronaut has the right to have a page on an online encyclopedia and IMHO it's an offense to all the people who actually works at NASA, who are real scientists and have really achieved something. That's why I applied the page for the deletion. --Darius Alnex (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your personal opinion about who has the right to have a page on an online encyclopedia and offended feelings are not policy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy gave me the power to launch the deletion process. The voting will decide if the article is encyclopedic or not. Also none of the example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT matches what I said. I started the deletion process because IMHO there's nothing encyclopedic in someone who tries to become an astronaut (especially if the sources seems to be paid posts). Or at least this is the idea that I have of "encyclopedia". And in the first deletion attempt it was the idea of the majority of the people. --Darius Alnex (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        "It isn't encyclopedic" and "AfD is a vote between the majority of the people" are also examples of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; it would be a good idea to read that page so you do not produce several more. You are free to nominate an article for deletion. Others are free to say that you have not provided a policy-based reason to delete an article, and in fact have inadvertently provided one to keep it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment The first AfD was back in 2018 (also initiated by the current nom), and the article has been rewritten with better sourced since then, as evidenced by comments and "keep" conclusions at AfDs 2 and 3. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is still largely promotional content that does not have a place here. Sources are largely routine appearances and interviews of her own self-advocacy, not encyclopedic content. She's garnered herself an over-the-top resume but not notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The entire argument here seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Per above, the subject passes GNG, and just because you don't like that the coverage exists doesn't change the fact that it does. Even your stated rationale for non-notability -- that the NASA stuff was "revealed and covered many times by the media" -- is itself a demonstration of GNG.

For that matter, the page doesn't even read as particularly promotional. The bulk of it is objective facts, and a significant portion is dedicated to the aforementioned debunking of the NASA branding. That is not something a promotional piece or press release would include.

(I have no affiliation with the subject of this article and indeed had never heard of her until several hours ago -- I trust nobody will twist those words into "well, you've never heard of her, obviously she isn't notable." If you check my edit history, what you will find is a great deal of slashed promotional writing.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was closed as Keep twice last year. What has changed since then? Per the sourcing in the article and the explanations in the other 2 AfDs, WP:SIGCOV is met. Concerns of PROMO and COI can be fixed through editing. TJMSmith (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, given there is WP:SIGCOV. Also, WP:DINC, and nothing seems significantly different in terms of notability since the last AfD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one would have thought 37 references would be enough (CBS, Newsweek, The Independent, ...). Oculi (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she may have an unusual claim to notability, but clearly meets WP:BASIC Redoryxx (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think what she has done is of great importance, but the article clearly establishes Wikipedia notability. I don't understand the comment that "nothing in this article is relevant or encyclopedic content". The content is clearly relevant to the subject; it describes what she has done. Whether or not it's "encyclopidic" is a judgement call, but I don't think it clearly violates WP:PROMOTION. PopePompus (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Syed Mohammad Baqir Al-Moosavi Al-Najfi

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO and WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable. Rondolinda (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO per nom. Shankargb (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Disregarding non-policy-based !keep votes, clear consensus exists. David Eppstein's comment is the most persuasive in terms of policy arguments. Daniel (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Kumar Malik

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

No indication of nobility. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:GNG, WP:RS RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.HariSinghw (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, h-index of 2, no coverage found. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep he is Dean school of law of eminent Central University of Haryana in India. He is a notable person. Indiandeanslaw (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Indiandeanslaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The SPA has been created just minutes before adding this vote. RationalPuff (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dean is not a high-enough administrative position to pass WP:PROF#C6, and the Central University of Haryana at which he works is a new university with an enrollment lower than many US High Schools, unlikely to be considered a "major academic institution". His name is common enough that I had trouble finding his publications in Google Scholar among the ones by the chemical engineer and library automation researcher with the same names; both of them had too-low citations for WP:PROF#C1 and this one's must be even lower. There could plausibly be a case for WP:AUTHOR but for that we'd need multiple published reviews of his books, not in evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per David Eppstein. Being a Dean is certainly not enough for passing WP:PROF#C6. Citability is quite low and there is no indication that his books made a significant impact. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He is author and has been a member of the committee for taking policy making decision for whole India at National level deputed by apex body University Grants Commission of India. His contribution was remarkable.Mamtakuhu20 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Mamtakuhu20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Being an author is not, in and of itself, indicative of notability. We would need proof (e.g. published reviews of his books) that his work has made significant impact. Committee work of the type you mention is not unusual for academics either. If his contributions there were indeed, "remarkable", as you say (and how do you know that?), we would need verifiable evidence from independent reliable sources regarding that. Nsk92 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep "remarkable" In India it was a remarkable policy decision for education in India and may be verified from University Grants Commission (India) report given in reference of Rajesh Kumar Malik page.HariSinghw (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - David Eppstein's assessment of the notability of his position is most persuasive. And fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:PROF. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ He is professor of law and a person become only after his or her remarkable contribution and He is Dean also of a Central University of Haryana in India. His contribution as a committee member of National level is notable.HariSinghw (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck this duplicate !vote since the same user has already cast a 'Speedy Keep' !vote above. Nsk92 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bletsas

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

I can't find any evidence that he's a notable speaker or computer scientist. The award is a community/group one and ignoring the fact that an interview doesn't work as independent coverage, it doesn't do much to make a case for notability either. Sourcing in the Greek article is similarly thin, and I can't find anything else. He isn't mentioned in One Laptop per Child and sourcing (also discussed in prior AfD) doesn't make it clear that his role was significant enough for this to be a redirect there. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my comment on the previous AfD, which is still valid: I don't think he passes WP:PROF, and I don't think being a sysadmin at MIT is enough to be notable. But he has collected a fair amount of press for his work at One Laptop Per Child and for networking Patmos, and was keynote speaker at several conferences. So I think he squeaks by on WP:GNG grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep basically per David Eppstein. I'm seeing a fair amount of articles relating to his work with One Laptop per Child, as well as some other information on speaking engagements and interviews with him. Also he's good enough for Hairlebrity so doesn't that count for something? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Giggle definitely the first AfD !vote in some time that has made me literally giggle. Wonder if that's a withdraw criteria. Thanks for the laugh. StarM 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both !votes expressed weakly. Relist to determine a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment clearly not notable per NPROF given his academic track record, but maybe through his general reception in popular media. However, general media reception is not evident from the article - where are these media articles about him? He is mentioned in passing with Nicholas Negroponte but rarely as the main subject. The only article about him I could find was this GearLog article, so I dont think we can claim widespread reception in popular media. Also talks at academic conferences are not enough by themselves to make a person notable in general. --hroest 03:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NFOOTBALL, he has been on the roster for a premier national league team (MIT CS/IT), he might not be an MVP, but he has played for many seasons very successfully and achieved the notable award of being Director of Computing for MIT Media Lab. // Timothy :: talk 19:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Officially a very poor discussion with views expressed as opinions of vaguewaves. The policy arguments are broadly to delete but it would be a supervote to prefer that over a preponderance of the discussion. The irony of so much muddy thinking in a discussion about a serious scientist is not lost on me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Jones (scientist)

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

Although won a $1.1mil grant, plus a few awards, I'm not sure being an associate professor with a h-index of 19 is sufficient for this field. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON? Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Likely TOOSOON. I used Scopus to do an "average professor test" by comparing a number of prestige parameters of Dr. Jones to the 17 coauthors of hers holding professorships on 18 of her top-cited and most recent papers. Total citations: average: 7916, median: 4304, Jones: 557. Total papers: avg: 142, med: 76, Jones: 31. h-index: avg: 41, med: 38, Jones: 16. Highest citation: avg: 853, med: 267, Jones: 75. Highest-citation (first-author): avg: 213, med: 169, Jones: 75. Based on these results she is far below the average professor in academic output (because she is early-career) and does not meet C1. Absent meeting other PROF or GNG criteria, I would lean delete. JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to note that if people notice that I said h-index of 19 rather than 16, that's because I got it from Google Scholar instead of Scopus. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Serious question, how is deleting this article on a black female scientist helping Wikipedia? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On further research, I'm going with a formal keep as notable for being principal investigator on a study supported by a large and prestigious grant, which has received independent press coverage, and for her innovative work promoting the recruitment of BAME students to non-medical sciences. I believe JoelleJay's citation analyses are inherently flawed, as explained on their talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per User: Espresso Addict. Despite this individual being early career they have won awards and grants. Furthermore, they have supported teaching students at historically Black colleges in the United States. One does not only measure impact through looking at publication statistics. Who is an "average professor" in this case? Far below in comparison to who? Representation matters and when we think of notability and impact it is important to look beyond citation count. I do not think this article should be deleted. --Smallison (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC) https://www.sciencenews.org/article/black-scientists-disparities-representation-stem-science[reply]

My comment was in reference to NPROF C1 only. Citation metrics are the standard method of assessing someone's scientific impact on a field -- the other factors you mention would likely fall under different criteria and would be highly dependent on coverage by independent RS specifically discussing her contributions to minority representation. Since it's not clear that that coverage exists, we must rely on the notability criteria that don't require secondary coverage -- citations, awards, professional positions. It's uncertain whether a 1.1M grant for an instrument-intensive (read: expensive) field is especially unusual, but very well could be a relevant notability boost. JoelleJay (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as explained below, a 1.1 M grant over 5 years is actually not uncommon in academia. --hroest 19:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had similar thoughts. Are the coauthor cite comparisons actually because people at the top of the field want to work with her? That should count for rather than against. Additionally, $1.1M is an exceptional grant at that stage. And there was enough to write an interesting, complete entry. I’m hard-pressed to see the improvement made by deleting it. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Innisfree987, the majority of the professor-level coauthors of Dr. Jones collaborated with when she was a grad student or post-doc, so it's unlikely they were seeking her out specifically. Nevertheless, to account for this I also assessed 50 authors of 13 articles citing several of her papers.

Citation metrics of authors citing Dr. Jones

Professional positions of everyone with an h-index of ≥4 included.

Caption text
Citing paper	Name	Citation #	Pub #	h-index	Highest cite	Highest first-author cite	Position
Early modification of cytochrome c by hydrogen peroxide triggers its degradation	Natasa Tomaskova	80	9	5	32	20	?
Early...	Petr Novak	3063	149	29	462	53	prof, ETH Zurich
Early...	Tibor Kozar	1120	48	18	105	23	sr scientist, IEP of Slovak Acad.
Early...	Martina Petrencakova	7	4	1	6	1	--
Early...	Daniel Jancura	939	61	18	85	40	assoc. prof, UPJS
Early...	Ghazaleh Yassaghi	20	4	2	10	10	--
Early...	Petr Man	2154	120	27	95	37	sr researcher, Charles U
Early...	Erik Sedlak	1394	73	22	126	126	assoc. prof
Probing the effects of heterogeneous oxidative modifications on the stability of cytochrome c in solution and in the gas phase	Victor Yin	73	7	4	27	27	postdoc, Utrecht
Probing...	Lars Konermann	6371	167	43	447	447	prof, Western U
Native mass spectrometry of membrane proteins	James Keener	86	9	4	27	22	grad student, Arizona
Native...	Guozhi Zhang	27	3	2	22	4	--
Native...	Michael Marty	1001	41	18	206	206	prof, Arizona
Selective cross-linking of coinciding protein assemblies by in-gel cross-linking mass spectrometry	Johannes Hevler	41	3	1	41	0	--
Selective...	Marie Lukassen	52	9	4	14	8	postdoc, Utrecht
Selective...	Alfredo Cabrera-Orefice	222	19	10	32	25	postdoc, Radboud
Selective...	Susanne Arnold	2199	41	25	208	164	assoc. prof, Radboud
Selective...	Matti Pronker	59	6	2	45	45	--
Selective...	Vojtech Franc	341	20	10	71	36	asst prof, Czech Tech
Selective...	Albert Heck	39100	730	95	913	509	prof, Utrecht
Higher-order structural characterisation of native proteins and complexes by top-down mass spectrometry	Mowei Zhou	643	31	14	78	78	scientist, PNNL
Higher...	Carter Lantz	70	6	3	42	0	--
Higher...	Kyle Brown	175	12	4	73	15	postdoc, Wisconsin
Higher...	Ying Ge	3360	121	34	229	124	prof, Wisconsin
Higher...	Ljiljana Pasa-Tolic	10158	237	53	425	194	Fellow/Deputy of Tech, PNNL
Higher...	Joseph Loo	21951	450	80	1113	1113	prof, UCLA
Higher...	Frederik Lermyte	417	42	12	67	67	asst prof, TU Darmstadt
Protein higher-order-structure determination by fast photochemical oxidation of proteins and mass spectrometry analysis	Xiaoran Roger Liu	98	12	6	37	37	scientist, Bristol-Myers-Squibb
Protein...	Don Rempel	2613	81	27	430	114	instrument specialist, WUSTL
Protein...	Michael Gross	25913	680	79	1846	251	prof, WUSTL
Exploring the structure and dynamics of macromolecular complexes by native mass spectrometry	Elisabetta Boeri Erba	5	3	1	4	4	--
Exploring...	Luca Signor	924	36	15	188	87	CEA researcher-engineer, ISBG
Exploring...	Carlo Petosa	4398	42	26	654	654	research sci., Grenoble
Subresidue-resolution footprinting of ligand-protein interactions by carbene chemistry and ion mobility-mass spectrometry	Gaoyuan Lu	74	9	4	23	1	PhD student
Subresidue...	Xiaowei Xu	320	33	11	44	14	scientist
Subresidue...	Gongyu Li	387	25	9	174	18	postdoc, Wisconsin
Subresidue...	Huiyong Sun	2747	67	26	325	325	assoc. prof, China Pharmaceutical U
Expanding the types of lipids amenable to nativ emass spectrometry of lipoprotein complexes	Marius Kostelic	6	2	1	6	6	--
Expanding...	Alex Ryan	6	1	1	6	0	--
Expanding...	Deseree Reid	81	5	4	30	30	grad student, Arizona
Expanding...	Jibriel Noun	6	1	1	6	0	--
The diverse and expanding role of mass spectrometry in structural and molecular biology	Philip Lossl	644	18	13	121	121	Nature Comms editor
The diverse...	Michiel van de Waterbeemd	575	14	12	121	70	principal scientist, MSD
Mass spectrometry-based fast photochemical oxidation of proteins (FPOP) for higher order structure characterization	Ke Sherry Li	106	5	4	37	37	assoc. sci., Genentech
Mass spec...FPOP	Liuqing Shi	322	18	11	64	64	sr sci, AbbVie
Protein footprinting comes of age: mass spectrometry for biophysical structure assessment	Liwen Wang	631	17	13	141	74	sr research assoc., Case Western
Protein footprinting...	Mark Chance	12604	277	61	557	144	prof, Case Western
Mass spectrometry-enabled structural biology of membrane proteins	Antonio Calabrese	524	34	13			Academic Fellow, Leeds
Mass spec...membrane	Sheena Radford	21124	310	78	936	705	prof, Leeds

Including all authors: total citations: avg: 3454, med: 417, J: 557; total papers: avg: 84, med: 20, J: 31; h-index: avg: 20, med: 12, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 224, med: 76, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 128, med: 39, J: 75.

Including only the 14 people with professorships: total citations: avg: 10782, med: 4866, J: 557; total papers: avg: 241, med: 158, J: 31; h-index: avg: 47, med: 39, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 559, med: 436, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 310, med: 200, J: 75.

Including all authors with ≥10 papers: total citations: avg: 5264, med: 1001, J: 557; total papers: avg: 126, med: 42, J: 31; h-index: avg: 29, med: 18, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 335, med: 158, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 191, med: 83, J: 75.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is a great deal of effort. I’m very sorry I didn’t chime in when I read the exchange you had with EA, to let you know I’m on the side of not finding this kind of novel invention of metrics—original research we might say—very compelling. Since the method is not established in RS, I can’t easily check it against other examples.
What I’m left with then is the same question EA posed: is the encyclopedia improved by deleting this entry? Is it harmed? I do believe this entry adds value for reasons I and others mention, and I don’t believe, eg, our standards are diminished by including it. So I join those !voting keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take much work, I can just download the metrics from Scopus and use a script I wrote for it. What criteria do you use when evaluating citation counts? Do you calibrate for subfield? And the purpose of AfD isn't to gauge harm versus improvement to Wikipedia; it is literally to assess whether an article meets policy guidelines (including WP:N and WP:NOT). JoelleJay (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see in my AfD log it’s not usually my deciding criteria for academics. This is because it’s so slippery; when I use it, I’m typically checking h-index against entries pointed out by those who regularly !vote on the specialty and can point to other comparable AfDs.
All that being said, our task in everything we do here is to improve the encyclopedia and avoid disrupting that project, including with WP:BURO.
I’m repeating myself now but since there’s a concern below for what affirmative arguments are being made, I !voted on the basis of her sizable grant and the sufficient material to write a complete entry—per WP:WHYN. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. As nom, I was a bit on the fence initially whether it was WP:TOOSOON, but I think the large grant and it's associated coverage pushes the article over the line, so I'm effectively withdrawing my nomination. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As time goes on I'm getting closer to just sitting on the fence. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's WP:TOOSOON here. The awards I see are early career, and don't contribute much to notability; similarly for the CAREER grant (see [13]). The citation record looks far short of WP:NPROF C1 in what I believe to be a medium-high citation field. I don't see any other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with the nominator whose opinion has changed. I say "weak" because she is quite young, but the new grant really indicates that, if we delete this article, we will need to recreate it in a couple of years. The nominator has withdrawn, so let us leave it for a couple of years and then maybe reconsider. --Bduke (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would love to see a solid argument for keeping here. So far, I'm seeing WP:NOHARM and an argument for temporary notability (in contrast with WP:NOTTEMPORARY). Now, there are arguments about her CAREER grant that are somewhat serious. The NSF CAREER grant is an early career grant intended to help her eventually reach notability, but is awarded mainly for promise. About 450 awards are made per year, see [14]. Past AfD precedent does not establish this as enough for WP:NPROF (although it certainly does not detract from notability). I'm interested in keeping articles about notable folks from underrepresented groups, but I'm very skeptical about NPROF here. Perhaps another notability criterion? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPROF its very clear that its TOOSOON from an academic point of view - we do not create articles for everybody with a NSF grant. Even though a 1M grant looks impressive, these are very common for assistant professors and generally barely cover the professors salary, lab expenses and maybe one or two students. This is a 5 year grant, so this is ca 200k per year to put this into perspective and in the US this will also have to cover her salary. As Russ pointed out there are 450 awards per year and current notability criteria do not support this grant alone as a reason for notability. The "associated press coverage" is university press which is basically vanity press (every University has those to promote their own scientists). She works in my subfield and I did see her speak at notable conferences including Pittcon and she is clearly an impressive scientist with a promising career, but for Wikipedia it is TOOSOON (talks at conferences are not a current criterion for notability either). Furthermore, a h-index of 19 is quite common for assistant professors at her stage, so unless we make all assistant professors notable (we don't, not even full professors are notable) we would be making an exception here. The only reason for keeping this would be if there were regional or national press coverage about her research or her position in science as a black scientist. I am not specifically arguing against this article, but want to provide context and would like to point that we would first have to have a much larger discussion about professors and their notability first. --hroest 16:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jones is an early career scientist who is cited frequently and with high regards in mass spec reviews. Upon further investigation, she also holds leadership roles in University of Maryland, Baltimore CURE Scholars Program, IMSD Meyerhoff Graduate Fellowship Program, and American Society for Mass Spectrometry. This is notable, especially for someone who recently obtained their PhD in 2016. Gggg2123 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The paper cites are still lower than what I'd expect for someone notable in the field under WP:NPROF #1 and the leadership roles mentioned don't seem to meet #6, i.e. "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". "Promising" is closer to WP:TOOSOON than "notable". -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note, I started this page. I don't think that citations are a very useful metric, Jones has contributed to both scientific discoveries and education/academic culture. Jones developed a novel structural probe to better understand cell membranes. She serves as co-Director of the Meyerhoff Graduate Fellowship Program, which produced distinguished scholars such as Kizzmekia Corbett. I see WP:NOHARM in keeping this page up. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think citations are going to be important to see whether the method she developed is important (eg leads to important discoveries) and is used by other scientists - a method by itself is not relevant unless it is useful to gain insight into some biology. I agree with WP:NOHARM in this case and see the argument for keeping it, the only danger is that if the bar is lowered too much, Wikipedia will be flooded with self-promoting academics. --hroest 22:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting elected to the Board of Directors of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry [15] would appear to justify a lowering of the bar in the name of affirmative action. I am hoping the apparent non-existence of the role of "Co-Director of the Meyerhoff Graduate Fellowship Program" on its UMB pages, and the lack of any mention of Jones as either a Core Team member or even a Mentor for the CURE Scholars Program on its UMB pages, are mere clerical oversights. Wikipedia can ill-afford another scandal of that nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantor Simmonds (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC) — Cantor Simmonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Understand the reason for the AFD but she does seem to be notable enough to have an article. I wish we would be more explicit when we take articles to AFD that appear to have been created as part of projects to address Wikipedia's systemic bias such as via Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. I am NOT saying a different standard applies just that's its always better to have context, just as I usually get the benefit of the doubt when I create an article that it will be on a notable subject due to my experience.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The combination of academic career (in serious science) and "won a $1.1mil grant, plus a few awards" adds up to notable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not, please see WP:PROF, the criteria are much more strict. --hroest 02:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said "notable" as in WP:N which is not the same as WP:PROF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete , rather weakly, but a consensus does exist. No prejudice towards recreation (including any other administrator undeleting this article and draftifying) if the state of play changes. Daniel (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi

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

None of the published work by the subject does not seems to have significant impact on the field of study. The subject has won some non notable awards. But he does not have recieved independent coverage from multiple sources to establish notability hence fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he's a bit above average in a few criteria in his field*, there's nothing demonstrating an exceptional career or scholarly impact.

*criteria

I compiled the average total citations, total pubs, h-index, highest citation, and highest first-author citation for Chaturvedi and ~100 of his coauthors (with more than 30 papers--people publish in this field a lot).
Total cites: avg: 2669, Chaturvedi: 2366.
Total pubs: avg: 94, C: 264.
h-index: avg: 18, C: 24.
Highest cite: avg: 351, C: 113.
Highest first-author cite: avg: 95, C: 87.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Passing WP:GNG isn't a requirement, as WP:NPROF may be the relavent criteria here. As per JoelleJay's analysis, I'm not convinced is suitably notable though. Might be some reviews of the recent books in due course, but perhaps too soon for that to be grounds for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:JoelleJay, Inorder to pass WP:NPROF, the subject must satisfy atleast any of the 8 criterias mentioned there. I dont see he has passed any of that. His contribution doesnot seem to have made an impact in the field of study. Also he is not a winner of any notable awards. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kichu, yep, I should have clarified that the criteria I was assessing were for NPROF C1, which seemed to be the NPROF criterion he was most likely to pass (but I don't think he does). JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The original article submitted has been stripped of several things we should be considering (copied below from the edit history of Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi, with wikilinks added): Fellowships at Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Royal College of Psychiatrists, Indian Psychiatric Society and honorary membership of World Psychiatric Association all might count towards WP:PROF #3, and the Editor-in-chief position, albeit of a red-linked journal, might count towards #8.

Fellow Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, UK
Fellow, Royal College of Psychiatrists, UK
Member, International Association for the Study of Pain,
Life Member, Indian Association of Palliative Care.
Life Fellow of Indian Psychiatric Society
Honorary Member, World Psychiatric Association, WPA ,
Member, Editorial Board, Psycho Oncology [Wiley]
Director, Board of Director, International Psycho Oncology Society [2006-2012]
Editor in Chief, Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation & Mental Health
Member, WHO’s Working Group on the Classification of Somatic Symptom and Dissociative Disorders 2010-2012. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity or delete No secondary source found,might be case of wp:toosoon.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - may also see Google Scholar profile [16] with many published research - each of them cited heavily by other academics. Researchgate has 4000+ citations [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:568F:8FE2:C871:721A:56BF:5D8F (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sima Abd Rabo

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

Political advisor and activist who does not meet GNG. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several sources are not written in English, can more detail be provided about how the sourcing doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A simple search shows this activist does not meet GNG or BASIC, however in regards to sources in the article (number refer to current revision 1004677177):
1. Interview in local newspaper on The Da Vinci Code she translated, so primary in nature of little significance.
2. Book jacket of Arabic edition of Imperial Hubris, she translated. Possible to verify that she translated it, but of no significance as a source.
3. Zenith (magazine) from 2020, page (short page), with profile and interview. Probably the best source of the bunch, but it still an interview and specialist publication.
4. Youtube video with 392 views in which she speaks.
5. Partner page of "Network of Democrats in the Arab World" at iri.org, doesn't even name her.
6. Article at Qantara.de, which is about the Gulf Monarchies and doesn't even mention her.
7. Homepage of "THE BAGHDAD POLICY CLUB", has her picture, name, position, and country all of one line.
8. Single sentence quote in alarab.co.uk
9. Piece written by Abd Rabo herself and posted at souriyat.org
10. BBC, which would be great, however it does not even mention her. The BBC piece covers the Lars Klevberg incident, but has nothing on Abd Rabo.
11. Open letter, posted at https://www.bellingcat.com/, in which Abd Rabo is one of hundreds of signatories.
12. Short quote of Abd Rabo at welt.de, in a very large piece not about her (she was elected the three-person spokesman body of the council that the piece is covering).
13. This zdf.de covers an activity involving the council, but doesn't mention Abd Rabo at all.
14. Post at souria11.org covering the appointment of three new spokepersons. Abd Rabo (and Mr. Ibrahim Shaheen) are thanked for their term that ended.
15. This post at rabbiscer.org does not mention her at all AFAICT. She might be present in one of the photos, that unfortunately do not have captions, or in one of the videos.
In summary, there is one semi-decent (though short and an interview) in Zenith (magazine). Everything else here is a combination of unreliable/unremarkable sources and not mentioning her at all or mentioning her very briefly. She has filled very minor political positions, and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eostrix. Many unreliable sources, and many sources mentioning subject in passing, which does not constitute 'significant coverage'. Very little in terms of sourcing that establishes notability per WP:GNG. Bigpencils (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the author of the article I disagree. Regarding the post at rabbiscer.org, the reference pertains to the declaration in general. Here is the link to the organisation's post where SAR is mentioned. Wasn't sure if referencing facebook is a good idea. However the substance seems relevant to me. https://es-la.facebook.com/JewishDiplomaticCorps/posts/weremember-the-holocaust-to-build-a-future-free-of-antisemitism-xenophobia-and-a/2668779769836892/ Emarat Al-Youm might be a newspaper of little international relevance but it remains a serious source. Zenith is a reputable German magazine on West Asia and North Africa. The profile on SAR is not an interview, btw, but uses quotes. The Link to the Network of Arab Democrats does not reference SAR but the organisation itself. It is listed as a partner of the IRI. I see some of the points of Esotrix. However I do not see that this justifies to delete the article. It covers the life and activities of what appears to be a relevant Syrian woman and women's rights activist. JamalFaris 16 February 2021

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, including per WP:IAR and the points raised by JamalFaris; Abd Rabo is noted in the The Council of the Syrian Charter and Code of Conduct for Syrian Coexistence articles, so deletion of her article and the detailed background it provides seems to interfere with improving and maintaining Wikipedia. Beccaynr (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly relisting for a third time to try and reach an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Proponents of keeping this page did not provide any reliable sources to support the article's notability, meanwhile Esotrix provided a thorough review of the quality of present sources. Kamataran (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed deletions

Abd al-Sattar Qasim (via WP:PROD on 25 February 2021)
~~Nigar Usubova (via WP:PROD on 25 February 2021)~~
Giuliana Galli Carminati (via WP:PROD on 23 February 2021)
~~Oriana Baddeley (via WP:PROD on 22 February 2021)~~