Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OSmeone (talk | contribs) at 14:14, 15 January 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indranil Banik.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch


Academics and educators

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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indranil Banik

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

Orphaned article about a fairly junior academic who does not meet academic notability guidelines: WP:ACADEMIC OSmeone (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several links to the article from elsewhere, please see the categories section at the bottom. For instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_astrophysicists 95.175.134.129 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2025 (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. The detailed source analysis supporting the "delete" majority view has remained unrebutted. Sandstein 08:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Narkar

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

Fails the notability test for politicians, and of course WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. A cursory search doesn't bring up anything useful. Also, peoplesdemocracy.in would be very much unreliable in this context, because it is not independent of the subject and would hardly be unbiased. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : Without resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I will like to draw attention to the amount of blue-links at Template:Democratic_State_Chairs. State chairs in Democratic Party are generally less important than state secretaries/presidents in Indian political party like CPIM which is one of the only six national parties. State presidents/secretaries are highest position in state unit of a party.
Multiple reliable media have covered Uday Narkar. What this article needs is improvement, not deletion. Besides People's Democracy is indeed a reliable sources for this because the citation covers just the event of state conference and election of Uday Narkar as state secretary. Besides he is also the member of Central Committee of CPIM. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently 16 citations are there (many Wikipedia articles only have 1-3 citations). More can be added with the passing of time. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was on the fence about this person, but the new trivia, unreliable sources and unencyclopedic content added by XYZ demonstrates that the topic is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:@Ssilvers Can you suggest some improvements? I think discussions are not for deletion only, improvements of Wikipedia are main motive. Which are the sources you think unreliable? Besides can you please the reason for which you were on the fence first? XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest some improvements, which you undid. For example, Wikipedia articles do not include titles like "Dr." in the first sentence of the lead. Later in the article, you can say where the person earned a doctorate, if you have a WP:Reliable Source. Any fact that is not cited to a WP:Reliable source should be removed per WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers Here is one of the citations. (https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/maharashtra-assembly-polls-cpim-12-seats-uday-narkar-interview-9597342/lite/) XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides this article contains many inline citations. Please make your valuable contributions such that this article can stay in Wikipedia. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Now the article is filled with inline citations and passes WP:GNG. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have assessed the sixteen citations. The intention was to demonstrate notability - it demonstrated the reverse.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) updated 22:15.[reply]
    Comment : The Lokmat Times citation also adds a view of Uday Narkar regarding organising the march. : Keeping in mind the concerns arising out of the high temperatures, the organisers have made suitable arrangements for drinking water, shade, walking only in the morning and evening hours, etc, Narkar said.. Besides the citation on RTI activists adds his views on the matter and also indicates that he is RTI activist. Besides Daylight murder of democracy citation mostly adds his views only unlike the citation just before it where a press statement is released. I think the fact that he is a Central Committee member of CPIM is to be derived from the list of the Central Committee members only because how separate lines/paragraph on each member is possible. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toddy1@Ssilvers The motive of this discussion is improvement of Wikipedia. You all are requested to make your valuable contributions so that this article can pass GNG and stay undeleted. Besides one cannot deny that multiple reliable sources have mentioned and covered Uday Narkar and all the information I have derived is from those source only. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @XYZ 250706 Please, do not remove or edit Toddy1's source assessment. Do your own source assessment without removing or replacing Toddy1's own. I just reverted your edit again as you've done it twice. Also, please read WP:BLUD, the more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanderwaalforces I am not removing anything. I just added my own. Yes at first I misunderstood and thought that I have to edit the table. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage" means that the source tells the reader a lot about Uday Narkar (who is the subject of the Wikipedia article). See WP:SIGCOV.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any citation covering the subject doesn't necessarily add a biography (detailed information) of the subject. His contribution to or views on the event are enough for significant coverage as "Significant coverage" addresses a topic of the subject directly and in detail, not the whole subject. For significant coverage, the subject does not need to be the main topic of the source material. In this article, sources/citations are added in such way each citation addresses a particular information on this subject directly and in detail. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides no original research is done here. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Toddy1
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Shaikh, Zeeshan (1 October 2024). "CPI(M) sets sight on 12 seats in Maharashtra Assembly polls, says MVA not properly engaging smaller allies". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 5 October 2024.
 ~ A newspaper interview with the subject Yes ~ Interview about the party, not about the subject ~ Partial
Jadhav, Rohidas (17 June 2019). "SFI State Camp Plans Series of Student Struggles in Maharashtra". Students' Federation of India. The subjects and the teachers in the four-day class were as follows: ... 6. What is Socialism? – AIKS state vice president Dr Uday Narkar
 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
No The subject is the author Yes No Passing mentions ✘ No
No His publisher's list of authors Yes ~ Short biography ✘ No
"Democratic Centralism: CPI(M) 23rd Congress and Central Committee". Advocatetanmoy Law Library. 24 August 2024.
 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
"Central Committee Elected at the 23rd Congress". Communist Party Of India (Marxist). 2022.
 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No A summary of The Indian Express article of 1 October 2024. Mentions the subject 5 times, but says very little about the subject. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mentions the subject twice, but says little about him. ✘ No
@cpimspeak (May 11, 2024). "Marathi Editions of Prabir Purkayastha and Justice K Chandru's Books Released by Janshakti Prakashan in Mumbai" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Director of 'Janshakti' and Editor of 'Jeewan Marg', Dr Uday Narkar, introduced the work and the recent titles of the publishing house.
 Twitter - Communist Party of India No 1 mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Dr Uday Narkar". Ballotbox India. 5 October 2023.
 ballotboxindia.com ~ 1 paragraph biography ? Unknown
"About Us". Janwadi Lekhak Sangh.
 No No No This source is cited to say what Janwadi Lekhak Sangh is. The page does not mention the subject. ✘ No
"Over 50 RTI activists attacked in Maharashtra". Daijiworld Media. 22 February 2015. Activist Uday Narkar said, "Kolhapur has been called the home turf of progressive movements. Comrade Pansare has been insisting that it is no longer so. Over the last few decades the reactionary forces, rabid specifically Hindutva forces have gained grounds in Kolhapur and neighbouring areas."
 Yes Yes No Quotes the subject twice ✘ No
"Release Elgar Parishad political prisoners: CPM". Pune Times Mirror. IANS. 24 December 2022. Archived from the original on 15 January 2025.
 Yes Yes ~ Article about CPI(M)'s demands. The subject is their spokesman. Big photo; 1 quotation. ~ Partial
No Each "story" consists of a statement by the subject ~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view ~ About CPI(M)'s views; very limited indication of notability of subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.


Comment : Here is the assessment table based on current citations. XYZ 250706 (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:XYZ 250706
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ A newspaper interview with the subject Yes ~ Interview about the party, not about the subject ~ Partial
Jadhav, Rohidas (17 June 2019). "SFI State Camp Plans Series of Student Struggles in Maharashtra". Students' Federation of India. The subjects and the teachers in the four-day class were as follows: ... 6. What is Socialism? – AIKS state vice president Dr Uday Narkar
 Yes Yes ~ Mention of him being AIKS Maharashtra vice-president and giving lecture in SFI seminar ~ Partial
"CPI(M) Maharashtra State Conference Concludes". Communist Party of India (Marxist). 26 March 2022. Retrieved 20 January 2025. The 23rd CPI(M) Maharashtra state conference concluded with Comrade Uday Narkar being elected as State Secretary.
 Yes Yes Yes Coverage on his election to the post of CPM Maharashtra state secretary replacing Narsayya Adam. ✔ Yes
No His publisher's list of authors Yes ~ Short biography ✘ No
"Democratic Centralism: CPI(M) 23rd Congress and Central Committee". Advocatetanmoy Law Library. 24 August 2024.
 Yes Yes ~ Mention in the list of the members of Central Committee ~ Partial
"Central Committee Elected at the 23rd Congress". Communist Party Of India (Marxist). 2022.
 Yes Yes ~ Mention in the list of the members of Central Committee ~ Partial
Yes Yes Yes His quote on the organisation of the march is given ✔ Yes
Yes Yes ~ Indicates that he took part in MVA seat sharing discussions ~ Partial
Yes Yes Yes Mention about subject's taking part in MVA seat sharing discussions ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
@cpimspeak (May 11, 2024). "Marathi Editions of Prabir Purkayastha and Justice K Chandru's Books Released by Janshakti Prakashan in Mumbai" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Director of 'Janshakti' and Editor of 'Jeewan Marg', Dr Uday Narkar, introduced the work and the recent titles of the publishing house.
 Yes Twitter - Communist Party of India (Marxist) Yes ~ Mention about publishing Jeevan Marg and directing Janshakti ~ Partial
"Dr Uday Narkar". Ballotbox India. 5 October 2023.
 Yes ballotboxindia.com ~ 1 paragraph biography ? Unknown
"About Us". Janwadi Lekhak Sangh.
 No This source is cited to say what Janwadi Lekhak Sangh is. The page does not mention the subject. ✘ No
"Over 50 RTI activists attacked in Maharashtra". Daijiworld Media. 22 February 2015. Activist Uday Narkar said, "Kolhapur has been called the home turf of progressive movements. Comrade Pansare has been insisting that it is no longer so. Over the last few decades the reactionary forces, rabid specifically Hindutva forces have gained grounds in Kolhapur and neighbouring areas."
 Yes Yes Yes Mention of his views on the matter and also indicates him being RTI activist ✔ Yes
"Release Elgar Parishad political prisoners: CPM". Pune Times Mirror. IANS. 24 December 2022. Archived from the original on 15 January 2025.
 Yes Yes ~ Article about CPI(M)'s demands. The subject is their spokesman. Big photo; 1 quotation. ~ Partial
Yes ~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view ~ About CPI(M)'s views; very limited coverage on Subject. ~ Partial
Yes ~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view Yes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete: Toddy1's analysis is more or less correct - though I don't believe that the Partial assessments are usable towards judging GNG even on a WP:NPOINTS basis as WP:NOTINHERITED applies (could be used as limited cites if GNG were established, however). WP:PASSING mentions of appointments are clearly not significant coverage of the subject, and nor are statements recorded where the speaker is acting as a representative. Note that even independent recorded opinions of someone are not enough to establish notability at AFD and significant coverage OF the subject is needed. XYZ 250706's analysis is incorrect. A WP:REFBOMB does not notability make, but assessing only their four "Yes" entries shows they fall far short of WP:THREE in demonstrating sigcov. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : We should also think of other alternatives rather than deletion although this article is much more well cited than many articles staying in Wikipedia. I have already mentioned Template:Democratic_State_Chairs. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring the WP:WHATABOUTX argument here. If other State Chair articles are not well-cited, then nominate them for deletion. That doesn't mean we need to keep this article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if, hypothetically, State Chairs of large parties did have some presumed notability, the CPIM currently holds a total of two seats in the Tamil Nadu assembly. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydronium Hydroxide Yes and two Lok Sabha MPs are from Tamil Nadu also. It is a national party as per election results criteria of ECI. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage of the topic is needed according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia nowhere mentions each citation should have significant coverage on the topic. I think all sources (Wikipedia mentions plural form) should together have significant coverage. So overall significant coverage is enough. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I reviewed the entries in the source assessment table that are listed as counting toward GNG, and they are all utterly trivial - most of them have nothing at all to say about Narkar besides the fact that he was a leader of the CPI (M) in the state. Indeed I'm not seeing anything else biographical that can be sourced from independent reliable sources: as such this is a long way from meeting WP:GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Faig Kaddumi

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

Normally productive but apparently undistinguished (in the WP:GNG and WP:PROF senses) geologist and palaeontologist. I can find nothing that would demonstrate recognized extraordinary contributions to the field, honours or appointments received, etc. Some works (e.g. his book on ambers of Jordan [1]) are reasonably cited, but encyclopedia-level notability does not seem present. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. His Google Scholar profile indicates that he has a decent number of cited publications, though I make no judgment to his academic notability in my comment. Madeleine (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citation count is okay, but I don't think it's enough for WP:NPROF#C1 and I don't see any indication he could meet any of the other NPROF criteria. I wasn't able to find any of the reviews of his book that would be necessary to meet WP:NAUTHOR. He's discovered some species, but as far as I know that doesn't count towards notability on its own, so not seeing much of a case for notability. MCE89 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a low-citation field but even so a single-digit h-index and double-digit max citation counts on Google Scholar aren't enough to use WP:PROF#C1. Publishing and naming things (the only scholarly activity described in the article) is normal enough for someone in this field but not something that can be used directly as an argument for notability. His book Amber of Jordan has at least one published review [2] but I didn't find any reviews of Fossils of the Harrana fauna. One reviewed book isn't going to be enough for WP:AUTHOR and one review isn't even enough to make an article on the book and redirect to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2025 (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. Owen× ☎ 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Shende

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

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th sources are his orgs [3] [4] (second one is just homepage) [5] [6] [7], 3rd he is just quoted [8], 7th is a PDF of a powerpoint [9], 8 & 9 are some reports he edited [10] [11], 10th is an award which does not mention him (and is mis-atributed in the article to the US EPA instead of UN) [12], the 11th is about an EPA award that is only mentioned by a WP:NEWSORGINDIA [13], 12 is a link to a newspaper archive page [14], 13 is a conflict of interest form PDF? [15], 14 is a broken link, 15 is a duplicate of 11, 16 is a release by his university [16], 17 he is quoted in just one sentence [17], 18 is a link to the Wikipedia article on the Montreal Protocol, 19 & 20 are links to his website, 21 simply states he was at an event [18], and 22 is a dead link. 🄻🄰 15:14, 14 January 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nazim Uddin

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

Not enough sources to establish notability, and coverage from reliable sources appears to be lacking. Therefore, I'm not sure if article satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. Author also seems eager to remove maintenance templates for no reason, which is quite suspicious and suggests a possible COI. CycloneYoris talk! 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. CycloneYoris talk! 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't find any secondary coverage, so I think WP:NPROF is the only path to notability. The citation count definitely isn't enough to meet WP:NPROF#C1, and the journal that he is Associate Editor in Chief of doesn't seem prominent enough to meet WP:NPROF#C8. But I think he probably meets WP:NPROF#C6 as the Vice-Chancellor of East Delta University. It seems to be a relatively small private university, but is accredited as far as I can tell, meaning that I think he probably meets C6 as someone who has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university. MCE89 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just linking this AfD that was referenced in this recent discussion on the NPROF talk page, which addresses a similar question of whether the vice-chancellor of a relatively new and small but accredited university is notable under C6. MCE89 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must admit I'm worried; EDU is a rather small private university, and our article about it is rather promotional, sourced mostly to the university itself, and written by the same person who wrote the the article on Mohammed Nazim Uddin. This reeks of COI editing. There is a slightly shady line where traditional academic institutions blend into commercial organisations selling education (and seeking to advertise themselves), and I'm not sure on which side of the line EDU and Mohammed Nazim Uddin fall. I would like to see some independent sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very fair, I do have the same concern. From what I found it's definitely a small and relatively new university, but I don't think we're in degree mill/fake institution territory. It's a non-profit, accredited institution and the faculty seem to be actual publishing academics from the ones I've checked. The promotional editing is concerning and it's definitely not a particularly prominent university, but it doesn't seem to cross the line into being outright shady as far as I can tell. I did find some potentially independent coverage in Bengali under "ইস্ট ডেল্টা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়", but hard to assess reliability when running things through Google Translate. MCE89 (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep.per User:MCE89. I have removed promotional content as well.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I placed {{peacock}} and {{notability}} before Vinegarymass911 took care of them. I still can't see any current encyclopedic relevance, but it could eventually become more relevant in the future, so I would abstain from deletion. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. C6 is for VCs of major or significant institutions where appointment would strongly predict academic impact. East Delta University is a tiny, private school in Bangladesh that isn't affiliated with a single article indexed in Scopus (for comparison, East Carolina University (an R2) has 27463 affiliations (+11k from its medical school), University of Dhaka has 14507, even Daffodil International University has 5k). Definitely not a major institution. JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. I don't think we normally give a 'free pass' to pass the PROF test for admins or professors at non-major institutions. Bearian (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, I am unconvinced of the status of the university as major. I added a Peacock to the University page, which already had two tags (and at a minimum needs work/verification itself). Ldm1954 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2025 (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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arpad Furka

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

BLP with unclear notability that is inappropriately sourced, creator has not rectified issues and has unusual history. Version 1 was draftified by Significa liberdade as having no sources. Version 2 was submitted to AfC, then accepted by a now blocked sock puppet. NPP tagged, nothing done. I can't draftify again, which might be the right action; it should not stay like this, we need some quality control. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in case I was not clear enough, my suggestion is a vote for Draftify, reverting the sock puppet move to main from a draft. Ldm1954 (talk)

  • Draftify per nominator. His "General method for rapid synthesis of multicomponent peptide mixtures" has heavy citations, so there might be a case for WP:PROF, but the current article is not adequately sourced for mainspace, and the sockpuppet AfC acceptance should be reversed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Draftification seems like a reasonable approach given the history here. The article is in a poor state and should not have been accepted at AfC. I've found one biographical source which I've used to clean up parts of the article; there's also a 10-page interview in Hargittai, Istvan; Hargittai, Magdolna (2003-03-21). Candid Science III: More Conversations With Famous Chemists. World Scientific. ISBN 978-1-78326-111-6. (also by the Hargittais) which looks like it might be useful, but the book isn't available from archive.org, and Google Books only has snippet view. I was able to find a source for his 2002 Széchenyi Prize, which may help meet WP:NPROF, but I'll leave that to other editors to decide. Preimage (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 20 January 2025 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph N. Macaluso Sr.

Joseph N. Macaluso Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to fail WP:N, no secondary sources in the article, google search turns up nothing Reflord (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Elliot Stuntz

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

I could find no secondary source about this person. One book by Margaret McKenny and Stuntz, The New Savory Wild Mushroom, does have some reviews, but I'm not convinced that's enough to make him notable. Badbluebus (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Biology, United States of America, and Ohio. Badbluebus (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's an 8 page biography already cited in the article: Ammirati, Joe F.; Libonati-Barnes, Susan (1986). "Daniel Elliot Stuntz, 1909-1983". Mycologia. 78 (4): 515–521. ISSN 0027-5514.. Another one is Ammirati, J. F. (1983). "Daniel Elliot Stuntz". Taxon. 32 (3): 533–533. ISSN 0040-0262.. He is the coauthor of The Savory Wild Mushroom, which was widely reviewed (e.g. [19], [20]). Jfire (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the 1983 source you showed is an obituary, which to me carries less weight when establishing notability. I'm more inclined to believe that although the book he co-authored could be notable, Stuntz himself is not. Badbluebus (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. To me this idea that obituaries carry less weight is making things up that are not actually in our guidelines. If we have a rule that what we need for an article is in-depth coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, then what we have is exactly that. If you think GNG should be changed to mean something different, then an individual AfD is not the place for that. The bigger issue, though, is that these two obituaries are not independent of each other, because they share an author. That means we do not have multiple independent sources counting towards GNG notability. One coauthored book with two published reviews [21] [22] counts towards WP:AUTHOR but by itself that would again fall short of the mark. I am on the weak keep side of the fence rather than weak delete, though, because I think the book reviews are also in-depth coverage (of Stuntz's works rather than his life story, but still coverage that counts), so putting them together with the obituaries gives us enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obituaries, especially substantial ones, in main journals in a field are clear evidence of having been notable in that field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2025 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Elbousty

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

Non-notable academic. I cannot find any evidence that he passes WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NAUTHOR, his books (many of which are his translations of others' works) do not appear to be widely reviewed and I could not find more than one review for any of them. As for WP:NACADEMIC, he holds a non-tenure-track role, has an average h-index for his level/discipline, and does not meet any other requirements. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, the Ordre des Palmes Academique does not seem to be a rare award (see here) and the only evidence I can find that he was awarded it is his own webpage. All in all, no qualification on any standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ( h-index = 7 in a very low-cited field) Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Exactly, in the range of average for a post-doc level academic. Someone passing WP:NACADEMIC on criterion 1 would be expected to have an above average h-index. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What knighthood? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The Ordre des Palmes académiques is a knighthood. Its lowest order members are chevaliers – literally knights. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there are thousands of them; it's not a rare or unusual honor. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2025 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Coombs

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. Also can not be solved by simply renaming to Murder of Melvin Coombs. The murder itself fails WP:EVENTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don’t know why WP:VICTIM is being invoked here because that very clearly is not the claim to notability? While he is not notable as a murder victim and the murder itself is not notable, The claim to notability is of him as a Native American dancer. That he happened to be killed doesn’t seem to be the notability claim (not mentioned in the lead, little to none of the article is about it). We should be evaluating off NBASIC or GNG. The sources in the last AfD aren’t nothing, but eh. While being murdered doesn’t make a non notable person notable, just the same being murdered does not make a notable person NOT notable PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA That's because the sources don't support notability in a different context. There aren't any sources with significant coverage about him as a dancer or educator. The one source pre-death used mentions the subject as participating at the Quinnehtukqut Rendezvous & Native American Festival and then gives a brief passing interview with the subject about the festival, but this is neither in-depth nor significant and arguably not independent as its an interview about a different topic. All of the sources where he is the primary subject involve him as a victim and occur after his death. The "Melvin Coombs is not forgotten" piece is primarily about a grand jury, and while it mentions what he did in other contexts, it is clearly a memorial piece about his killing. We would have to see coverage external to coverage of his death and the subsequent court cases to prove notability outside his death, and that just isn't the case. The sources don't exist. As such WP:VICTIM is the cogent policy which tells us he isn't notable because of this lack of sourcing external to his death. 4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I’m not saying the other sources are enough for notability in any context (I have not checked yet which is why I haven’t voted) but it’s strange to me to use the rationale when it’s not the claim to notability. Will check later and then vote (from what I’m seeing I assume my vote will be delete but I am away from the computer at the moment lol) PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after checking for sources, little outside of local coverage, even right when it happened, and what local coverage is there is not particularly extensive. The search was quite annoying because this is not a rare name, but I could not find much, though there were some prior hits it was not helpful. As the nominator states the crime is not notable either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2025 (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. The strongest argument to keep is the prize he was awarded, and the rebuttal to that argument is convincing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Herbert Armstrong

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

No indication of meeting WP:NACADEMIC. — Moriwen (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to assess changes made since this article was nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Still appears to fail notability criteria for WP:NACADEMICS, WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR even after recent additions. The Rome Prize is only a scholarship/fellowship for postgrad students given to dozens of applicants every year. Even the brief obit from his college only mentions the American Academy in Rome as another place he pursued studies. This does not appear to meet the "highly selective honor" of NACADEMICS #3. And I don't find enough significant coverage of this individual to meet WP:BIO. — CactusWriter (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2025 (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. Complex/Rational 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Farina

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

Not notable; no serious sources — Moriwen (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2025 (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. ✗plicit 11:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi Colney

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

The subject is not notable in their field, writing articles for some news websites does not contribute to Notability. The subject fails WP:AUTHOR,WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2025 (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is cited to a staff biography at Harvard and a paid obituary in the Boston Globe (not a staff written one). Neither of these are independent. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2025 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinando Scala

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:AUTHOR. Google Search/Books/Scholar don't provide any significant coverage in independent sources. The tone is slightly promotional and unbalanced per WP:TOOMUCH, with clear WP:NOTCV issues and possible WP:COI editing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2025-01 Healthware International (closed as ✗ soft delete)
Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (academic)

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

Please click the blue button that says "show" to reveal my rationale.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ Former employer but there is probably some editorial oversight on their website Yes Has a press in good standing I think? No 404 error and I couldn't retrieve it from the Internet Archive ✘ No
No Website of the organisation that he was the leader of No Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live Website 404 error ✘ No
No Website of the organisation that he was the leader of No Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live Website 404 error ✘ No
Yes The source doesn't mention the subject so it's independent in that regard . Yes Emerald Group Publishing appears to be in good standing No Doesn't mention the subject ✘ No
No Website of an organisation whose board he sat on. No discussion at WP:RS that I am aware of No Just a mention in a primary source ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His TV appearances may support C1 of WP:ENT although the sources used don't verify these appearances and the text implies that he only had supporting roles or guest appearances in these productions.

There may also be C5 and C3 of WP:NACADEMIC and his editorships could potentially support C8.

But, as far as I can see there simply aren't any reliable sources to support any of the above. Also, if these subject-specific criteria were present then one would assume that there would be some secondary-source coverage and therefore GNG. Relying on primary sources alone to establish notability usually results in pages that read like lists or CVs and the end result is effectively a secondary source when we're aiming to create a tertiary source here.

Plus, any future expansions may very well lead us down the OR route.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • NeutralI am going to abstain from voting for now with a recommendation to allow the discussion to continue for another week to see if any ATDs are possible and reach a broader consensus on what to do with this page. Thank you Bearian and JoelleJay for your insights and contributions thus far.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per the discussion of the actual sources. I thank you for the discussion. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Noted UK cybernetics and robotics scholar. His presidency of the UK's Cybernetics Society would seem enough to me : with the public engagement stuff and awards and fellowships building to clear notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    I would not consider the Cybernetics Society a major institution for the purposes of C6... If he meets GNG from his media participation then those sources should be presented. JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rather perplexed that this person has just two works (with one citation each) on Scopus? Neither the award nor the society presidency is significant enough for C1, C2, or C6 in my opinion, and for the purposes of C7 I would point to the requirement the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert, which doesn't appear satisfied. JoelleJay (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks to me like he meets WP:NACADEMIC C7. The note about being "widely regarded inside academia" is mentioned in relation to having "authored widely popular general audience books", which is not being claimed here, but it does appear that he "is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the source assessment and discussion above, I don't think he meets WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following the indef block of the nom for UPE, and seeing as this was a marginal close to begin with, I am reopening and relisting this AfD for more feedback. Kudos to Goldsztajn for bringing this to my attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the source analysis table above, only one link actually works; nominator was blocked, inter alia, for hoax source tables at AfD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a Fellow of the IET; satisfies WP:NACADEMIC c.3 FWIW he was a judge on the BBC's Robot Wars, too. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Fellow of the IET a prestigious enough honor? I don't really have a good feel for these things, so pinging @David Eppstein. JoelleJay (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not very familiar with that one and the fellowship criteria [31] don't look promising to me. What I don't see anywhere, and would want to see, is a limit on the number of fellows relative to the total membership of the association. They do also have a separate and much smaller list of honorary fellows, and that would be prestigious enough, but I don't think Smith is on that list. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment courtesy pings to previous GF participants: @JoelleJay, Bearian, Msrasnw, RebeccaGreen, and LibStar:. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on my original comments and the discussion above. Academics sometimes don't have traditional coverage, but in this case, his fellowships and honors push him over the line to notability. Bearian (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; even if NPROF#3/6 passes are debatable, WP:NACADEMIC#7 should be met as the "Television appearances" section confirms. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Five seasons (1999-2004) as judge on Robot Wars. There's a selection of his media appearances (BBC, Sky News), among other things, on his YouTube channel. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My contention is that, absent clearer evidence that he is actually considered an academic expert in robotics (rather than an industry figure), I don't see that C7 is even applicable. People can have expertise in subjects without being regarded as academic experts for the purposes of C7, e.g. a well-regarded prosthetic makeup specialist might appear as a judge on Face Off, but that doesn't mean they can qualify for notability through C7: they still have to meet GNG/NARTIST. Or a nurse might be regularly interviewed about their expertise in practicing nursing, but that doesn't make them an academic expert if they have little academic activity. I don't get the impression that Smith's limited academic footprint is enough for C7 to apply. JoelleJay (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: Well, if you look here, a great chunk of his technical consultancies relate to robotic technology and are in his "Funded Research & Knowledge Exchange Projects" (my emphasis) section, and it also helps that he published dozens of scholarly articles on robotics all the way back to 1983. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure all this is done "in [his] academic capacity", not as a blue-collar trade of sorts. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are these scholarly articles? They are not indexed in academic databases. JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: They're listed here. Granted most of them are conferences (sorry I missed that) and are less likely to be indexed (doesn't help that Scopus only gives you the first 20 without a subscription), but they're generally academic conferences (also helps that academics may choose conferences over journals for good reasons) and still establish that he has academic experience, as does his being an editor of several academic journals (even if it's not enough for C8), master degree in control theory, telecommunications and computing and full-time academic teaching positions at UEL (1993-2001) and BCU (2001-2005) and Middlesex (2013-2018) - all there polytechnic post-1992 universities - (it's a LinkedIn but the next best thing there is for now). Hence, my point on C7 still stands. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think someone with just a master's degree and a total of 2 indexed papers with 0 non-self academic citations can be considered an academic expert here. While conference proceedings are certainly a major part of CS scholarly output, publication in academic journals is still necessary to progress in the field as an academic. For people who meet NPROF, we can generally expect that their work has garnered enough discussion in peer-reviewed journals that a neutral section describing their research impact could be written without ever needing to use material from the subject themselves; in this case, the scholarly footprint is so minimal that we can't write anything non-trivial about him that doesn't come from non-independent sources. That is a problem for NPOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "absent clearer evidence that he is actually considered an academic expert in robotics" He's a full professor supervising PhD students with 30-odd research outputs between 1989 and 2005 on the Middlesex University page linked by Miraclepine; that's not the sign of a dilettante. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply lacks academic credentials. In scholar his work has a total of one citation. I looked at one journal that he was associated with and it was unimpressive. He is no longer on the board of International Journal of General Systems so that remains unconfirmed. A search in Emerald for his name gives 0. As for his television appearances, I would think that we had learned our lesson about considering television performances to confer expertise. I agree with User:JoelleJay that two non-notable awards do not add up to notability. In addition, I did not find any independent sources. Lamona (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply lacks academic credentials Not completely true since he has, as I noted, a master's degree in his relevant topic and 17+ years of academic teaching, nevermind the relative lack of published writing doesn't help his case re notability. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those are what is required for notability for academics. I probably shouldn't used the term "credentials". I find it odd that he held professorships with a master's degree, but also that none of the sources that I find list his degree or where it was conferred. For someone who lists himself (I am presuming that this came from him) as "BSc MSc Eur Ing CEng FIET CPhys FInstP FRSA FRAS FInstLM FCybS SMIEEE" you would expect to have his bios include the basic information on his when and where he got his degrees. Those are notably absent. Lamona (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I never said that they counted for notability, just that they meant he was in occupation an academic for the purposes of NPROF; it's how necessary but not sufficient works. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure he's marginal. Sure maybe he doesn't meet our criteria, or maybe he does. But it's arguable. When its arguable, and there are this many editors wanting it to be kept, I'd say lean toward preserving. We have to do something so let's keep. We can always delete it later. There's no super hurry. Herostratus (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio Tiozzo

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

Associate professor in mathematics. One article cited 166 times, but with h-factor of 16 he does not pass WP:NPROF#C1 yet, WP:TOOSOON. Only high-schools and starter grants so far. While the trend of his publications is strong, with 861 cites only it will be a few more years before he passes the bar. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He is quoted in Quanta but not with any depth about his own work [32]. Mathematics is a low-citation field, whose major societies explicitly discourage the use of bibliometrics, so I don't think the citation counts suggest anything negative but they cannot really be used for #C1 notability either. That leaves WP:PROF#C2 and the Aisenstadt Prize. While it is a prize of a major national society, given for outstanding research results, it is an early-career prize given to promising mathematicians at the assistant professor level. Many of its earlier recipients have become notable in other ways but we do not have articles on many of its recent recipients, I think correctly. The Sloan Fellowship is also a positive sign but an early career award that I think is not definitive of notability. I don't think that's quite enough, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a more convincing case for him in a few years, so it probably wouldn't be a big problem for this to be kept rather than deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Have to agree with David Eppstein that the subject looks promising and it’s probably a case of WP:TOOSOON given the lack of secondary coverage and the fact that the subject still has a long career in front of him. Contributor892z (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Husam Zaman

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

This person does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, for being a university president! Sabirkir (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can be notable if they pass some other criterion, but it has to be shown that they do. I do not see it here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep It would be better for creator to introduce the subject as the ″university president″, not just an ″academic″. The subject seems to satisfy WP:NPROF#C6 based on serving as a president or chairman of universities. I believe the stated reason for nomination is inaccurate: This person does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, for being a university president!. WP:NPROF#C6 specifically addresses this matter. Additionally, his role as president of a governmental organization (ETEC) in field of education could be considered him as a politician. Also, the article mentions local/national awards received by the subject, and other Arabic sources may be consulted to pass other criterion for notability. Gedaali (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to https://seu.edu.sa/gs/en/admission/, the Saudi Electronic University offers bachelors and masters degrees only, and therefore cannot be construed as satisfying C6 of WP:NPROF. Taif University might qualify at first glance but the cited sources list him as a "Director" and the Wikipedia page says that the highest level official is "President." Being an appointed member of an evaluation board does not connect to any of the WP:NPROF criteria. I cannot tell from the citations for the awards whether they are notable enough for WP:NPROF; if I became convinced of that I could change my recommendation to "Keep" but right now all I see is a page about a career administrator. Qflib (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SEU is not a major academic institution for the purposes of C6—just 2700 papers total across all time periods and fields indexed by Scopus, and its affiliation with for-profit scam schools in the US like Walden is very suspect—and the awards are nowhere near significant enough for other NPROF criteria. The sources also say his appointment was not "president" but rather "general supervisor" of the SEU branch in Medina, quite a different position. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2025 (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. Both articles pass WP:NPROF C6. The school might not be large or an academic powerhouse but it is a regionally accredited state run institution of higher education. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric R. Gilbertson

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

This is essentially a resume. The person doesn't appear to pass general notability guidelines. A re-direct to the school is possible, but I question if having a redirect to a small school for every one of their past president is necessary. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Jack McBride Ryder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only find articles about his retirement and public speaking events after that, nothing really showing notability. Primary sourcing is used in the article now, so that's not helping. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (of ERG article): It seems to me that the central question is whether C6 of WP:NPROF is met by ERG due to their having served as the president of Saginaw Valley State University and of Johnson State College (now part of Vermont State University). Since the former school offers a significant number of master's degrees and three doctorates (DNP; see https://www.svsu.edu/graduateprograms/), it seems to me that that the answer is yes. I qualify this as a weak keep because this is not an R1 university and does not appear to be historically significant. I do agree that WP:GNG is not met, and if the page is to remain it needs significant editing so as to not present as a resume. I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF. The other page (about JMR) should be considered on its own merits; I am unsure whether we are supposed to be discussing both of them here. Qflib (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qflib What academic accomplishments and citations does he have? that would qualify under NPROF? My position is that he doesn't qualify under "a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc." I believe "significance" or "highly regarded" of this school is subjective and in mine, it's not. Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of the 6 criteria of NPROF need to be met in order to establish notability; please read it carefully. I specifically pointed out that I was referring only to C6 of NPROF, so academic citations are immaterial. I also specifically pointed out that "I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF." I stand by my weak keep recommendation; if other senior editors come on here and convince me otherwise, I am open to input. Qflib (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I buy the WP:NPROF C6 rationale, as president of a mid-sized college/university. I additionally note that I found several local newspaper sources: [33][34][35]. He was involved in a minor scandal regarding a football hazing incident [36][37]. It's weak for a GNG case, but it helps support the NPROF case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep of both. Even if not technically passing the PROF test, the presidents of medium size state colleges probably will get significant coverage in their state's media. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the repeated use of the word weak, consensus looks like keep but also looks weak so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still a !delete for me, not passing PROF, the rest doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:40, 22 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Annmarie Hanlon

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

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. — Moriwen (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 13 January 2025 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldo Gutierrez

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

Page on an academic created as part of Wiki Education project, unfortunately with WP:NPROF being ignored. High citation area, so h-factor of 38 is fair but not yet passing #C1. He was recently promoted to full professor, no major awards and only WP:MILL mentions in minor science press -- WP:TOOSOON. (Unis have become quite good at promo for junior faculty.) Perhaps in a year or three it can be revived. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leans towards keep but lets relist for a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2025 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soner Baskaya

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NPROF. Very low h-index and no indication of WP:SIGCOV (alternative criteria when there's no indication of notability per WP:NPROF). TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No idea how being a department chair or the name of his university(!) would conceivably count toward notability. Scopus has him with 141 citations and an h-index of 5, well below what would be expected for a C1-notable senior economics professor. GS includes a ton of citations in non-academic or non-peer-reviewed articles and duplicated citations from preprints (e.g. working papers on organization websites, papers on SSRN), and two of the top three papers of his linked above are really the same paper with a subset of the citations just reappearing under the second title. Scopus only gives his top papers 66 and 31 cites. JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being Department Chair does not pass WP:NPROF (neither does the next higher level of Dean). When I look at others in his area on Google Scholar their citations are far higher. Hence I have to conclude that he fails #C1. Since nothing else applies this seems to be a straightforward case. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2025 (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. Per WP:HEY improvements.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Batchelor

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

Contested draftification of an article on a non-notable actor. There is no reliable source for the WP:OR claim that she was the oldest-ever actor who had appeared in Doctor Who (not that that is even a claim to notability). The source for this claim appears to be a Doctor Who wiki. She fails WP:NACTOR as her handful of roles appear to be minor parts, and they are sourced to IMDb, an unreliable source. She fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are a couple of articles in a hyper-local village newsletter ([39], [40]), another WP:SPS ([41]), and a self-published as-told-to quasi-autobiography. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, I looked into her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Arts, but it's not a rare honor (there are 31,000 active Fellows) and can be acquired by online application and payment of a fee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn per improvements; see below Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Hello. I understand. However, what I do not understand is how some articles such as this one are accepted but not others. This seems like discrimination. There are people as notable as Peggy Batchelor or less notable than her who have pages. Please explain. Spectritus (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not discrimination in any way. It's about independent, secondary, reliable sources. IMDB isn't a reliable source. Wendover News is not likely an independent source. Peggy Batchelor's as-told-to, self-published autobiography is not a reliable, independent, or secondary sources. Pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make Batchelor any more notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Doesn't the fact someone wrote a book about her make her notable enough? Also, may I ask how users are supposed to find sources if Wikipedia condemns almost all of them?
The author wrote a book "as told to" her, which means it's basically Peggy Batchelor talking about herself, and thus not independent. And the biography was published by AuthorHouse, which is a vanity press and thus it's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and not reliable. English Wikipedia does not condemn almost all sources; it has specific standards, and the ones you used in this article don't meet them. If you have questions about individual sources or sourcing more generally, please visit WP:RSN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual, acting roles are minor, would not pass notability for actors. A voice role in Doctor Who isn't the stuff of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She was featured in only 1-2 episodes of each TV show she was in and played relatively minor roles in films. The article itself seems to be fixated on the (likely original research) trivia of her having once been the oldest person who had been a cast member of Doctor Who, which as we discussed in this AfD, isn't particularly relevant or notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I agree this would be better in draft space. She also had a stage career, which has not been included in the article yet. I am sourcing and adding references and information, and will then consider whether she meets notability guidelines. If she is, the article needs editing, as it reads more like a eulogy than an encyclopaedic entry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having found and added sources, I think that she does meet WP:BASIC. There are multiple, independent sources, some substantial, some less so, but they add up. There is coverage across her life in both national newspapers and local papers around the UK (around England, and also Northern Ireland and Scotland). The article could still use some work - I'll work on the lede and info box. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I cannot view the many British Newspaper Archive links you added since I don't subscribe and it's not available through the Wikipedia Library. However, I looked at a few of the other links you added and they don't seem to add up:
    None of these adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Can you better characterize the British Newspaper Archive sources so editors can properly evaluate them? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote, I think that she meets WP:BASIC - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The number of times a source is referenced gives an idea of the amount of detail in the sources - the profiles of her published in newspapers in Tyne and Wear and Cambridgeshire are particularly detailed, while the Belfast source has a bit less. There is more detail in The Stage article about the drama school she founded in Essex that I have not included. There is coverage over many years - 1925, 1938, 1947 all deriving from her appearances at the Wembley Tattoo; 1946-1966 in stage shows; 1970s-1980s as founder of a drama school and as a nationally recognised adjudicator.
    You mention that being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is not a rare honour. Being a Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama is - information online [42] states "The Guildhall School offers the following honorary awards for distinguished services to the School and to the profession: the FGSM (Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded to distinguished professors, examiners and past students and the Hon GSM (Honorary Member of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded for services to music or drama and to the Guildhall School. Limited to 100 holders at any one time." That is an indication of her professional standing, in addition to the news coverage about her.
    I am not suggesting that all the sources contribute to notability - 3 of those you link to provide evidence of facts in the article (her appearances in two radio programmes; the date she left the drama school she founded; the facts that she taught at drama festivals as well as adjudicating, and that she worked at drama festivals in Wales as well as England and N. Ireland). RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Info about sources More info about the sources was requested, so here is the text of the main sources I have found from the 1970s-90s. (Numbers are the current reference numbers in the article.) I included quotes in the article from reviews of her appearances in the 1940s and 50s. As I said above, there is coverage across her life (from 1925-2020) in both national publications and local papers around the UK (from the north-east, east, south-east and south-west of England, as well as Northern Ireland).
  • 1 Next to results of the Ryton Music Festival in the Gateshead Post (in north-east England), a photo of Peggy Batchelor and the following text: "Woman in the festival hot seat PEGGY BATCHELOR F G S M, L G S M who has been adjudicator in the Drama Sections at Ryton Music Festival has had a lifelong association with the Arts, gaining basic training at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and touring many countries during the war with ENSA companies. She then became a founder member of Arts Council West of England Theatre Company followed by radio cabaret and other theatre engagements. Eventually she returned to the Guildhall to become a Professor of Drama and an Examiner for the school. She opened her own school in Essex which she named after a professor who had been such an influence on her life - the Ridley Arts Educational School and Studios."
  • 2 In a Cambridgeshire newspaper (in East Anglia / the east of England), with a photo of Pegggy Batchelor: "To judge the drama THE ADJUDICATOR for this week's Huntingdon Carnival Drama Festival and the “Weekly News" Drama Awards is Peggy Batchelor. Her life has always been associated with the arts - her mother sang at Sadlers Wells and Covent Garden and her father sang semi-professionally. She studied at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and obtained her performer's diploma. This where she first met Dame Sybil Thorndike who remained a friend. During the war Peggy travelled the world with ENSA companies both as a solo artist and in plays appearing with such people as Vera Lynne George Formby Gracie Fields and many others. After the war she became a founder member of an Arts Council company in the West Country, the company that fostered the talents of Joan Plowright, Edgar Wreford, Charles Jarrott, Malcolm Pride and others. She was invited to appear in a "Scrapbrook" programme for the BBC with Charles Cochran who had known her when she was a child actress dancing before visiting VIPs including most of the crowned heads of Europe. This broadcast led her to being cast in the "Gilbert and Sullivan" series and from that to two years with the BBC. Eventually Peggy decided to concentrate on teaching. She returned to the Guildhall School where she gained her Ministry of Education qualification. She was invited to become an examiner and then a professor of drama. In 1956 she founded the Ridley Studios named after a Guildhall professor who had been such an influence on her life and two years later the Ridley Arts Educational School. She was honoured in 1973 by being made a Fellow of the Guildhall. It is as a member of the Guild of Adjudicators that Peggy is taking part in the Huntingdon Festival which opened at the Commemoration Hall in the town yesterday (Wednesday). There are still tickets left for tonight's and tomorrow's performances which start at 730pm. They cost £1.50 and can be bought at the door. Seven groups are taking part in the festival of one act plays all competing for the best one act play shield and best actor and actress trophies."
  • 12 In the Bucks Herald (in south-east England), three photos of Peggy Batchelor with the text: "Thrills on and off the stage. The real life of actress Peggy Batchelor has been more eventful than that of the characters portrayed in her theatrical roles. She survived a wartime torpedo strike in the Med and being mauled by a tiger to be reunited with the RAF officer parted from her 40 years earlier by war. She tells ALEC BROWN of her adventures. FOR Peggy Batchelor the thrill of working alongside stars on stage, radio and television could only be surpassed by teaching. But it is her acting career, from entertaining the troops during the war to Shakespeare plays and a television soap opera, that has given her great richness of experience to draw on. Peggy, of Mill Mead, Wendover, has spent more than 20 years teaching drama skills. She set up and ran the Ridley Arts Educational School in Leighon-Sea, Essex, and now teaches at the Arts Educational School, Tring, and privately. She also adjudicates for exams, lectures and gives recitals throughout Britain, Ireland and in Hong Kong. Her career began as a schoolgirl in Leigh-on-Sea when she joined an amateur dramatic society. As a teenager she trained at the Guildhall School of Drama, London, where she is now an examiner. World War Two interrupted her studies and she joined ENSA — the Entertainments National Services Association. It was then she starred alongside big names like Vera Lynn, Gracie Fields, George Formby, and David Nixon, who later became famous as a television magician. “Vera Lynn was fantastic,” said Peggy. She would go off in a jeep and wherever there were a few men, she would just stop and sing to them. “Some of the ENSA artists were just so brave and really great people. You were all the same — nobody was treated as a star, you all worked together.” After touring hospitals in Britain, Peggy went to West Africa and was on her way to Egypt with ENSA when their boat was torpedoed in the Mediterranean Sea. They spent seven hours in a lifeboat before being picked up. “Between all the work and sometimes rather tragic and uncomfortable situations there were also all these great maments of seeing wonderful places and meeting interesting people,” said Peggy. Then she joined a company which toured India, entertaining troops who were stopping the Japanese advance. She got to know the director of the Tatanagor Steelworks and his two pet tigers. She had loved the animals from childhood and often played with the two pets. But one day one of the tigers turned on her and mauled her. in carbolic and a stay in hospital luckily left her just with scars. But she still loves tigers. In hospital she met an RAF officer in the Medical Corps, who comforted her when she was having terrible nightmares. They formed a close bond but were separated by the war. Then, in 1984, Arthur, by then an Air Commodore, traced Peggy after his wife had died. “We knew it was love and we married,” said Peggy. After the war, she had joined a stage company formed from the ranks of the RAF, which included Bob Monkhouse. Peggy left them to join the West of England Theatre Company, whose president was J.B. Priestley. He picked her for the lead in his play She Came to the City. They also performed Shakespeare, Chekov and Noel Coward plays. In the 1950s she worked for BBC Radio in programmes like Dick Barton and Mrs Dale’s Diary, and on stage as part of a comic double act with Benny Hill. There were also parts at the Savoy Theatre, and Victorian variety shows at the Players Theatre alongside budding thespians like Clive Dunn and Hattie Jacques. In the 1960s she trained as a teacher and set up the Ridley School, which she fitted in with theatre tours and television work, including a part in Emergency Ward 10. Her last tour before giving up to concentrate on teaching was with Shelagh Delaney’s A Taste of Honey. Peggy now has an extensive his! of posts, including member of the Guild of Drama Adjudicators, vicechairman of the Society of Teachers of Speech and Drama and vice president of Aylesbury Arts Festival. As a member of the British Federation of Music Festivals, she met the Queen last summer at the federation’s 70th anniversary celebrations. She feels teaching is the most rewarding part of her career. “I feel communicating is so terribly important, and when you can see somebody blossom and gain confidence, it is so satisfying.” But she has not forgotten her past: “It's lovely going on stage and getting applause at the end. Once on stage, you forget yourself completely. I loved it.”
  • 13 In the Belfast Telegraph (in Ireland), with a photo of Peggy Batchelor with two of the competitors from the sonnet recital class: "Festival talent is praised by actress. NOEL COWARD, Vera Lynn. George Formby, Gracie Fields are among the greats with whom Peggy Batchelor has worked. And this week the English actress is judging at Belfast Musical Festival. Yesterday she began hearing the "small fry" - the young children's verse-speaking - and was impressed. "The standards here are always high because of the excellent teaching. I've been a regular visitor in the past to the Belfast Festival and never have any besitation in visiting Northern Ireland," she said. Peggy has led an eventful life and one of the famous stories about her concerns Noel Coward. When she acted in India some years ago, she was mauled by a tiger, but soon recovered. Coward heard about it and said to her: "Not during the performance, my dear?" Peggy toured with ENSA during the Second World War, but later she turned to teaching and became a professor of drama at the Guildhall School. She pays tribute to the advice of Dame Sybil Thorndike at the school. Dame Sybil, she said, had remained a lifelong friend ever since. The English actress was honoured in 1973, when she was made a Fellow of Guildhall, a distinction shared with such artists as Andre Previn. Dame Janet Baker and Dame Peggy Ashcroft."
  • 26 In The Stage, "'21-Not Out' Southend TWENTY-ONE years ago actress and teacher Peggy Batchelor started Ridley Schools and Studios, now the leading private-enterprise school and dramatic academy in Essex. It was fitting to mark the occasion with a new revue, that genuinely reviewed the problems, like expan sion. and the triumphs, like playing in Berlin, and recording "Oliver" for an American record company. In her brief speech, she forecast the new Ridley Arts Club as the latest addition. The revue, "21 Not Out", at the Cliffs Pavilion, Southend, was cle verly devised by Dennis Boxley and directed by Peggy Batchelor and the faculty, to tell the story, give scope to fifty adults and twenty children, and cover drama, music, mime, opera and choral speaking. Essen tially modern, the direction and choreography were inventive, vibrant and fluent. Among those outstanding were Roland Darvell, Paul Clark and Michael Small. J.K.M."
  • 27 is accessible online.
RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly discovered sources would be helpful. Kudos for tracking them down, that often doesn't happen in AFDs either because of a lack of effort or because the content isn't available in digital format.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with RebeccaGreen that the references she found meet at least WP:NBASIC. I found her first two references in newspapers.com: 1, 2. Nnev66 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:HEY, WP:BASIC is clearly met as the page did show but thanks to RebeccaGreen's efforts to cite again and in detail here the sources she had added to the page, I believe this is made twice clear. Thank you for your hard work and patience. -Mushy Yank. 21:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the WP:HEY improvements and finding of more sources, I am switching to keep. It's a marginal case given how local and passing many references are, but there's probably enough here assuming a good-faith presentation of sources I can't access. Since there are previously cast "delete" !votes I recognize this doesn't unilaterally withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2025 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg

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

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are incredibly marginal to base an article on - it's two book reviews, one of which is short and another is from a non-mainstream publication, a mention in a newspaper article, and an article about her candidacy, which are generally better covered on the article about the election, except it's a local city council race. Still a strong delete - we don't need more campaign spam. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claims here are political scientist and commentator. The authorship of a single book (one on my "to buy list," I'll add) does not meet notability for academics. As far as commentry, her self-selected sample appear to be a series of guest columns that do not meet the guidelines under WP:AUTHOR. Given those facts, I do not anticipate we can get past its current failure to GNG to find the kind of significant coverage that needs to exist for a subject to have a Wikipedia article. The article primarily uses primary sources to build a resume. I think we are in too soon territory. No prejudice against recreation if she is elected as I believe the NYC City Council is largely considered to be an exception to the rule when it comes to local politicians and expectations of notability.
  • Comment. Actually no, I agree she doesn't meet the category-specific notability criteria for academics or politicians. I just think there is enough non-trivial coverage on the basis of WP:BASIC, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. What gets it over the line is the fact that there is coverage that is clearly independent of the subject, including information in reliable sources that does *not* appear in any of her "official" biographies as an author or researcher (or political candidate), over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, which allow us to round out an article about her – the Jerusalem Post article spotlighting her environmental activism in Israel offers quite a bit of insight into her background, plus recognition in the mainstream media as a frequently interviewed expert commentator and one of the top in the field specifically on Congressional subcommittees, with a book published by a major academic publisher and an authoritative book review within her field. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jerusalem Post article really just quotes her and isn't directly about her, it's about an organisation she worked with - it's not really secondary coverage of her, she was just interviewed for an article. That's what's keeping me as a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC allows for articles about $TOPIC that still include more than simply passing mentions about the subject to be combined. In the case of the 2010 Jerusalem Post article specifically, it's about an article about an environmental initiative that Kornberg herself started. Yes, she is quoted, but there are also facts reported about her life that are exactly what we want to see, in a reliable secondary source with an editorial policy which assesses and vets facts before they publish. The facts include: Kornberg was the person who started the initiative; descried her as Israeli-American; she studied for a year at the Nahshon academy at Kibbutz Shoval in Negrev; her father was a 2006 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry; her grandfather was a 1959 Nobel Prize winner in medicine. And the article as a whole offers a full description about the actual campaign she was a part of: setting up a community action group which mobilized 10 pre-army academies to write a letter to 10 ministries, visiting several of them, and organizing a rally opposite the Knesset. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: The scope of that initiative can be summarized as a "students visit the capitol day," which is an incredibly common occurrence. My student government would go lobby in our state's capital. If there is some greater amount of activism outside of that, please share. That the information is truthful and good content for an early life section does not change, what I consider to be, a lack of notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2025 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators&oldid=1269609538"