Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

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

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators

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!} 02:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon M. Kirby

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 00:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 00:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evo-psych is a high-citation field but still I think his citation counts [1] are enough for WP:PROF#C1. He holds a personal chair at the University of Edinburgh, possibly enough for #C5. He is a Fellow of the British Academy [2], a clear pass of #C3. And multiple reviews of multiple books [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] give him another case for notability through WP:AUTHOR. I don't know what WP:BEFORE the nominator tried to produce this WP:VAGUEWAVE towards our notability guidelines but it wasn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also member of Academia Europaea [10] is another pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Nominator deserves a trout for this inept nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR per above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to hold an established chair rather than a personal chair, so meets WP:NACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguously passes NPROF C3 via his Academia Europaea membership, and I would agree that he passes C1 and C5 as well. Botterweg (talk) 21:23, 24 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!} 03:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Macheret

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

As the article's subject, I'd like to request that the article be deleted.

I am a non-notable, private person, and so the article about me does not meet the notability criteria.

Specifically:

1. This BLP article is already designated as low-importance one. Indeed, although I have made contributions to my field, numerous individuals who have made much more significant and impactful contributions do not have their Wikipedia pages. Although I have been elected a Fellow of AIAA, my professional society, overwhelming majority of 800+ AIAA Fellows and also Fellows of other similar societies do not have Wikipedia pages. There are hundreds, if not thousands, people in my field who are much more famous, have much higher citation counts, are Fellows of one or more professional societies and Members of the highly prestigious National Academy of Engineering or National Academy of Inventors (of which I am not a Member), and have no Wikipedia pages. For example: Prof. Richard B. Miles, Texas A&M University (formerly of Princeton U.), Prof. Mark J. Kushner (U. of Michigan), Prof. Graham Candler (U. of Minnesota), Prof. Alexander A. Fridman (Drexel U.), and many, many others. In short, I believe that my notability is too low for a Wikipedia BLP article.

2. My 'notoriety' stems from the single offence described in the current article as Legal Issues. However, all that notoriety is due to initial police-made accusation of dealing drugs, which was immediately interpreted by the media as a real-life case of "Breaking Bad" TV series. When these bogus accusations of drug dealing disappeared (they were never filed in court rather than "dropped") and only a single misdemeanor offence remained, national and international media immediately lost all interest. Only local media, i.e. a student-run newspaper, a small-town newspaper, and a local TV station reported on the developments since then. As it is, the single misdemeanor offence certainly does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMacheret (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have applied {{subst:afd2}}, which the nominator did not. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Russia, Indiana, New Jersey, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a Fellow of the AIAA he is notable through WP:PROF#C3. I imagine the impetus for requesting deletion is the section of the article on legal issues which do not pass WP:PERP and which I think should be removed from the article if it is kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the article does predate his legal problems; it was created in 2020, and there were all of three revisions (the creation, a bot's formatting fixes, and a category addition) before material on the legal issues were first added by an IP. Material related to that then came and went quite a bit over the next year or so, along with multiple semi-protections over BLP violations and/or sockpuppetry. Any technicalities related to that might not necessarily justify retaining an article the subject clearly does not want to remain on Wikipedia (even if the other half of the rationale basically amounts to Wikipedia not having articles on other Fellows). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and subject's request. "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." — Maile (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and subject's request. This BLP of a low profile person has become an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per subject's request. 1000% agree with David Epstein above, though. Qflib (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay with me to keep given the changes below. Qflib (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because we are a volunteer project, articles get written when people find the time and enthusiasm to write them, and so there are many topics which could have articles but don't. Many notable books are lacking articles; many biographies that should be written haven't been. So, the statement in the deletion request that the overwhelming majority of 800+ AIAA Fellows and also Fellows of other similar societies do not have Wikipedia pages does not itself matter one way or the other. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue for a keep, but expunge the legal issues per WP:DUE (and revdel them). He's known for his work in physics, not legal issues that only made local news at best. If that can't be done, then delete per the request. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The part in the rationale about the overwhelming majority of AIAA Fellows not having an article does have a point beyond WP:WAX that I find convincing: because we are so far from having a complete list, another missing article will not make much of a significant gap in our coverage. Therefore, although I do think he meets our standards for notability, that cannot justify keeping up an attack page, and I think it is borderline enough that we can allow the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to go through. If we ever get to a point where this article is needed to complete the list, or his notability becomes less borderline, we can revisit the case and if necessary create an article without the attack content. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PROF#C3 and the AIAA Fellow now that the BLPREQUESTDELETE issues appear to be resolved. Google Scholar found some 14 publications with triple-digit citation counts, eight as first author, so I think there is also a good case for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've deleted all the revisions I found that contained a mention of the irrelevant legal issues, and EC-protected the page. Please ping me if I've missed any offending revisions. @SMacheret: is the current version acceptable to you? If so, please let us know that you're withdrawing your objection, and we can then decide the fate of the article based on notability merits. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This version still contains the irrelevant legal issues, just as a paragraph in the Biography section rather than as a separate section. If you can work with the latest version that existed before your revision and delete the section Legal Issues in it, that would work for me. Otherwise, I would ask again to just delete the article. SMacheret (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my apologies, SMacheret. How is the current revision? I prefer not to edit any of the deleted, later revisions, since we might then have an attribution problem. Hopefully this one can be the basis for further improvements. Owen× ☎ 21:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This can indeed be the basis for further improvements, which would be fine with me. Deleting the entire article would be also fine with me, if such is the decision as a result of this discussion. SMacheret (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. @Maile66, Xxanthippe, Qflib, and David Eppstein: with the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE aspect of the nomination withdrawn, will you be revising your !vote? Owen× ☎ 23:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the BLP issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the subject/nomination, relisting this for any added insight on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NPROF#C1 and C3, and given that the BLP issues have been resolved I don't see any reason to delete. MCE89 (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject and their work are mentioned or used in enough external sources to merit the article. I don't necessarily agree that the legal plea was irrelevant enough to be removed, but that's not a hill I'm going to fight on. TWorkman (talk) 19:12, 30 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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diola Bagayoko

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

A physicist with with no evidence of passing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBIO. I draftified the page during new page review for lack of sources that show notability, but it was immediately returned to mainspace with the edit summary "satisfies WP:NACADEMIC C#5 with distinguished professorship". Not so; NACADEMIC C#5 specifies "a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research", and there is no evidence that Southern University (ranking 114-141 on the US News rankings for the southern region and not an R1 institution in the Carnegie Classification) qualifies as a "major institution." It is a regional university and I'm sure Professor Bagayoko is a fine teacher and researcher, but NACADEMIC requires demonstration of notability by specific measures. His h-index of 29 is below the average range for a full professor in the physical sciences, and he meets no other qualification of NACADEMIC. As for WP:GNG, there's one qualifying source, but the other sources are either WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews ([11]) or affiliated organizations ([12], [13]). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Louisiana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if one questions his pass of WP:PROF#C5, he also passes #C3 as a Fellow of the American Physical Society. Also, discounting coverage by major academic societies as being "affiliated organizations" is insane. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple search shows that he was elected a fellow of the American Physical Society in 1918. Professors whose main contributions are in education in their field rather than in research are hard to find sources for, but it this case is it easy to find. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, about the primary references you object to, read WP:NACADEMIC carefully: For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source. Once that is documented then that satisfies notability. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously being a fellow of the APS is a pass. The article previously said only he was a member of the APS, which is not. Withdrawn; speedy keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 21 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× ☎ 17:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Matthews (playwright)

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

Appears to be non-notable. Created by one of an army of socks. All sources are affiliated, bare mentions, interviews, blogs, or appear to be created from press releases. Google news search only pulled up similar. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither of the two books mentioned seem to be noteworthy enough to help a WP:AUTHOR case (JSTOR searches for reviews came up with zip). The sources about the plays are too superficial and/or unreliably published to make a case for notability as a playwright. The Physics Essays journal where he published "The Universe Has No Beginning? Doubts About The Big Bang Theory" is a haven for crackpots; publishing there isn't anything to be proud of. Merely writing things isn't enough for notability, and being reduced to writing for Physics Essays is a sign that you are not influential. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as discussed above and WP:TNT. Being edited by Sockpuppets, messy format, clumsy writing, etc. Bearian (talk) 07:14, 26 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. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Zheng

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

Does not appear to meet notability. One link is dead, the other reads like a promotional press release. Searching Google yields very little worth mentioning. QuiteBearish (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He holds a named chair, Sprint Eminent Scholar Chair & Professor, Electrical Engineering. This is usually a sign of notability. I found an Internet Archive copy of the broken link and added it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Florida. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has moved from the named chair at Florida State noted above to being SUNY Empire Innovation Professor at the University of Buffalo, so that's a double pass of WP:PROF#C5. He is also a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors and a Fellow of the IEEE, so that's a double pass of #C3. The article as nominated was a badly written stub that said none of this, but see WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS also heavy citations [14] give a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An easy pass of WP:NPROF notability, meeting multiple criteria when only one is needed. Let's fix problematic articles, not just delete them. Qflib (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made some edits which hopefully have improved the article. Qflib (talk) 12:25, 27 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. Consensus is that either this is right on the edge of notability, or not quite there. I don't see a clear agreement either way, despite multiple relists, and as the article has been improved, the remaining views to delete are "weak". As nobody has suggested merging or redirecting, I have to conclude there isn't a consensus to do anything directly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Shahram

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR No significant independent coverage of subject or CAMW organization she is associated with. Found one write-up in a small alumni magazine from 2005 (http://media.wix.com/ugd/ba8d3a_69ce4f04eab549e8992314f78621c089.pdf). There are a few sentences in larger papers like Fox from 2011 (https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-convicts-new-york-tv-executive-of-beheading-wife) but doubt it rises to level of notability since they are not specifically about subject. No significant coverage located for book or minor awards. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Law, Islam, Iran, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on newspapers.com and there appear to be several articles where the subject has WP:SIGCOV. These include Buffalo News stories in the article that are deadlinks but are available in archive. I’ll need a day or two to do a more thorough look. Note this article passed AFC. Nnev66 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are at least three references with significant coverage in reliable sources (see below). These are all published in the Buffalo, New York area but that doesn't dissuade me from notability as the coverage is reliable and significant. It was difficult to evaluate this one because a number of the references were primary written by the subject and this wasn't indicated in the referencing (I fixed that). Again note that this article passed WP:AFC before it was published to the mainspace, a process which from my experience is a vigorous check of an article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watson, Stephen (June 21, 2004). "Iranian professor airs concern, criticism for land of birth". The Buffalo News – via newspapers.com.
Lazzara, Grace A. (Winter 2005). "One Voice - Nadia Shahram fights for equality" (PDF). Hilbert Connections Magazine. Hilbert College. pp. 6–10.
Vogel, Charity (April 25, 2010). "Women in the shadows Attorney Nadia Shahram's novel tells the true stories of Iranian women exploited by 'temporary marriage'". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-08.

Comment: Thank you for adding non-primary sources to the article and the overall improvements you have made to it. I don't think I can access source [1] but based on the title it sounds like potential sigcov. And [3] definitely is. However I am uncertain if [2] qualifies as an independent source, since the subject was an adjunct professor at Hilbert College from 2001-2007 and the magazine featuring her was published in 2005. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - another day, another article up for deleting that I have a potential conflict of interest, for which I must disclose. The subject and I have both volunteered for not one, but two organizations: NYSBA and the Women's Bar Association, the latter from which we have received awards. We also have a public LinkedIn connection in common, one of my (former) best friends from high school. For those reasons, I'm not !voting one way or another, other than to say that she's very accomplished. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair enough regarding InsomniaOpossum's comment that the Hilbert College source is non-independent since she worked there. I found another review of her book in Publisher's Weekly (link via Proquest). I also added an Attorney of the Year recognition she received in 2018. Nnev66 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It should be deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Despite a few references, most of the coverage is either too minor or doesn't offer significant independent insights into Nadia Shahram's career. The sources listed, such as a 2005 alumni magazine and brief mentions in larger outlets like Fox News, are not enough to establish her as a notable figure. Even with some recent improvements and additional sources, the overall coverage is still limited and mostly self-promotional or not directly about her work, which doesn't rise to the level required for inclusion on Wikipedia. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a tough one. There are a lot of passing mentions, but ultimately I don't see enough secondary coverage for GNG, and I don't see enough of her opinions being cited to meet the spirit of NACADEMIC, and her novel has no independent coverage that I can see at all, so there isn't enough to meet NAUTHOR. Taken together there is enough marginal evidence of notability to put me on the fence, but the promotional intent and NOTCV violations push me toward "delete". Ultimately I don't see much that separates her from the average professor of law. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like she also had a restaurant - Nadia's Bistro, in the Olympic Tower, Buffalo, in 1990 [15]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It makes the noticeable grade for BLP, with sufficient coverage of indepensdent sources for retention. BTSfangir1 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sherilynn Black

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

As far as I can tell, fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Subject is an assistant professor with very few scientific publications. There are a few Duke articles that mention her, and I also found a Science article where she was quoted in 2023 (https://www.science.org/content/article/women-black-researchers-less-likely-hold-multiple-nih-grants) but I think it fails to rise to level of significant coverage. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's an WP:NPROF pass — the subject is an assistant professor with very few citations and no major fellowships or academic awards. Their primary role seems to be as a mid-level university administrator, particularly in diversity initiatives, where they don't seem to have attracted the kind of secondary coverage necessary to meet WP:ANYBIO. MCE89 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She clearly does not pass WP:PROF: she was hired as director of biomedical graduate diversity, not as a scholar, and too low of an administrative position (not head of entire university) to achieve automatic notability, remains an assistant professor, and does not have the citation record or awards to rise above the default assumption that assistant professors usually are not notable. The only case for notability appears to be through WP:GNG and in-depth coverage of her in independent reliable sources. Among the sources in the nominated version, the Carleton source [1] is on a source that hosts self-written bios for its community members. [2]-[6], [9]-[16], [18], [19], and [22] are from Duke (not independent). [7] (AAAS "programs combat bias") quotes her but has no in-depth coverage of her. [8] and [17] (NIH "Environmental factor") are deadlinks available through archive.org; the first one again quotes her with little in-depth coverage of her and the second merely mentions that she once gave a talk. [21] (AAMC) is a listing of committee members that maybe once named her but now doesn't. [23] (NAS) is another deadlink available through archive.org; it has a paragraph about her as a project participant, in a context that strongly suggests that it is a self-written profile rather than independent material someone else has written or vetted. So I don't think any of the current sources is good enough to provide notability. This NORDP 2022 speaker profile looks better, giving in-depth coverage of her and appearing to be written and published independently of her. This JBHE story and This WIA Report piece are independent and reliable but merely announce a new post for Black with no depth of coverage. This Chronicle of Higher Education story and this Diverse story are much like references [7] and [8], stories that quote Black and go into detail about the work of the office she runs but not about her. So while there is much better coverage out there than in our article I don't think it quite meets our standards for WP:GNG. If there were another piece as in-depth as the NORDP 2022 profile, though, I could be persuaded to change to a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found this article in NIH Record [16], and there is some coverage in Newspapers.com from when she was at high school, including this [17] that gives her parents' names and that she received a Morehead Scholarship. (She also won 3 other scholarships in 1997: a Black Opal Achiever Award worth $2000, a Target All-Around scholarship ($1000) and a Tylenol scholarship ($1000). No, they don't contribute to notability, but she certainly sounds like she was achieving a lot in the community as well as academically.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe passes WP:GNG with NORDP2022 speaker profile and Chronicle of Higher Education articles noted above by David Eppstein. Both are independent of the subject and go into detail about her career as a researcher and administrator. The Chronicle of Higher Education article (version from Proquest) seems the most extensive and she's mentioned throughout it. The NIH Record article from 2018 noted by RebeccaGreen is another independent reliable source as well as the newspaper article which has some details about subject's high school activities. All of these now have been added to the Wikipedia article. Nnev66 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / withdraw. The article as it stands now has been been greatly improved by: Nnev66's editing, David Eppstein's source analysis, and Rebecca Green's find of newspaper coverage on the subject (which I did not discover in my [BEFORE]). I do think it's on the very edge of possible GNG based on secondary sources available, but I would rather include versus delete if near a gray area:) InsomniaOpossum (talk) 05:18, 23 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 12:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neoh Hui-min

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

Does the subject of this article meet the guidelines for notability for academics? Cannot find much independent or external references about her. Unsure if Deputy Director position confers notability but again limited search results aside from academic papers InsomniaOpossum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Biology, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is an associate professor, which is a sign that it's probably unlikely that they meet WP:NPROF. I couldn't find any mention of major awards etc. and I don't think the Deputy Director position could confer any per se notability. So the only criteria they could meet would be WP:NPROF#C1. An h-index of 26 and about 4000 total citations in a relatively high-citation field is not bad, but I don't think it's quite enough for C1. MCE89 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced sections and need more sources. HeMahon (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 01:02, 26 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) 21:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alaric Naudé

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements as a WP:SCHOLAR. RSN discussion showed low citations of his academic work, an effort to skirt around WP:SPS, and concluded a clear consensus the subject was a WP:FRINGE scholar. (link to RSN discussion) These and other issues issues were raised on the draft page prior to the article being moved from draft space to main space. Relm (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh joy, more Yasuke drama. Anyway, "president of the City University of Paris" for an academic based in Asia and an institution without an article raises all sorts of red flags. Also since other sites seem to claim that someone else named Agnés Horry has been president since this organization was founded in 2023. His Google Scholar profile [18] shows no pass of WP:PROF, so we don't need to determine whether his scholarship is fringe; it does not provide notability regardless. I could not find any reviews of his books, which also makes it irrelevant that they appear to be self-published, as the lack of reviews prevents WP:AUTHOR notability regardless. That leaves only WP:GNG, for which we have none of the in-depth reliable independent sources required. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion, the only argument that can save the permanence of this article is the criterion 6. On the other hand, Naudé is too young a scholar for his influence, if any, to be felt. In addition, Naudé has generated discussion, so it would seem to be a matter of attention. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An organization that was apparently founded only two years ago, can barely be documented to exist at all, shows no sign other than in name of being an actual university, for which we have only primary sources, for which those primary sources disagree on whether he is actually president, and which is not even mentioned on his own home page [19], is very far from being the kind of highest-level post at a "major academic institution" demanded by #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about his presidency: click to Executive Leadership, [20], [21]. [22], [23], [24], etc., so the fact that the presidency is not mentioned on Naudé's website is irrelevant.

By "major academic institution" should be understood academic major. As far as "high level post" is concerned, it is worth noting that it has many graduates. In criterion 6 I do not read a hurdle with the minimum age level of a University, except that it is accredited, which completes the CityU Paris. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? "Major" meaning "very significant" (the meaning from WP:PROF) is a completely different word than "major" meaning the specific discipline a student chooses to study (the meaning from academic major). They are not even the same part of speech.

And exactly how does a private online business school founded in 2023 already have many graduates? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Major" or "major university" = "very significant" seems like an interpretation, or to be tested with sources. On the other hand using rude words does not add more value to the argument.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The graduates can be viewed on the official channel. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[3] says they are not accredited. (The CUP website likewise says that they are not accredited in their FAQ.)

[4] to quote directly:

Note

Under the French education system, private schools are either “sous contrat” – with the government paying teachers’ salaries and the school following the national curriculum – or “hors contrat” - not funded by the government, and therefore not obligated to follow any particular curriculum.

The City University of Paris is a "hors contrat" school, and its awards are not eligible for admission nor credit transfer into French public educational institutions.

[5] and [6] is a paper co-authored by Naude himself.

[7] is the minutes for a meeting where Naude transferred his shares and the presidency to Agnes Horry. This is dated 25/09/2023. Relm (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3) and 4) it is not a conventional accreditation because of the recent law implemented in France.

5) and 6) primary sources are allowed in criterion 6.

7) On the University's official website, mentioned above, it can be read that Naudé continues as president. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total failure to pass WP:Prof or anything else. Is this a hoax BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Naudé is a real person; I watched part of an interview of him on YouTube randomly a few months ago. seefooddiet (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have been notified of this deletion discussion by the nominator. I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If kept, I will be pleased. If deleted, I will correct anything I feel needs to be corrected in my reviewing. Reviewers get better when their work is sent to AfD, which allows the community to decide as opposed to a single reviewer. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein's post above. I indepedently tried to find third-party news coverage and couldn't find any either.

Also the POV in the article was really blatant; I just deleted almost all of a paragraph that was basically cited only to Naudé himself. It presented subjective analysis of things as definite in Wikipedia's voice. seefooddiet (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero evidence of academic notability. Sources in the article include The Post Millennial, which is generally unreliable, and a "well-known YouTuber" named Sydney Watson, who is not the Sydney Watson we have an article about. Videos posted by a random person on YouTube are self-published sources and thus ineligible for use on the biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment City University of Paris (not to be confused with the illustrious Université Paris Cité), if it exists at all apart from a website, does not appear to be an institution of any significance. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 25 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. Star Mississippi 16:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel

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

A case of evidence versus opinion. Theoretical physicist who moved into econophysics, h-factor WOS 25, GS 26, no major awards. Physics work is solid but does not pass WP:NPROF#C1 -- nobody has argued it does. Originators argues that economics work is notable, despite lack of cites. As noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, econophysics is not mainstream economics so is not well cited. Notability tag (not by nom) and PROD (by nom). Editors responded with arguments in talk pages of why he is notable in their opinion, and added WP:Opinion to text. Both notability tag & PROD were removed with the argument "passes WP:NPROF#C1 on cites". I believe we always require evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of @Xxanthippe, Gunnar.Kaestle, Sniffadog, Moriwen, Ulubatli Hasan, and Closed Limelike Curves: Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here are my arguments why his work is notable:

The Solow Growth Model is notable.
Also the Solow residual is notable, indicating that the model is not complete. (Figure 6.4).
Finding a solution by identifying a third production factor energy as the missing link is notable as well.

Gunnar (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"After a detailed discussion of the scientific elements of energy and entropy, Kümmel comes to his main concern, the improvement of economic theory, and introduces energy as a new variable in economics on the basis of scientific results. The result is a model in which the economic production function depends on the factors capital, labor, energy and creativity. Kümmel tests the model using economic data from Germany, the USA and Japan. He concludes his book with the hope for a society that builds its future on reason and general ethical values. “The Second Law of Economics” is very convincing and it is to be hoped that it will help to bridge the deep rifts between the natural and social sciences." Book Review for The Second Law of Economics [25] Gunnar (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who works on a notable model is notable themselves. Writing one book, even one notable book, is not enough to meet our notability standards for authors. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayres, Robert U.; Warr, Benjamin (2009). "Chapter 6 The production function approach". The Economic Growth Engine – How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-84844-182-8. Retrieved 2025-01-16. Another approach (first demonstrated by Kümmel) is to choose the next-simplest non-trivial solution of the growth equation and integrability equations (Kümmel 1980; Kümmel et al. 1985). [..] Hence, such a model is not ideal for forecasting. What is interesting, however, is the resulting calculated time-dependent productivities, which show a significant increase in exergy productivity and a decline in labor productivity, over time.

At least he has priority in finding a pretty good solution to the known problem. If this was a patent, the early bird would be notable. Gunnar (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel is one of the first scientists who introduced energy as factor of production analytically. Kümmel derived the LINEX production function that depends linearly on energy and exponentially on the ratios of capital, labor, and energy. The LINEX function is the first production function that explicitly models energy’s economic role of activating the capital stock. More specifically, it models the role of energy in increasing automation and in capacity utilization of industrial production. Kümmel derived the LINEX function in 1982, triggering a stream of research on energy as factor or production. Source of first publication: Kümmel, Reiner (1982). "The impact of energy on industrial growth". Energy. 7 (2). Elsevier: 189–203. doi:10.1016/0360-5442(82)90044-5. Retrieved 2025-01-20. Gunnar (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least 10 publications on GS with > 100 cites. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. All these papers are in ecological economics which is a high citation field, please see this link Ldm1954 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe, to expand on my citation conmment, in standard solid-state physics 10 papers cited more than 100 times is about what is expected for a good assistant professor coming up for tenure at a strong R1 university. This is different from, for instance, mathematics where citations are far lower, or HEP where they are far higher. A few papers with > 1000 cites is notable. His area of ecological economics is highly cited, from what I can see higher than solid-state physics. If we said that all Profs with > 10 papers cited > 100 times were notable, then almost every associate professor or higher at an R1 university in chemistry, materials science, physics, economics and a few more would pass R1. As has been discussed previously quite a few times at WT:NPROF, the concensus is that citations have to be considered in context for the field, not as absolute numbers.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although he did publish in Ecological Economics in 1989 (Energy as a factor of production and entropy as a pollution indicator in macroeconomic modelling [26]) and 1991 (Heat equivalents of noxious substances: a pollution indicator for environmental accounting [27]), I do not see this broad subject of sustainable economics as his home turf. It is more specialised: the macroeconomics effects in energy economics. Here, there are physicists and engineers that have updated their know-how in economics, and market people who took extra coaching in basic physics. While in the second half of the 18th century it took only a decade or so that the new subject of thermodynamics became generally accepted in the physical domain, I am still puzzled about that energy as a production factor is ignored by mainstream economics although we have seen dire effects on the economy during the oil price shocks in the 70s, the price explosion in 2008 which ended the Great Moderation and the energy shock after the COVID restart in 2021 and the effects of the Ukraine war in 2022. If the cost share theorem was true, the energy price shocks should have shown no significance. Reiner Kümmel provided arguments, that the assumptions of neoclassical economics are wrong in this case: How energy conversion drives economic growth far from the equilibrium of neoclassical economics (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/12/125008/pdf 2014). I assume this is a kind of agnotology, not in a sense that there is a malevolent lobby behind like in the case of Big Tobacco, but a kind of firm paradigma which is not easy to put aside. I only noticed once in an IMF-Report on Oil and the World Economy that the authors seemed worried. "For the contribution of oil to GDP, the main problem is that conventional production functions imply an equality of cost shares and output contributions of oil. This has led economists to conclude that, given its historically low cost share of around 3.5% for the U.S. economy, oil can never account for a massive output contraction, even with low elasticities of substitution between oil and other factors of production." (S. 14) And then they cite Kümmel, Ayres and some others to present counterarguments. --Gunnar (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work."

"Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied."

"Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability."

These caveats may be there to prevent identifying only cargo-cult science as notable. Thus, my suggestion is to have a closer look on the improved theory of economic growth with energy as third production factor. It is a tiny, focused subject but without doubt notable. "Growth theory, like much else in macroeconomics, was a product of the depression of the 1930s and of the war that finally ended it." Similarly, Kümmel's work started with the observations during the oil crises in the 70s. Gunnar (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hall, Charles; Lindenberger, Dietmar; Kümmel, Reiner; Kroeger, Timm; Eichhorn, Wolfgang (2001-08-01). "The Need to Reintegrate the Natural Sciences with Economics" (PDF). BioScience. 51 (8). Oxford University Press: 663–673. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0663:TNTRTN]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2025-01-21. I like this paper very much, not because of the mathematical explanation in the 2nd half, but because of the simple English and the Figures in the first half. Especially fig. 1a shows a basic model in economics: Goods and services flow in one direction (and are paid by households), while Land, Labor and Capital flow in the other direction (and are paid by firms). "This view represents, essentially, a perpetual motion machine" as all the goods and services (including capital borrowing and land lending) are circulated after processed or consumed and paid in a constantly spinning wheel. Therefore, figure 2 shows a more accurate model of how economies work. Everything is driven by an energy flow, while its quality is degraded (entropy is increasing). This is not my personal opinion only, but at least his 4 co-authors obviously agree to this interpretation: It is irresponsible to rely in our decision making on economic models, that contradict our reality. Reiner Kümmel has created a sound mathematical foundation by properly integrating energy into the macroeconomic theory. Gunnar (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to link to the article's talk page Talk:Reiner Kümmel#Notability of Academics as well as to the matching discussion at the Economics project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Notability of Reiner Kümmel. Gunnar (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wikipedia editor experience and I'm sure I'm breaking some rules here, but I found this article quite helpful in my research on how energy input and total factor productivity are related, particularly in regards to the energy crisis in 1973. I recommend that the article is kept. 165.91.13.227 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No rules were broken. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – if for no other reason than that the "keep" comments are utterly unconvincing, despite clear attempts to make them so. Most comments above revolve around the notability of the subject matter that he worked on (which no-one has suggested is not notable), not this person, and aside from that the traceable citation count, which in the absence of any other evidence is pretty meaningless. Even the not-too-many citations of his papers suggest notability of the topic, not of the author. The content of the article gives little that would make him notable outside of one narrow topic. There are also knowledgable editors here expressing opposition to "keep" without putting it in a separate bullet. —Quondum 23:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, nobody questions the notability of the subject matter, then why is he as the first person who pointed out that there is a problem with the growth model's math and developed a solution which shows a good fitting with measured data not notable as well? Gunnar (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is about on par with asking "Why is the sky pink?". Relate any arguments to WP:N. In particular, GNG requires significant coverage of the topic of the article (i.e. the person, not of a field to which they contributed). Einstein's notability is established by what is written about him, not by our opinion of his contributions. —Quondum 12:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you want to say by "Why is the sky pink?". Regarding you example of Einstein, that's a bad one, as you don't want to keep only the most noble noble prize laureats and kick out those which have been forgotten. I argue about fact that notability cannot only shown by a citation count but by other means as well. For me it is obvious that improving a theory from economics which disregards some basic laws of physics (reduce the energy input in your country's economy by 90 % and the economy will not shrink by only 5 %, as any kind of transportation, production of goods and food, operation of computers, etc does need energy) is notable. I believe Jeremy Rifkin thinks so as well: "In other words, 'energy' is the missing factor." [28] Gunnar (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview of Steve Keen who complained that economists are generally ignorant about the role of energy in production. That explains why the work of Kümmel is (so far) not very often mentioned. Keen wrote an article 'A Note on the Role of Energy in Production' together with Robert Ayres and Russell Standish, which quoted Kümmel but also Ayres. If you want to assess the impact of Kümmel's work on growth theory which integrated energy as a production factor, you have to look into the details: What if Keen wrote this article without coauthors and did not cite Kümmel, but only Ayres who got the idea from Kümmel? How do you account for 2 staged citation hops (or more), which pass on ideas in an indirect way?

Therefore, I believe that a case-by-case decision is helpful to substantiate the notability. My preference (and this is not original research, but I followed a few authors with citations given above or in the Kümmel article) is that growth theory is obviously notable and the fact that there is a missing link due to the incompleteness (Solow residual = total factor productivity = so called technological progress). Therefore, the discoverer of the missing link is notable as well. Keen explains the fact that the field of economics seems to ignore some new findings (not only the issue with energy) is stuck in a paradigm and a paradigm shift to a new or updated set of concepts and thought patterns seems to be difficult in economics. Gunnar (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another quote: "Unseen by anybody or unrecognized was that this expansion [of economic activities] was not just money it was the good old cheap energy to make the wheels turn and do everything." Colin Campbell in 2005. Kümmel not only put up a new, improved theory how this expansion worked - mainly driven by energy as dominating production factor - he also gave proof to this by testing his theory with real data which he obtained from national statistics from different countries. Keen criticized that economists tend to ignore empirical research or to forget these findings if these are not in line with the current paradigm instead of remodeling the preferred set of assumptions and theories which is taught in textbooks. Gunnar (talk) 12:19, 9 February 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. This AfD was heavily tainted by off-wiki canvassing, which explains the many Keep votes not based on P&G from inexperienced editors. One noteworthy exception was Dclemens1971, whose argument was solidly based on guidelines and source analysis. However, rough consensus among P&G-based views was still in favour of deletion, with draftification receiving very limited support. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Beat

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

I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, Politics, Economics, Geography, Kansas, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have little to add beyond the nominator's honest and thorough rationale. The article appears to have a lot of sources but most point toward the guy's own posts. He has a little notice from local newspapers but not enough to support an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG yet, but the BEFORE search is hard since it's all of his videos. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some keep !votes below, so I just want to make clear that I really only see up to one GNG-qualifying source in the article, which is a local publication's review of his book. My BEFORE search brought up only his own content or promotional sources. He has received some local coverage which is mostly promotional. It's not impossible there's better coverage, but most of the sources in the article are Youtube links or Twitter links. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article's content and history can be kept back in the draftspace until sufficient further coverage is found, if that ever becomes the case in the future. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Beat has coverage in local press, which counts towards Mr. Beat being a notable figure. Additionally, this coverage is more than many YouTubers who have pages on here receive. NesserWiki (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Mr. Beat is one of the more famous/notable YouTube historians on the site. If he was less notable, I may be in favor of deletion but this is not the case. Lertaheiko (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if someone as irrelevant as Junlper gets a Wikipedia page, than people like Mr. Beat should get one as well. By comparison, he's far more notable. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — JonathanMRosenberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep basically what everyone else above who has said keep said. Daemonspudguy (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that something that only receives local coverage is automatically not notable. There are thousands of high schools, library systems and people with Wikipedia articles that will probably only ever receive local coverage, but a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage counts towards notability whether its a tiny news station or the BBC. Pointing to subscriber count as evidence of non-notability is about as useful as pointing to it as evidence of notability. (I will note that Mr. Beat posted a screenshot of this discussion to Bluesky (which is how I got here) ~~but not in a WP:Canvassing manner~~ probably with good intentions, but it's definitely become a WP:Canvassing issue regardless). Edit: Given that the nominator has clarified their justification for the deletion, I went through the sources again, and I feel like there's one source that definitely counts toward notability, the aforementioned Lawrence Journal article, and one source that might count towards notability, a sorta review of his SCOTUS book which includes some commentary beyond just the interview component with Mr. Beat. If we're following WP:THREE, then I would probably suggest Draftify given that he seems about one source off from notability. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very definition of canvassing... SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to or posting a a discussion is not in itself canvassing. Canvassing needs to be done with the intention of influencing the outcome. Given that the text of the post is just self-deprecating humor, I highly doubt that intention exists. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Lertaheiko (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with what the above editors have said. Local news coverage counts just the same as major outlets in terms of notability. As popular Internet personalities become more prevalent and the mainstream press becomes more separated from Internet culture, we as Wikipedia editors must reckon with the fact that a notable person might not always be covered in the mainstream press. So, if we keep on using big coverage in the press as being "notable", we end up with archaic standards that will most likely miss out on notable people in the future.

All that being said, however, when comparing Mr. Beat to others, he unquestionably surpasses the requirements for being notable enough to have his own Wiki page. LizardDoggos (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — LizardDoggos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I am the IP editor who initially nominated this for deletion, and I'm surprised at the sudden burst of canvassing votes here. They should all be discarded for the purposes of determining consensus; consisting of a mixture of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and claiming I'm trying to discredit local sources: my point is that they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of him. Doing stuff like local talks about his books, where he mostly does the speaking instead of it being about him doesn't amount to notability here. We need sources that discuss him specifically, simple as that. The only good source here is the Lawrence Journal, and a single article doesn't surpass the WP:THREE sources generally needed to clear the bar of notability. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:2081:789F:4237:C594 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, GNG says "multiple," not "three." WP:THREE is a non-binding tip sheet to help AfD participants make the best possible case. And PS I mention GNG-qualifying sources in my !vote below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Mr. Beat is a relevant topic and a very prominent YouTuber with tons of credible sources about him, and CLEARLY it should be kept. Skcin7 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTNOTABLE? 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:D9D2:6AAD:B5E6:512F (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage for notability... I don't find very many RS, [29] is one, but I don't consider it enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found this from the same source. Probably leaning draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or draftify, per Oaktree. (yes, I'm here from the tweet.) charlotte ^👸♥ 02:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I decided to look into the local coverage of the subject a bit more closely, since there have been statements that it's been largely promotional. While some of them do seem that way, such as the Lawrence Times article about a book discussion, this is hardly the only source. He has had an extended interview on KQTV^[1], a television station in St. Joseph, Missouri, which is in the Kansas City area. To reference what the nominator was saying about the local sources not being great because they are routine, I would like to add that this interview does not appear directly connected with any planned event, such as a book release or announcement. I do not believe this counts as routine. His interview with KCUR-FM would also fall under this, since it is a reliable, third-party, independent secondary source that is also not simply announcing an event or product, but is an actual interview; while the written portion of the article is more about that, the actual interview delves much deeper. I will acknowledge that this article is a bit short, but I cannot in good faith agree that this article should be deleted. I think he does fulfill the GNG, and my vote is for it to be kept. ~Junedude433 (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Mr. Beat talks with KQ2 News about the current political climate & the 2024 Presidential Election". KQTV. July 30, 2024.

Interviews are not secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth noting that Mr Beat posted this page onto his bluesky yesterday with the caption “I am printing this off and putting it on my wall to motivate me for the rest of my life”, likely prompting the influx of people to comment keep. IP should be aware of this and prevent heavy bias in favor of keeping. (Hell, he may be reading this very comment right now, in which case I’m sorry that your wiki page may be deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B14C:3B7F:ECFA:A361:729B:73A2 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a page on Mr. Beats website that that lists a bunch of reliable sources related to him. May be useful in finding sources. Lertaheiko (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a duplicate vote and should be struck. 2A02:C7C:FE2B:5C00:258C:5E4C:489D:E09E (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reviewed this during New Page Review and I think there's a slim WP:GNG pass here based on WP:SIGCOV in the Tonganoxie Mirror, the Lawrence Journal-World, Fox 4, and The Pitch KC. There is no rule under GNG that local sources are to be rejected -- the nominator may be thinking of WP:AUD, but that guideline applies to organizations/WP:NORG, not GNG. Marginal case, but these count toward GNG, and in a borderline case I always want to lean toward retention. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tonganoxie is promotional and an interview, LJW is paywalled, Fox 4 is an interview, and the Pitch is a book review but is also an interview. None of those are secondary! SportingFlyer T·C 19:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PAYWALL, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I was able to access the LJW piece and it checks out as WP:SIGCOV: multiple interviewees, lengthy, significant coverage. The Fox 4 source is not only based on an interview; it also quotes several other people, demonstrating depth of reporting and coverage. The Pitch includes the author's perspective in addition to material from Beat. All of these sources are unambiguously secondary. The Mirror's probably the weakest source because it's got a local-boosterish tone. Even if you discard it, though, we still have a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 31 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!} 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rüdiger Bubner

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

The article lacks any clear indication of WP:V and WP:PROF. Xpander (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no rationale for deletion given by nominator. If notability is the concern, subject has at least two academic obituaries [30], [31], and it appears that at least one of his books was widely reviewed [32], [33], [34]. Jfire (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - no reason provided for deletion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inadequate nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. Even if we pretend that we had an adequate nomination, the obituaries provide a clear case for WP:GNG, and the many reviews of multiple books (more including [35] [36] [37] [38]). The article's references as nominated are almost as empty as the nomination but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks. @Jfire @Spiderone @Xxanthippe @David Eppstein. I remember exactly putting down the reason into WP:TWINKLE's text area (updated hereby), it must have fell through the cracks somehow. That said, I know Bubner to be a well-respected academic, but that doesn't mean the current article is a good article, every single article I have made in this vein, has either been rejected right out of the gate via WP:AfC, or was moved to draftspace. It's simply unfair. Xpander (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination statement is about what is present in the article. Notability is about a different thing: what is available to say and source about the subject of an article, regardless of whether it is already present in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein, In this sense is WP:AfD criterion, wholly different from that of WP:AfC? Because that's how AfC is judged, based on what is present in the article, not what it in reality is, in other words I'm pretty sure this article would have been discarded were it presented via AfC. Xpander (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per WP:SNOW, per sources above and the noms vague rationale, as an AFC reviewer and an AFD patroller, they are not the same, one is more stricter (AFC) than the other (AFD). One does not tolerate "messy article" while the follows WP:NOTCLEANUP and only base on notability. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miminity Thanks for providing point accurate guideline citations. Best. Xpander (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per all above. The nominator appears to be confused as to the differences in the AfC process as opposed to AfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejgreen77 What's the difference? Any article can be moved to draft space for AfC, in the same way as it can be nominated for AfD. Xpander (talk) 13:34, 24 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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry G. Gorin

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

It looks like he was involved in a bunch of notable court cases as a deputy DA but none of the refs are about him as an individual, it's all about the cases. The only exceptions are personal bios and this interview about his practice. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Russia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, just an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
What is your definition of an "attack page" may I ask? All the sources are independent and reliable and the content doesn't seem promotional.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a lawyer with some celebrity cases. My vote to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: The article demonstrates Dmitry G. Gorin's notability through his extensive legal career, including high-profile cases, academic roles at UCLA and Pepperdine University, and public impact in the legal field. His involvement in cases with significant media coverage and his contributions as an educator meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and warrant retention of the article. Thecoolfactfinder (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just being involved in high profile cases and having positions at universities is not enough to make him automatically notable. He has to also meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF, and I don't really see anything in the article that demonstrates that. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first glance, I was inclined to agree with the nominator. However, after looking more closely, it’s clear this isn’t just any average lawyer we’re talking about - on the opposite. I also disagree with calling it “just another promo page” because every case is backed by independent sources, and the article itself is relatively well-written compared to similar lawyer pages on Wikipedia. Anyways, here is a breakdown of what I found:
- 1) Senior Deputy District Attorney Experience and Lecturer at UCLA - the individual served as a Senior Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County for many years—one of the largest districts in the United States. This role indicates they managed high-profile public cases over an extended period. He has also been a lecturer at UCLA, teaching two law courses since 2003 (as noted on the UCLA website).

2) Notable Cases - Lawyers can establish notability through the cases they handle. The “Notable cases” section of Gorin includes several high-profile matters, a few of them with their own Wikipedia pages. This list is already significant and it is not even complete.

For instance, the attorney recently defended a Los Angeles Deputy Mayor, as reported here but doesn't appear on his Wikipedia page:

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/los-angeles-deputy-mayor-brian-williams-fbi-search-bomb-threat-against-city-hall/

Moreover, there’s substantial, ongoing coverage of this lawyer’s activities across the internet: https://www.google.com/search?num=10&client=opera&hs=yp4&sca_esv=2e9d584eca4b7171&sxsrf=ADLYWIJkODkpzSutiQ9Fstquqdk8FeYYWQ:1737252893598&q=Dmitry+Gorin+lawyer&tbm=nws&source=lnms&fbs=AEQNm0Aa4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3JzWreY9LW7LdGrLDAFqYDH2Z7s7jqgHIAW8PVnwe_sR_e-RCOLF8PNV6cgrvTe9W1QlY3sOMCnrD6DpPmucUF3Q4DWCnbUQ16OCFEw0bA3f-zorCYPCwItkuWVcknbOv4-nN1bzai1VYTk7zJThGO9aVJKR1TUIesAdeoQ7gAi3QfFsX3Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicou6s24CLAxUcJzQIHRecNVsQ0pQJegQIDhAB&biw=1226&bih=552&dpr=1.5

The best sources on his page are from the Daily Journal and UCLA (both appear to be independent with in-depth coverage), but I doubt the editor who created the page has fully captured the breadth of available information or conducted thorough research.

3) Professional Directories - Several nationwide lawyer directories — independent to the best of my industry knowledge — rank him among the top attorneys in the country:

https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/dmitry-gorin/157188/ https://profiles.superlawyers.com/california/los-angeles/lawyer/dmitry-gorin/29d97483-1d6e-4a02-b50d-9a4a91ac68e1.html

My point is that this individual is certainly not a “run-of-the-mill” lawyer; they have played a significant public role, handled numerous notable cases, and also teach at a prominent university (UCLA). 50.39.138.50 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He shows up in a lot of search results and was involved in notable court cases, but neither of those things make him individually notable. Being senior deputy DA is also not a position that makes a person automatically notable. You need to find RSes that are about him and don't just briefly mention or quote him. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples, UCLA source and the Daily Journal article both provide in-depth, independent, and reliable coverage, which meets the basic notability requirement of two strong sources. Considering his multiple notable cases (some of them with their own Wikipedia pages) and his public service as a District Attorney for Los Angeles County, I view this attorney as clearly notable.50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the UCLA source is not independent as he has worked there. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree. UCLA is one of the most respected academic institutions in the United States, with stringent standards for verification and accountability. Nothing on that page appeared promotional or unsubstantiated by other sources. I stand by my opinion unless you can show evidence that UCLA has published promotional material about its lecturers and provide a few examples.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating reliability with independence. There is well-established consensus that content from an employer about its employees is never independent. This is stated in WP:N: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it., NPROF: non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, and NBIO: Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability, nor do web pages about an organization's own staff or members. There is no scenario where an employer doesn't count as being "affiliated" with an employee. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about this policy on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
WP:BUREAUCRACY
WP:5P5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

Wikipedia has never strictly adhered to rigid rules without exceptions. Common sense often takes precedence over rigid rule-following, and each situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Specifically, we need in-depth coverage and verifiability to ensure that facts are presented neutrally and can be confirmed by reliable sources. This is exactly the case for UCLA's page. No one disputes that UCLA is a respected institution, and I have not encountered any information published by UCLA about their lecturers that cannot be verified. Regarding Mr. Gorin, I thoroughly checked his UCLA profile, and all the information—his education, role as an Attorney, and other basic biographical facts—can be verified through multiple sources.

I have shared my opinion on this matter and have no interest in further discussing it.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, the article meets WP:GNG. What coverage of a lawyer's activities do we need? To the sources already cited in the article, I can add this one: Gorin Selected to the 2021 Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California [39]. Moreover, in media outlets such as the NY Times [40], CBS [https//www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/los-angeles-deputy-mayor-brian-williams-fbi-search-bomb-threat-against-city-hall/], and TMZ [41], he provides commentary on high-profile cases he handled at the time. In articles from The Guardian [42] and the Daily Journal [43], he comments on other significant cases. It’s clear that articles about cases he worked on won’t necessarily detail his personal life. The notable cases are what defines the lawyer. Tau Corvi (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that most lawyers who work on high profile cases won't have a lot of articles written about them, the articles will usually focus on the cases. What that means is that most of those lawyers aren't notable, it doesn't mean that the standards for lawyers are lower than other figures. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of this person's roles contribute whatsoever to notability. Lawyers can only achieve notability through either significant coverage of them in independent secondary RS, or through academic impact as established by C1. Quotations from the subject never count toward GNG, and that is the entirety of the coverage linked above with the exception of the "best lawyers" press release, which obviously fails independence. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 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!} 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets basic criteria for notability as per WP:GNG – we have two in-depth sources here, this, and this, with the former providing sufficient amount of information on the biography. In addition, with multiple sources covering the cases led by Gorin, it is safe to assume that the subject is notable. Baruzza (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UCLA source is obviously not independent. The Daily Journal one looks good if it's truly independent (it reads like a paid-for advertorial, and the site offers ways to "submit your news"), but even so we need multiple sources of IRS SIGCOV to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the reviewed sources, the page meets general notability criteria. Subject's decades-long public role as a District Attorney in Los Angeles County and the notable cases he has overseen confirm his significance. Silvymaro (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silvymaro, which reviewed sources are independent, secondary, and SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of requiring independence has nothing to do with reliability. Independent sources are required to demonstrate that people other than those affiliated with the subject have taken notice of the subject and written in detail on them. They are also required to ensure an NPOV article can be written, as connected sources will have a clear bias. No matter how extensive and reliable its coverage, a non-independent source can never be used to meet GNG.
If you're going to claim IAR now, it's up to you to show how a BLP based substantially around what the subject's employer has to say is so beneficial to the encyclopedia that we should ignore WP:N and WP:NPOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BASIC which says: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. There is a lot of coverage on ProQuest where he is covered partially and sources like [44], [45] are always helpful to meet WP:BASIC. 91.156.126.140 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable lawyer who worked on several big cases, all of which got a lot of coverage in independent secondary RSes. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of cases he worked on is not coverage of Gorin. Quotes from Gorin are not coverage of Gorin. No one from this bizarrely well-attended AfD has produced the multiple required SIRS sources for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:46, 6 February 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!} 05:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Ross

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

I'm not sure this article meets WP:GNG. Ross is only mentioned in passing in a small number of secondary sources and none of those secondary sources are explicitly about him. Velayinosu (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. Velayinosu (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass, but there might be a WP:NPROF pass for his research work. His citation count is decent, and his work on things like consulting on COVID-19 modelling and creating some very widely used R packages might get him close to C4/C7. I'm not sure the case is strong enough, but am interested to hear what others think. MCE89 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, COVID-19, Medicine, California, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he does have several highly-cited papers, he is not the first or senior author in any of them (the PeerJ one where he is last author explicitly states authorship order was randomized after the first author). An h-index of 15 is far lower than what we would expect for standard of "exceptional professors in the field", so a C1 pass is much too soon for this 2015 grad. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Highly cited papers are also highly coauthored; I think it is a bit WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he has made a good start, but this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON for NPROF on citations. If he keeps up his productivity I will estimate 18-24 months before he will pass C1. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:36, 29 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 22:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Ghosh (mathematician)

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

Like most assistant professors he does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Citations are too low for #C1, local awards are not enough for #C2, and editorial board membership (rather than editor-in-chief positions for a notable journal) are not enough for #C8. Publishing many works is not a notability criterion at all; it is the impact of the works that matters. My prod saying all this, and a prod2 by User:Bearian, were removed, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious promotionalism could potentially be fixed, but then we'd have a bland stub about a non-notable person. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor, does not satisfy WP:NPROF. This is a resume, but WP:NOTARESUME. Qflib (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I stated in seconding the proposed deletion, and as the nominee stated, assistant professors almost never are kept at AfD (especially living persons because of our more exacting standards). He has been at that level for 18 years without getting tenure, the minimum standard for English Wikipedia. Teaching 14 different courses over 18 years isn't unusual, nor is editing, reviewing, supervising students' research, poster presentations, and all the myriad other things that non-tenured professors are forced to do. He works at a Tier A Accredited university that is the 3rd highest ranking out of 8. Three of his most cited papers are in Pattern Recognition, which is an important yet obscure sub-field. He has won some awards, but not one of the five highest honors by the International Mathematical Union. In sum, the objective evidence is that he's a very diligent professor, but who is not notable as we define it. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It looks like he is the resident math person for statistical analysis. Almost never the first (who does the work) or last (who is responsible) author -- note that the author lists are not alphabetical. Very odd that he has never been promoted. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly failing notability under WP:PROF. Well, the article provides details about Dr. Koushik Ghosh academic career and publications, but the issue is it relies heavily on primary and self-published sources, with no substantial independent coverage in reliable secondary sources which weakens the case for inclusion. Nxcrypto Message 17:55, 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. Sandstein 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Win Wenger

AfDs for this article:

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

A fairly promotional biography for a consultant/PhD whose work is almost exclusively self-published. ("Psychegenics Press" appears to have published only works by Wenger; "Project Renaissance" is described as Wenger's own organization.) I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:NACADEMIC; his work does not appear to be very widely cited, and he did not appear to hold any qualifying academic appointment. I thought there might be a pass on WP:NAUTHOR for his one book published by a mainstream publisher, The Einstein Factor, but I could not find any full-length published reviews, including searches in JSTOR, Ebsco and ProQuest. And for WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, there is no WP:SIGCOV of him in independent sources. The sources are limited to: his own writing, a WP:USERGENERATED obituary, an obit from an organization he was affiliated with, his official bios, or places to buy his books online and WP:SPS blog posts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Maryland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Dclemens has said everything that could be said about this topic. Polygnotus (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. If we had multiple reliably published reviews of multiple books it wouldn't matter that the publisher is non-mainstream but I couldn't find any, so we also have no evidence of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 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. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Jenkins

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

There are many mentions of this in the press but further research reveals no biographical info or notable awards for gallatry etc., and is still only a WP:1E among tens of thousands of victims of conflict. Sympathy/empathy are not reasons to retain this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The status of Jenkins has turned into a major international incident between Australia and Russia. This is not a "sympathy/empathy" article. Thriley (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He may be one of tens of thousands of victims, but the fact that he was an Australian foreign fighter does make this quite unusual — as shown by the fact that it is currently front page news across Australia and has been reported on internationally by outlets like the BBC and Washington Post. It also looks like this may end up being an significant foreign policy event, with the Australian prime minister promising the 'strongest action possible' and there being talk of expelling Russian diplomats. I would support renaming the article to 'Death of Oscar Jenkins' though once it's confirmed that he has been killed, and am open to reconsidering in a few months if this doesn't turn out to have a lasting impact. MCE89 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Ukraine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Foreign soldier gets captured... Non-notable soldierly career, or much of anything before that. They've also captured North Korean soldiers, but no mention is made of them. This person being from Australia seems to be the only claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've helped expand the article with additional sources. My view is still to keep and then rename, but if the consensus is that this is not notable enough for inclusion at this time, I would ask that the article be draftified as WP:TOOSOON rather than deleted. This is already a relatively significant international incident and it seems likely to turn into a much bigger one if Jenkins' death is confirmed. If Australia does expel a foreign ambassador for the first time in 12 years, it seems pretty clear that an article on that event would be notable. MCE89 (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a rational position to take compared to simply deleting the article. The very fact of this discussion amongst an international audience confirms that this is a notable event, and the potential to eject the Russian ambassador to Australia from Australia emphasizes an international political importance. Has to questions of Korean soldiers not being similarly highlighted, it certainly is hard to do that when their faces and bodies are burned to hide their identifications. As prisoners the Korean soldiers would have some entitlement to privacy under the Geneva conventions. As corpses there is no such entitlement. When some of those prisoners or corpses are identified, this too is likely to be an event of international significance.

I have to question the relevance of the specific editor calling out an English language article as not relevant. It appears the editor in question may have some biases, and the Wikipedia community should explore that, as well. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will further add that I am a military interrogator.

This story is interesting to me separately, as the available video highlights Russian interrogation techniques, and incompetence in that field. That said, it is likely with the interrogator in the public video is not formally and interrogator, rather simply an officer, in the field. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep or Draftify there's been a blaze of coverage, but it may be WP:TOOSOON to know if he or the incident is truly notable or just news. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MCE89. Thriley (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89. BilletsMauves^€500 18:21, 22 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!} 07:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Per WP:1E, When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it. The subject did not have a significant role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so a separate article is not warranted.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I entirely agree with you that BLP1E applies here and that this article should be eventified (similar to articles like Execution of Oleksandr Matsievskyi). I don't think anyone is really arguing that Oscar Jenkins himself is notable as a BLP subject, but instead that his capture and possible death are notable per WP:NEVENT. A merge could be an option, but I think the thing that is notable about this event is the international incident between Australia and Russia that it is threatening to spark rather than the fact that he was taken prisoner, so I'm not sure a merge into Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine quite makes sense. MCE89 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Capture of Oscar Jenkins which would solve the main problem for now. There is a lot of ongoing coverage about this incident – his capture and possible murder and its impact on relations between Australia and Russia, as well as its significance in drawing attention to Australian fighters in Ukraine. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - echos of War of Jenkins' Ear. No opposition to a move or re-name as per MCE89. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 27 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!} 06:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biplab Satpati

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

The subject does not pass WP:ACADEMICS. Taabii (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok delete it. I am leaving wikipedia btw. This is really depressing. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypothetical Painter Pls read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Taabii (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor who doesn't pass WP:NPROF. 268 total citations and an h-index of 9 is a long way off meeting C1, and I wasn't able to find any indication of major awards, editor positions, memberships etc. that could meet any of the other NPROF criteria. MCE89 (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPROF and GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not meeting PROF, appears to not be a highly-cited individual. Career is routine otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors do not usually meet our standards for academic notability (the rare exceptions are often those with major international awards showing that they're already a star and their academic rank hasn't caught up). I see no evidence that this one is any exception. Citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An assistant professor with an h index of 9 which i think is not enough to pass WP:PROF#C1 also he hasn’t received any prestigious national or international level award to claim notability. He also not being elected to any named chair in any university or high educational institution. Hence fails WP:NPROF. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:33, 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.

Ido Kedar

The result was No consensus. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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!} 02:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Habermann

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

Per question raised by User:Maineartists at Wikipedia:Help_desk#copyvio. Page was created in 2005 as a verbatim copy of the musician's own webpage at the time. See the 2004 archive of the musician's website https://web.archive.org/web/20040204000620/http://www.michaelhabermann.com/ and the initial 2005 version of our article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Habermann&oldid=24277064 There is no copyright mention on the archived musician's website so we have to assume it was copyrighted. His current page, https://www.michaelhabermann.com/ is copyrighted 2001, and the ABOUT MICHAEL HABERMANN subpage, https://www.michaelhabermann.com/about/_index.html is unchanged from the version we copied in 2005. There are only minor differences between the current article and the initial 2005 version, and the cited sources are simple bio entries, so in my opinion this is a WP:TNT situation. The entire article should be deleted as a copyvio, and recreated with independent sources if warranted. Meters (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, Canada, Mexico, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even after all these years, CopyVio still reports 79.3% similarity to the subject's web site.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Maineartists (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Twenty years ago, a lot of original research and copyvios snuck into Wikipedia, but we have been working steadily to find and fix these problems. Substantively there was never notability. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the copyvio. Article may now be judged on its own merits. (And a comment to that front: the gbooks source looks good, but it's just one source). GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:07, 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soodabeh Davaran

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

This is a deletion request filed on behalf of the subject who has contacted us via VTRS 2025011410006473. Professor Davaran states "The page contains inaccurate information that could harm my reputation. By Wikipedia’s policies and my right to control my personal information, I kindly request the page's removal."

I am satisfied that the request received is from the subject. Nthep (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal notability as WP:NPROF. The lead and infobox both focus on a number of retracted papers, which I presume is what upsets the subject. pburka (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- might pass the WP:PROF notability guideline, might not, that doesn't really matter: the request is from the subject and is reasonable given she is not a public figure of clear notable standing. The overriding focus on retracted papers without evidence that they were retracted for newsworthy reasons reads almost like an attack page. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because of the high number of retracted papers, I think that trying to rely on WP:PROF#C1 for notability would be problematic, and there seems to be no other positive claim for notability that would meet our standards. As for the retractions: the subject does appear to have them, but I see no evidence that they are notable for having multiple retracted papers and my searches did not find any. There are other sites devoted to publicizing retractions and the academic misconduct that some retractions are associated with (notably Retraction Watch); that is not the purpose of Wikipedia and the mere existence of many retractions does not make for notability. Indeed, while the negative information about the subject may be accurate, collecting it in this way without basing it on sources that publish similar collections creates the appearance of WP:SYN and of an attack page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the subject’s request for page deletion. Professor Soodabeh Davaran has highlighted valid concerns regarding the accuracy and neutrality of the information presented on this page. The current content disproportionately emphasizes retracted papers without providing proper context or notable, balanced information about her broader academic contributions. This imbalance creates the appearance of an attack page, as noted by others in this discussion.

Furthermore, as Professor Davaran herself is not a widely recognized public figure under Wikipedia’s notability standards (e.g., WP:NPROF), her request for removal aligns with her right to safeguard her professional reputation. Wikipedia should prioritize neutrality and fairness, avoiding the appearance of bias or harm to individuals without clear public interest.

Given the lack of independent, reliable sources establishing the subject’s notability or the significance of the retractions, retaining this page is not in line with Wikipedia’s purpose. I respectfully request that the page be removed to prevent further harm and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Ali.ghodrati20 (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the professor test and while apparently true is just not what we do. I find it ironic, and I am reminded of an AfD from 2007 when an otherwise non-notable school administrator was upset about the truthful news coverage he'd received, so he complained to the management. Bearian (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of cites in a high-cited field but retractions nullify this. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indranil Banik

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. OSmeone (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on his way up, but at the postdoctoral fellow level notability requires articles from major sources about the person not about the person's research. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. His current academic post and citation record do not convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. We cannot use the Hindu coverage of his work in mainstream media because it was written by him, leaving only a couple of paragraphs mentioning him in NewScientist. I don't think that's significant coverage, and even if it were it would only be one source. My delete is weak largely per WP:TOOSOON: he appears to be on the way up and could well meet our standards for notability in a few years. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Theatre, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 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?	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	~ 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		Passing mention	✘ No
Narkar, Uday (3 April 2022). "Maharashtra State Conference of CPI(M)". People's Democracy.	The subject is the author	Passing mentions	✘ No
"Author: Uday Narkar". LeftWord Books.	His publisher's list of authors	~ Short biography	✘ No
"Democratic Centralism: CPI(M) 23rd Congress and Central Committee". Advocatetanmoy Law Library. 24 August 2024.		Passing mention	✘ No
"Central Committee Elected at the 23rd Congress". Communist Party Of India (Marxist). 2022.		Passing mention	✘ No
"Defying police notice and heat, Maha farmers start 52-km 'long march' in Ahmednagar". Lokmat Times. 26 April 2023.		Passing mention	✘ No
"Trouble for MVA as ally CPI(M) plans to contest 12 assembly seats in Maharashtra". Business Today. 1 October 2024.		A summary of The Indian Express article of 1 October 2024. Mentions the subject 5 times, but says very little about the subject.	✘ No
Pawar, Tushar (2 October 2024). "CPM urges MVA to finalize seat sharing ahead of polls". The Times of India.		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	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.			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."			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.			~ Article about CPI(M)'s demands. The subject is their spokesman. Big photo; 1 quotation.	~ Partial
Bose, Mrityunjay (11 January 2024). "Death blow to democracy: CPI (M) on Maharashtra Speaker's Sena split verdict". Deccan Herald. Bose, Mrityunjay (3 July 2023). "Daylight murder of democracy: CPI(M) slams BJP over Ajit Pawar's flip to Shinde camp". Deccan Herald.	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?	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	~ 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		~ 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.		Coverage on his election to the post of CPM Maharashtra state secretary replacing Narsayya Adam.	✔ Yes
"Author: Uday Narkar". LeftWord Books.	His publisher's list of authors	~ Short biography	✘ No
"Democratic Centralism: CPI(M) 23rd Congress and Central Committee". Advocatetanmoy Law Library. 24 August 2024.		~ Mention in the list of the members of Central Committee	~ Partial
"Central Committee Elected at the 23rd Congress". Communist Party Of India (Marxist). 2022.		~ Mention in the list of the members of Central Committee	~ Partial
"Defying police notice and heat, Maha farmers start 52-km 'long march' in Ahmednagar". Lokmat Times. 26 April 2023.		His quote on the organisation of the march is given	✔ Yes
"Trouble for MVA as ally CPI(M) plans to contest 12 assembly seats in Maharashtra". Business Today. 1 October 2024.		~ Indicates that he took part in MVA seat sharing discussions	~ Partial
"Seat allocation to be declared soon: Narkar". The Times of India.		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.	Twitter - Communist Party of India (Marxist)		~ Mention about publishing Jeevan Marg and directing Janshakti	~ Partial
"Dr Uday Narkar". Ballotbox India. 5 October 2023.	ballotboxindia.com		~ 1 paragraph biography	? Unknown
"About Us". Janwadi Lekhak Sangh.			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."			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.			~ Article about CPI(M)'s demands. The subject is their spokesman. Big photo; 1 quotation.	~ Partial
Bose, Mrityunjay (11 January 2024). "Death blow to democracy: CPI (M) on Maharashtra Speaker's Sena split verdict". Deccan Herald.		~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view	~ About CPI(M)'s views; very limited coverage on Subject.	~ Partial
Bose, Mrityunjay (3 July 2023). "Daylight murder of democracy: CPI(M) slams BJP over Ajit Pawar's flip to Shinde camp". Deccan Herald.		~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view		~ 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

(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 [46]) are reasonably cited, but encyclopedia-level notability does not seem present. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 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 [47] 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

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

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th sources are his orgs [48] [49] (second one is just homepage) [50] [51] [52], 3rd he is just quoted [53], 7th is a PDF of a powerpoint [54], 8 & 9 are some reports he edited [55] [56], 10th is an award which does not mention him (and is mis-atributed in the article to the US EPA instead of UN) [57], the 11th is about an EPA award that is only mentioned by a WP:NEWSORGINDIA [58], 12 is a link to a newspaper archive page [59], 13 is a conflict of interest form PDF? [60], 14 is a broken link, 15 is a duplicate of 11, 16 is a release by his university [61], 17 he is quoted in just one sentence [62], 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 [63], and 22 is a dead link. 🄻 🄰 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and India. 🄻 🄰 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Only two sources give WP:SIGCOV and one of the two came from an organisation where he worked so that can't really be considered as WP:RS. Mekomo (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A director of the UNEP would probably be notable, but I don't see evidence supporting that claim. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:52, 21 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hungary and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 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]

Draftify as suggested. The article is not ready. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 23 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet wp:n Qrstw (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found 1 1/3 reviews of one book "Autobiographic elements in Latin inscriptions" (a published version of his PhD thesis) [64] [65] but I don't think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article on Henry Herbert Armstrong has been expanded since the intial nomination. Armstrong meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 with his fellowship of the American Academy in Rome that he received in 1903 for his work in classical studies and archaeology. He is also known for his work on the Volscian and Roman settlement of Privernum, with some of his texts still being republished by an academic press nearly a century later. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GeorgiaHuman and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the great improvements -- republication of text is pretty important -- and as he's been dead for 90 years, it's very unlikely to be or become a vanity article. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think receiving a fellowship from the American School of Classical Studies in Rome qualifies for C3, as this was simply a postgraduate scholarship awarded when he was 24 years old, definitely not a commendation for a career of impactful work. We don't even consider Rhodes Scholarships C3 passes. Republication of text is nowhere in our notability guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 00:13, 17 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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (academic)

(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.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.mdx.ac.uk/_samllogin/mdx-intranet?url=https%3A//www.s.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/profile?name=smith-emily	~ Former employer but there is probably some editorial oversight on their website	Has a press in good standing I think?	404 error and I couldn't retrieve it from the Internet Archive	✘ No
http://www.cybsoc.org/contacts.htm	Website of the organisation that he was the leader of	Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live	Website 404 error	✘ No
http://www.cybsoc.org/contacts/people-Smith.htm	Website of the organisation that he was the leader of	Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live	Website 404 error	✘ No
https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/k?id=k#editorial-team	The source doesn't mention the subject so it's independent in that regard .	Emerald Group Publishing appears to be in good standing	Doesn't mention the subject	✘ No
https://wosc.co/board-of-directors/	Website of an organisation whose board he sat on.	No discussion at WP:RS that I am aware of	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}}.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Academics and educators~~, Actors and filmmakers, Television, Engineering, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He could pass GNG if we consider a combination of awards: the Freedom of the City and the Public Awareness of Physics Award by the Institute of Physics. What do other people think? Bearian (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-notable awards are definitely not enough for ANYBIO and obviously don't count whatsoever toward GNG, which is strictly about coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe awards could potentially support C2 of WP:NACADEMIC/C1 WP:ANY. However, as far as I can see there aren't any reliable independent sources to verify that he actually received those awards so including them is effectively original research.

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.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 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.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 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]

Delete per my source evaluation table. Sadly, the discussions about alternative notability haven't yielded a reason to keep this article.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck as a repeat vote from the nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 25 February 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 [66] 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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Husam Zaman

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Saudi Arabia. Sabirkir (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Less than 200 cites in GS fails WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. There has been some recent talk about college presidents being notable if they pass WP:SIGCOV, even if they're not notable as scholars. Can we get some consensus? Bearian (talk) 03:51, 11 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

(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:

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: [67][68][69]. He was involved in a minor scandal regarding a football hazing incident [70][71]. 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]

The Saginaw News has a good deal of coverage on him, e.g. this (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The same for Ryder, e.g. this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not convinced at all of SVSU being a "major" institution; it has only ~1350 papers attached to it across all time periods and fields indexed by Scopus (even Saginaw Cooperative Hospitals, Inc. has 66 papers; compare also to R2 schools American University (~15000 papers) and Yeshiva University (~59000)). So I would not say he is a C6 pass. Newspaper coverage of him might support GNG, however I haven't analyzed those sources yet. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 17 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soner Baskaya

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not my field but there are several fairly highly cited papers in GS[72] (201, 198, 116). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not my field(s) but he's economics department chair at the university that is named after the guy who invented modern economics, and is well-cited. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a department chair is not a criterion for WP:NACADEMIC, and the fact that the school is named after Adam Smith is a red herring. I don't see that he passes any other criterion; his H-index is indeed low for someone of his career level. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 8 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]

I see that the important conclusion in this paper he authored around one connection between microeconomics and microeconomics seems to have trickled down into the mainstream media without attributing him: that state minimum wage increases raise individual teenagers' wages, but also increase their unemployment rate. In my opinion, this further suggests that the Fourth Estate is not doing its job. Bearian (talk) 03:51, 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

Reiner Kümmel (via WP:PROD on 6 January 2025)
Souvik Bose (via WP:PROD on 16 January 2025)
Brian Shmaefsky (via WP:PROD on 15 January 2025)
Lennis Echterling (via WP:PROD on 14 January 2025)
Chilkhaajavyn Avday (via WP:PROD on 13 January 2025)
~~Arman Sedghi (via WP:PROD on 8 January 2025)~~
~~Alireza Shokoohi (via WP:PROD on 8 January 2025)~~

[1] "Mr. Beat talks with KQ2 News about the current political climate & the 2024 Presidential Election". KQTV. July 30, 2024.

[1]