Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

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

Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles and WP:PROF for the widely-used notability standard for academics.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education.

Academics and educators

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor C. X. Wang

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

This article, which appears to have been written by its subject and has an odd relationship to its sources (for example, it lists Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a source for someone who is definitely not mentioned in the book and was, indeed, four years old when it was written) is about someone who doesn't seem to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Chick Bowen 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites negligible. Too early, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Can't find any notable mentions in third party publications. Merely being a published author, even one who has written several textbooks and numerous journal articles, is insufficient to establish notability under WP:N. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wang has added a reference to being Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology to his page.[1] However, as the relevant section of WP:PROF states "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area", and this journal started in 2010 and appears to have published only one quarterly issue, I'm not changing my stance. I can't imagine a journal being any less well-established and still actually existing. Perhaps in a year, though, there may be sufficient notability if the journal prospers. If the author wants to move the article to userspace until then, I'd definitely support that—although, given his behavior in editing the article so far, that may not be an option for long. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Suggest salting Given that even though he was cited for edit-warring on this page, Cxw888 (talk · contribs) is still editing away on his own page, has not responded to any messages left on his talk page, has blatantly ignored the notices on the article (e.g., don't delete the AfD template), and hasn't bothered responding here... I suspect that if the article is deleted, he his highly likely to try recreating it in short order. Therefore, I suggest that if the AfD outcome is "delete", the page should be salted to avoid further edit-warring. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:ACAD Vrivers (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his academic contributions are mainly as an editor and to teaching aids rather than to quality publications. Fails WP:PROF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What about all these books? Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a book, or many books, published doesn't establish notability under the above quoted guidelines. To be notable, other sources must talk about the subject. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's odd, certain frequent contributors to AfD discussions on professors point to editorship/authorship or one or two books as proof of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think if you look through the guidelines, you'll see that mere editorship doesn't mean much, but being Editor-in-Chief of a notable work does; being published a lot doesn't necessarily count, but publishing one particularly notable work (as backed up by citations in other sources) does, as does having a number of published journal articles that are themselves widely cited by others in their journal articles. As I've said, this fellow is on the cusp right now. It doesn't help that the current article is an autobiography; if kept, it will have to be stubbed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jairo Romero Sanchez

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

unsourced and no indication of notability. Google search finds only 13 hits - none on google scholar. JR Sanchez has some hits but nothing that I can tie to this individual. The original google translation was not professor but teacher. Nothing to suggest that Venezualan university baseball is notable. noq (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The user page of the original author of the page, User:Lealsan, states that he is "Andres Alberto Leal Romero". Perhaps the two individuals are related and this was his way of a tribute? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He already stated he is a cousin. And yes if you look at the original text it is a eulogy. noq (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person is not notable in any way that I can tell. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. -Dewelar (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete. Fails to assert notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:54, 10 October 2010 (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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomit Lir

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

Shlomit Lir is a non-notable researcher. She doesn't even have a Ph.d degree. There are many young researchers in Israel with an academic record much like her. The claims about women for presidency in Israel aren't a cause for notability as well. We all know how much influence it had during the last presidential elections. Her activity for peace isn't notable as well because her group in Van Leer doesn't have a lot of influence (try searching information about them in the major newspapers). Also, google search gives very few results.
Also, I would like to comment that based on my own personal experience, Shlomit Lir tries to use the wikipedia platform to promote herself and her agenda. This should not be permittes. Broccoli (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason ברוקולי goes against Lir is that she criticized the Hebrew Wikipedia in one of Israel's most prominent tv shows: (you can see the show in the following link Politica). She also organized a convention on women and the internet at Bar Ilan University which hosted a wikipedia participant who raised questions on why does the Israeli wikipedia conceal knowledge. In addition, she wrote a few articles on the issue of the Israeli Wikipedia biases which got lots of responses. If you check you will find that there are hundreds of Google responses to her name in Hebrew, English, Arabic and a few more languages. Lir is a also a peace activist which might be an additional reason for this wish from her Israeli "colleague". 85.65.119.63 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.119.63 (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was true (and it isn't), this doesn't change the facts. She likes to speak (its her right of course), but there is no proof whatsoever to her influence. This isn't the first time she (or is it you, miss Lir?) tries to abuse the wiki platform for self promoting. BTW, in the secondary headline it is said that she has a Ph.d, but the article says she's just a candidate for the degree. So, whats the truth? Broccoli (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Broccoli.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is basically a recitation of her activism – no reliable sources, no citations (1 GS hit). Only visible academic contribution is editing a book, which is held in ~25 institutions. Created by a WP:SPA with edits only on this article. This strikes me pretty much as a vanity/promotion page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A completely non-notable PhD student. She belongs to various campaigns, but anyone can join campaigns. She led a non-notable political campaign for which I can fine very little coverage in any sort of reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem very notable to me Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 09:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps one day. But she's not there yet.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Lindley (palaeontologist)

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

Maybe palaeontologists aren't widely covered on the web, but apart from a couple of mentions in The Geological Society of Australia Inc newsletter about his research and a few items on google scholar, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sources to prove this guy's notability. Note that I'm pretty sure that he is not the co-author of the "Jurrasic Park, how to build a dinosaur" cloning book. The-Pope (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any evidence of scientific impact for his research or business impact for his company. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highest cited (and possibly only) paper; 13. Abductive (reasoning) 19:07, 12 October 2010 (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 per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Rhode

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

Non-notable author. Originally proposed for deletion as an unreferenced BLP, the PROD was removed after two very questionable references were added by a new user who has made no other contributions. The references (one to the minutes of a private club, which does not meet the requirements of verifiablity and one to Volume 3 of Discover published in 2010, which, if it is Discover magazine, would not have published volume 3 in 2010. Attempts to contact the new user to clarify these references have gone unanswered. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -as per nom. Fails at WP:AUTHOR. --Kudpung (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence of passing WP:PROF. "Discover" appears to be the alumni magazine of his employer, not the famous one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2010 (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. Withdrawn nomination. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otomar Hájek

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

Unsourced BLP since January 2008. Contested PROD. I can't find significant coverage at independent reliable sources for this America-based scientist. I can verify the publication of the books, but I can't find any coverage about the person. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn following both sourcing, and the arguments below. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can see that he is emeritus at Case Western here. I don't see that the notability is in question, and the biographical content is not at all worrying. The Mathematical Genealogy page verifies much of his academic career. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating here, I checked to see if the MGP was counted as a reliable source (see here for the search I made), but there was no mention one way or the other. I know that they invite submissions and corrections, but I am not sure how much editorial input and checking there is into this, so I am unable to be sure myself (despite looking through the website) if it is covered under WP:RS. For all we know, the details could have been submitted by Hájek himself (which would mean that it does not meet WP:IS). With regard to his being emeritus, the website does indeed indicate this, but I did not feel that it met WP:PROF#5 The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is via the published work, surely. MGP should be counted as reliable enough. There is "coverage of the person", and more if you look for it. At most some trimming of what is actually given in biography, or {{fact}}, is warranted at this time. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's not shown how the subject satisfies WP:PROF. The 'emeritus' position comes close to satisfying condition 5, but I don't think it's on the level of a 'named chair'. The article is unreferenced except for the math genealogy project and that shouldn't be used as evidence of notability. Finally, date and place of birth should be minimum requirement for any bio article.--RDBury (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BIO actually says that Dates of birth and death, if known should be used - but there is no actually requirement in any policy or guideline that says that it has to be there. Not having it would not prevent me from supporting keeping the article if RS/IS could be found to show that he meets the notability criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's a policy or guideline, but for someone born in modern times it seems like a good indication there is insufficient material for bio article if no one has found a source for basic information like this. The "if known" is a bit vague in any case, I assume someone knows the date; not like Euclid where the date is lost to history.--RDBury (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he's just an individual who likes his privacy? Even if he does meet the notability criteria, he's not a tv/film celeb - he's not going to have the press crawling over his personal life and finding those details! However, a look at Ancestry could have possibly revealed his DoB - he would have been 33 when he got his PhD, does that sound right for him? Sources (membership of Ancestry may be required) are DoB: 1930 (if this is our boy, then some of the sources from the Biography & Genealogy Master Index that are listed there might be useful to verify/add to the article details) and 22 December 1930, Living in Fredericksburg, VA in 1996/22 December 1930, Living in Chardon/Cleveland OH 1993-1995. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant that he was a Fulbright scholar in 1990: [2]. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep I'm not really sure about this as he is too far from my area to assess directly. But MathSciNet lists about 74 publications so he was reasonably productive, and 2 of his 3 books have been reprinted which suggests that someone is reading them, so I would guess from this that he is probably sufficiently notable in his area. r.e.b. (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS gives h index = 10 with some high cites that indicate impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WP:PROF warns that indices may be used as a rough guide but should be used with caution. There no rule such as h index > n implies notable.--RDBury (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true. Acceptable h index varies with subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I'll put this comment here, rather than as a reply to anything above, as the formatting of this discussion seems to be all over the place. I have no opinion about whether this article should be kept or deleted, but would point out that a position of "professor emeritus" has no more inherent notability than that of "professor" - it is simply a professor who carries on doing some part-time work after formal retirement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxan, R.e.b. Ray^Talk 16:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are avalible per Xxan. Ronk01 talk 05:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I suggest that some of the 'keeps' here actually find and add some of these sources to the article? I looked and couldn't find any significant coverage of him at indepedent reliable sources, but if some of you who say they are out there can find some, I'd be quite happy for this to be kept! Saying that they are there and not adding them to the article seems to me to indicate that you haven't actually found the reliable sources which would demonstrate that he meets WP:PROF - I couldn't find evidence that The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources (#1), which I presume is what the 'keeps' are suggesting? I also can't see how he meets the other criteria for inclusion, hence why I brought the article to AfD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I did, but I also looked at WP:PROF: The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. [...] In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be twice the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only [...] Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used. - to be honest, if there was evidence that he met any of the other criteria, I'd have no problems with the article being kept, but I am usually cautious about someone who only appears to meet criteria 1. How many citation hits are at WoK and Scopus? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Heaven's sake make an effort. GS tells you exactly exactly what each source is. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

For heavent's sake, add something to the article then, to demonstrate the notability that you feel is there! If you feel that he meets the notability criteria (I am not convinced) then add some references to the article. He has a few papers which have been well-cited, yes - but he also has a *lot* of papers which are either cited by 1 other, or by none. I am not convinced, even though I think we can see where this AfD is going - but I hate the fact that often I see people saying "keep", but not being willing to actually add to the article to demonstrate the notability which they claim the person meets. Look at the 'keeps' here: one uses his emeritus as demonstration of notability, but this does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion; the others say about GS hits - but none of you can be bothered to add anything to the article. I'm not going to add anything, because as I said, I'm not convinced that he meets the criteria for inclusion - so I feel that it is the 'keep's who should add something. I'm also surprised that someone so 'notable' has not actually been mentioned (other than citations of his work) in any RS - where is the coverage saying "he is recognised as a pioneer in... " or "he is widely seen as one of the foremost researchers in ..." etc? Anyway, I'll turn off my rant-mode now! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably am the editor who originally deprecated the use of google scholar. I'm not sure I would do so now; the quality is much improved, and it is both more comprehensive and less erratic. It's an appropriate supplement to the WoS and Scopus indexes. It is just necessary to keep in mind that it gives cites from all sorts of things other than peer-reviewed journals, and so the counts are usually consistently higher. See for example Nisa Bakkalbasi's [3] & [4] ; though she was my research student, this was unrelated work done by her subsequently. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Noted mathemtician - formerly (now emeritus) Prof at leading US University - published important articles and books. Added refs of review of book in peer-reviewed journal and to von Humboldt award, to support work at TH Darmstadt. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep 3 books, 2 by major academic publishers, is sufficient DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 12 October 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. Paul Smith

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

Deprodded by DGG on the grounds that he is Head of his dept and having been mentioned as a (third) author of a study written up by the NYT. Being Head or Chair is not mentioned in WP:PROF as being sufficient for an article. Wikipedia is not a directory of everybody who has advanced in their administrative careers to some arbitrary point. Mere mention in an article about something else are not sufficient for notability. Compared to other workers in conodont fossils, he has low citation numbers and an h-index around 12. In addition, he has not been awarded the Pander Medal, the prize given out to notable conodont researchers by the Pander society. Abductive (reasoning) 07:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some high GS cites in a field that is probably not highly cited. Chair of the Publications Board of The Paleontological Society. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I included a link above that shows that he is not anywhere near the highest cited worker in his field. Abductive (reasoning) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person doesn't have to be the best to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Is that notion expressed in any Wikipedia policy or guideline? Abductive (reasoning) 02:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not: neither is the contrary. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It is implicit in the concept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a dumbed-down publication such as the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy is actually pretty important, he established "the origin of the vertebrates to 515 million years BP, 40 million years earlier than had been previously thought." That alone is major find for someone in his field, it's a major find period, as mentioned in The New York Times when it happened (See WP:PROF criteria #1). But more than that, he is a director of a Museum, head of a university academic department (see WP:PROF criteria #6), published scores of peer reviewed papers, co-authored at least two books, his name and work is mentioned in dozens (100s?) of books published by other authors (see WP:PROF #1), he has a Chair position on the Publications Board of Paleontological Society which is a major International non-profit in his field (see WP:PROF criteria #3 and #8). Green Cardamom (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has not been given the conodont researchers' in-house award. How do you explain that given your opinion that he is "pretty important"? Abductive (reasoning) 02:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this scientist established when vertebrates first evolved. It may be my "opinion" that this is "pretty important", but it's really up to you to say why it's not important. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Secondary sources are the currency, not our opinions. For example, I say that being a middle author on a paper from 1992, if it was so important, should have resulted in peer recognition. Yet in the tiny field of conodont researchers, Smith is conspicuously absent from the list of Pander Medalists. Only one of the other Medalists even has an article, by the way. I cannot say why his peers don't cite him as much as nearly everybody else in the field, but that is a fact. WP:PROF sets a high bar, lest all of the professors in the world get an article. According to Wikipedia's own article Professors in the United States, there are 11,000 professors in the California State University system alone. That article also says "... that the U.S. Department of Labor's list of "above average wages and high projected growth occupations," with a projected increase of 524,000 positions between 2004 and 2014." If the US is adding professors at the rate of half a million per decade, how many are there already? How about the rest of the world? Millions? Tens of millions? Abductive (reasoning) 05:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your setting an arbitrary and self-selected criteria (winning the Pander prize). If you look at WP:PROF, winning a prize is just one of many criteria that could allow a professor for inclusion in Wikipedia. I noted above this professor matches criteria #: 1, 6, 3 and 8. He only needs to meet one of those criteria to be notable, so you'll have to refute all four convincingly. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep. Noted Paleotologist (judged by publications and full professorship at leading UK university), Chair of the Publications Board of The Paleontological Society, high profile in conodont research and in local geological community and Director of Lapworth Museum of Geology. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep—seems notable enough, in the matter argued in the above discussion. —innotata 16:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT article is in my opinion decisive. Abductive's argument that one must be the top person in the field is irrelevant, or we would remove everyone who competed in the Olympics unless the won a gold medal, or any film performer not winning the academy award, or any city not the largest in its country, or any US politician who did not get elected president. Equally inappropriate is his similar argument that if we had articles on all full professors who were chairs of their departments in major research universities, we would necessarily have articles on everyone who was a college teacher, which would lead to the conclusion we should have no articles at all. And FWIW, anyone who believes the US Dept of Labor's hilariously optimistic job predictions.... DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article merely mentions this guy, it does not do any analysis of him. Abductive (reasoning) 07:20, 12 October 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Shaikh

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

This has been deleted several times, see the history. A new article was created as Mohammad shaikh which I think does not have the same objections, so I moved it here over the create protection. Personally, I have no opinion on whether it is sufficient, but I think it deserve another discussion. If the decision is that the current refs are not enough, and nobody can find more, then that'll be the end of it. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and redirect to International Islamic Propagation Center. Sources are just not there, they refer to the publication, not the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The fact that the article mentions that he is one of the top muslims in the world, but I can't find proof, leads me to believe that there is something wrong here. Considering that this article has been deleted before is another hint. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:25, 12 October 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vitali Kapovitch

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

Prodded by User:Thomjakobsen and deprodded by User:DGG, this person fails WP:PROF. Highest cited paper, 18. Single digit h-index. Abductive (reasoning) 08:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The nominator is correct that on the face of it the entry does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. What gives me some pause here, however, is that the subject has publications in the most prestigious and selective journals in the discipline - Annals of Mathematics[5], Acta Mathematica[6], Journal of the American Mathematical Society[7] and two in Duke Mathematical Journal[8][9]. This is an indication of something unusual... Nsk92 (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In only one of those is he the first author. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In math the concept of the first author does not really exist - for math papers the authors are almost always listed alphabetically. Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep basically per Nsk92. Mathematics is a low-publication/citation rate field, with correspondingly greater emphasis on quality over quantity. Not my specialty, so I don't know what's going on here, but I do not think keeping could hurt Wikipedia in any way. Ray^Talk 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the term "rational homotopy theory" from Kapovitch's highest cited paper, a Google Scholar search shows papers with 657, 401, 318, 207, 63, 34, 31, 24, and then Kapovitch's 18 citations. So it's not a low citation field; it's Kapovitch that has low citations. Abductive (reasoning) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rather ambivalent feelings about this entry, but the high citation articles/books you mention above a rather few and they are 30-40 years old. In math the shelf life of articles is pretty long and the publication speeds are fairly slow, so citations usualy accumulate fairly slowly over time. Excluding books, I see almost no articles in the googlescholar search you linked above that have been published in the last 20 years and that have more than 20 citations. Nsk92 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One could say, then, that this page on an Associate Professor was created too early... Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, taking another term from the title of Kapovitch's highest-cited paper, "nonnegative curvature", and limiting the search to the last ten years, titles only, one sees papers with 41, 25, 18, 18, 16, ... , with the last two by Kapovitch. Looks pretty average, and average does not meet WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I admit that I have very ambivalent feelings about this article, particularly in its current state - basically a rather unilluminating out-of-date resume, probably created by a postdoc or a grad student. However, as a professional mathematician myself, I know that having even just one article in a journal at the level of JAMS/Annals/Acta is fairly rare, even for very good mathematicians; here we have three such articles (already at a relatively early stage in his career) , plus two in Duke, plus one in the Journal of Differential Geometry [10], plus two in Geometric and Functional Analysis - also top-notch places. This to me indicates a fairly unusual degree of excellence. I have looked up the reviews of his papers in MathSciNet. Some of them are fairly complimentary (e.g. for the JAMS paper the reviewer concludes "... Thus, in focussing on the relation of splitting rigidity to vanishing of derivations, the authors arrive at a beautiful connection between the geometry of curvature and the algebra of rational homotopy." For the Acta paper the reviewer writes, in particular: "This is a rich paper in which the authors completely settle the problem of determining which are the pinched, negatively curved manifolds (i.e., complete Riemannian manifolds whose sectional curvature is bounded between two negative constants) with amenable fundamental group." Mathematically, all this stuff about manifolds of positive curvature and pinched curvature and the relevant Alexandrov geometry is very far from my own area of expertise and I do not feel particularly competent in adding stuff to the article explaining what he did and why it is significant. If someone else did that, I'd probably be inclined to keep the article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, whoever knows this guy and wrote this two sentence page can't explain what he did to advance mathematics, but Wikipedia needs his CV just in case? Without encyclopedic content, heck, without even an article on pinched manifolds or curved manifolds or splitting rigidity (although there is a very short article on Rigidity (mathematics) why should this BLP be kept? Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that whomever created this page can't explain why this stuff is important, rather they probably did not understand that they needed to do that - such pages are often created by inexperienced users who are not familiar with Wikipedia standards and don't really know what is expected from a WP article. As for the terms you mention - we do have articles on Curvature of Riemannian manifolds, CAT(k) spaces, Soul theorem, Collapsing manifolds etc - which is what Kapovitch's papers are about. In any event, there are a great many notable and important scientific topics about which we do not yet have articles - that does not mean that we do not need articles about them. Like I said, mathematically I am fairly far from these topics but even I have a rough understanding that they are important. In particular, this stuff is very much related to Grigori Perelman's solution of the Geometrization conjecture - probably the most important and famous result in mathematics for the last ten years. E.g. long-term evolution of Ricci flow in Perelman's stuff can produce some limiting "pinched" objects with potentially bad behavior - possible collapsing of a manifold etc; it is important to know when this behavior can occur to be able to rule it out, for example, in Perelman's proof itself. Nsk92 (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kapovitch appears only in the Geometrization conjecture article, with no indication of any contribution at all. In fact, his paper is only cited to make a claim about a different mathematician. Abductive (reasoning) 05:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, of course, but it does not imply that his own work is not significant or important. The Geometrization conjecture article itself is in a rather poor shape -it really does not explain anything about the nature of Perelman's proof which, as I understand it, was quite revolutionary. Similarly, there are no WP articles on quite a few related and important topics, such as Alexandrov geometry, for example. The general reason for this is that academics, on the whole, are very little involved in editing Wikipedia (the most active WP editors appear to be undergraduate and high school students) and as a result modern academic topics and developments are not well represented on Wikipedia - which I think is to Wikipedia's detriment. What I do know is that most mathematicians would gladly give up a year's salary to have a result worthy of publication in Annals/Acta/JAMS and he has several of those... Nsk92 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making the low citation numbers for those articles in those journals worse, not better. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The low citation numbers are a mark of the fact that his articles are recent and in a field that, owing to major developments of late, can be difficult to understand. They do not reflect any lack of importance - indeed, it is not uncommon in math for superb and technically difficult work to take a good while before others grasp the work well enough to follow up on it (I was once told 10-20 years is not an unusual gap for truly first-rate results). Nsk correctly describes the stature of Annals/Acta, etc. Ray^Talk 15:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:PROF is designed to avoid endless discussions on citation statistics and their interpretation, yet people choose to ignore it. The article has nothing about his contributions to his field or other indication of notability.--RDBury (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, he does have articles in some of the more prestigious journals, but they haven't been cited much, even by math standards: WoS citations are 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, ... Journal prestige does not necessarily translate into article impact (immediate or otherwise) and this sort of situation is not really that unusual. (For reference, I'll note that I voted "keep" in another current math-related AfD on the basis of articles cited around 10X as much as this case, but others still consider this insufficient.) As noted above, math research does accrue recognition more slowly, so it's possible this person's work may ultimately show real impact. It's just too early to tell. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The excellent journal placement for his papers is a very good sign for his career, and it also shows that these papers are likely to make an impact in future, but it's not really anything we can use to show that he has already made an impact. He is mentioned in several books as having played a minor role in the Perelman case but again I don't think that's sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro de la Vega Zulueta

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

Yet another article of a person that graduates from XYZ University. Don't see any reliable source to back this up. I am almost sure this is an attempt by the very same Alejandro to promote himself on Wikipedia. Diego Grez (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also my refs review and my conclusion on this article: User:Diego Grez/Alejandro De la Vega Zulueta refs --Diego Grez (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable. When doing my first pass of the article, I looked at the cited refs too, before reading nom's summary of them, and was quite astonished by what I found (or rather didn't find)! The references mention the projects, but fail to mention the architect. This article looks like a wikipedia page, until you scratch the surface. Keristrasza (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable architect, no reliable sources discuss him in detail. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [11]. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2010 (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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Staab

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

Tagged for notability since February 2010, no change from that now. Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he has a few brief biographies on various websites, he is not notable enough. Besides his books are mainly directed at specialists. TYelliot (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 10:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC in its current state. Perhaps someone with knowledge of his work could make additions that show otherwise. -- BenTels (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant enough coverage to establish notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly doing a good job, but doing a job. Unless something more is added and sourced, the article as it stands taken with its lack of referencing doesn't indicate sufficient notability. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently do not see adequate evidence of notability AlgebraT (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject, does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 9 October 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. E.S. Dwarakadasa

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

Searches in news, scholar and books suggest that this academic is not notable -- only a couple of articles with double-digit citations, no news hits, etc. Accounting for the possibility of different formats, I used searches specifying only his surname and metallurgy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A search in GS for author:"E.S. Dwarakadasa" gives an h index of 10. Not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability standards for academics. Verifiability is minimal at best. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a search reveals author of books and many articles. 07:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Being the author of books and articles is not evidence of notability per any WP guideline. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Possible pass WP:Prof 3) Keep and try to improve. There seem to me sufficient quality academic articles and citations to indicate notability and 1990 Metallurgist of the year, IISc, 1997 Zinc Gold Medal, Indian Institute of Metals, elected in 1998 to Fellowship of the Indian National Academy of Engineering (is this alone enough?[12]) which I have added. (Does anyone know what these fellowships are? FIE, FIIM, FIIW, FAeSI, FECSI) Also more worryingly there seems to me a serious inaccurcay in the nomination. The nomination suggests that Google scholar returns "only a couple of articles with double-digit citations". As suggested by User:Xxanthippe when I try Google scholar with E.S.Dwarakadasa I get many more than two articles with double-digit citations. Also our coverage of Indian academia is very poor due in part, I think, to the low quality of the websources. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

GS should be good on metallurgy. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

But also note that his achievements were in the 1990s when the internet was not widely available. So there will be little info. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GS is fine for the 1990s as you can check for yourself. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Fellowship of the Indian National Academy of Engineering is limited to 800, so qualifies for WP:PROF criterion 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a few more comments would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil and future improvement. Further WP:PROF "Notes and examples" #11.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2010 (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Albrecht

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

Msrasnw (talk · contribs) made some edits to the article page, after it was nominated during a prior AFD. Bringing back here to main article space, for assessment at a fresh AFD discussion by the community. Procedural nom, no stated opinion by nominator on deletion. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Have added another ref (in German) to a biography of him in Internationales Germanistenlexikon and a note that now indicates that he meets WP:Prof 5 - Named chair at Univ of Kansas. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significantly covered by RS. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced and notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This time around it's a clear pass of WP:PROF. Thanks to Msrasnw for the improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2010 (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K.V.Dominic

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

I have taken this article to afd as there is no reference provided in the article.Only 3 external links that too are questionable.Written like a unencyclopedic article.I strongly recommend deletion of the article.Also the subject is non notable.No significant awards or works. --Poet009 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 Gscholar, books' existence confirmed by Gbooks, but they only seem to be held in a single-digit number of libraries on Worldcat. Fails WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 01:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N, WP:PROF. --Ragib (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Infinitely Humble (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2010 (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydeep Sarangi

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

Notability has been questioned, and also the possibly inadequate 3rd party refs. -- AfD originally placed by User:Poet009; I restored the AfD I messed up during a edit conflict aimed at fixing the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Myself, I do not support deleting it. I think the publications show notability as an author and perhaps as an academic. Better references to the reviews are however needed. boloji.com is basically a blog, but the review there was a signed one by a professional academic. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-It is due to the fact that the article is very poorly referenced and its claims are not supported by references.Also no notable awards or honours by any reputed organizations.Without references from reliable sources articles can't be kept on WP.--Poet009 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Fails WP:N, WP:PROF. --Ragib (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF straight up. As far as WP:AUTH is concerned, I'm having trouble finding serious reviews of his work, and worldcat holdings of his works are not impressive (not being in more than a few dozen libraries for his most popular work, and with several of them not being in more than 2 or 3 libraries), so I conclude he fails this criterion as well. Ray^Talk 02:22, 5 October 2010 (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. NW (Talk) 02:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pegah Touradji

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

Seems to be non-notable, has been cited bbut does not seem to have any Biographical sources on her The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gscholar hits are not particularly high for medicine (h-index of 8 or so, by my count), not yet a full professor. In the absence of news coverage or other signs of extraordinary merit, fails WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 03:21, 4 October 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry (historian)

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

Fails to establish notability and he appears to be another run-of-the-mill historian. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I would say that an historian with 8 published books in notable , but not one is from a notable academic publisher, some are even self published, and none are in more than 40 worldcat libraries. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is close, I think. As of now, I'm doubtful--but if someone with a knowledge of Irish historiagraphy weighed in, I'd likely defer to their wisdom VASterling (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Sloan

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

NN musician. A contested prod. GrapedApe (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing showing notability, only to the artist's site and company. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CREATIVE seems more appropriate for this case than WP:PROF but I don't see any evidence (in the form of newspaper coverage, major label releases, etc) that he passes. And the level of textual similarity between this article and his MICA home page [13] is troubling. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petrika Troja

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

Tagged for notability since January 2008. With greatest respect to Dr Troja, subject would appear to fail the basic criteria for notability of people. Shirt58 (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entire article is just a recitation of his various titles and job activities. WoS shows 1 meeting abstract from 1987 that's never been cited. Nothing else to base any claim of notability on. Article created by a spa account "Albunix" – this may be little more than a vanity page that's been under the radar for more than 2 years. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no specifics of significant contributions he's made, only a listing of appointments, and the sourcing is thin to nonexistent. The article claims that he is the author of several books but reading between the lines they seem to be used only locally and I can't verify their existence in worldcat. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (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. Agricola has a valid point, but 168...141 gives a credible argument against a keep rationale. Considering other comments of voters, the consensus is perceived to be of delete. There is no prejudice against the article getting recreated soon after this delete, provided WP:PROF or WP:N is met. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elmar Winkelnkemper

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

Completing nomination on behalf of 168.7.214.218, reason (see talk page) is "I don't think that Winkelnkemper meets the criterion for notability. He's not even a full professor!" --Pgallert (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "not a full professor" isn't relevant. The other comment on the talk page may be relevant. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Talk page referred to above observes that this person is no longer active as a researcher, which appears to be more-or-less true. However, that's not really relevant for our purposes because notability is not a function of status. Several of his older papers have citation counts that are fairly respectable for pure maths, in particular there are 2 papers in AMS journals having citations of 52 and 32. Maths is generally one of the lower citation fields, and his total collective cites are >100, according to WoS. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Whatever the original rational for the AfD, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the subject meets the criteria set out in WP:PROF.--RDBury (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to mathscinet, he's written a total of 15 papers starting in 1968. None of them appear in top journals (eg the Annals, JAMS, Inventiones, IHES, Duke, etc.). He does have two papers with good (though not astonishing) citation counts, though one of them ("On the existence of contact forms") was coauthored with Fields medalist William Thurston, so Winkelnkemper probably shouldn't get too much credit for it. If this thin record was enough to make a professor notable, then any full professor of mathematics at an AMS Group I university (see http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/group_i ) would qualify, which is nonsense. In fact, these days you would even have trouble getting tenure with this kind of record at many places. 168.7.218.141 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Our article on open book decomposition name-drops him but does not cite him or say anything of significance about him. His publication record is short and, although it includes a couple of papers with good citation records, he's had plenty of time to do better than that. There doesn't seem to be anything other than the publication and citation record to go on. The only non-primary source is a dissertation database. I don't think we'd lose anything of importance by not having this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2010 (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. Being a poorly sourced BLP tips this to the deletion side. Will userfy/incubate on request or someone can create a new sourced article on this subject. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beena Sarwar

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

Longterm notability tags and other issues since 2007. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotion – this is basically a CV, no proper sources, etc. and 3 years should have been plenty of time to resolve these issues. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep - She was a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Kennedy School at Harvard. She is often quoted in works on human rights such as this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is some evidence of notability via google hits. She's mentioned in 1, plus seems to be an extensive writer as shown here, here, here, here, here, here and some other places. Mar4d (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She does appear to have some level of international visibility. But while I can find plenty of stories by her in Google News Archive and Google Books, and a few that mention her, I have been unable to find any reliable sources that are actually about her and that would allow us to write a proper encyclopedia article about her. The one we have now looks more like a cv than an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (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. With DGG being uncertain, and three others (including NW) ivoting delete, I find consensus for delete. However, if the author wishes, a copy of the deleted article could be made available. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W. C. Pollard

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

Does not seem to meet notability criteria, specifically WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. There are a few sources to interviews with local papers and such; I don't think that is significant enough. NW (Talk) 16:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My entries here may be in several takes, as my computer keeps going down today. First, let me say that I know Mr. Pollard and wrote the article in question after writing a story about him for the Lawrence, KS, newspaper. Pollard's name appears in many Wikipedia articles on Kansas Civil War history. Footnotes in those articles reference his PhD dissertation, articles he wrote and correspondence with individuals. Also, he told me he wrote a number of articles about central Florida lakes, such as Lakes Jackson, Verona, Olivia, Pabor, Trout, Cracker Lake, Crystal Lake, etc. Please look at the footnotes from Wikipedia articles about Forts Aubrey, McKean, etc. Jroony—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroony (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One small-press book, two self-published books, and a local newspaper interview don't add up to WP:GNG for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see how notability is achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Uncertain I'm thinking of proposing a new guideline, that we extend very generously inclusive treatment to articles on any book, publication, or website, or the authors of any book, that will clearly be helpful to people writing Wikipedia articles. the purpose of this is so that users can better judge the reliability of sources,. In the case of authors, by assessing the degree to which they are aRS in their subject and their likely biases. I know perfectly well that it is not current practice. It could, however, be justified even under current policy without using IAR: First, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to judge the notability of subjects, but to be a useful encyclopedia. Whatever helps the reader is appropriate content. Second, WP:V is a basic policy, one of the 5 pillars, and supersedes almost all other considerations; WP:N is just a guideline. To see whether WP:V is satisfied, editors as well as users need a way of judging the sources. If this principal were accepted, the article would be justifiable. From such an article, if properly rewritten to concentrate on his books, the reader would learn that 1 of them (A career of defiance : the life of Ian Smith) is self published, 1 (A short history of the Methodist movement a self-published collection of his articles in a Methodist Church journal, and the third (Dark Friday : the story of Quantrill's Lawrence raid) published by a significant local publisher that is not a vanity published, & found in about 85 US libraries, DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 1st Wikipedia article I have written. I have been writing free-lance for 19 years and never knew I would create such a controversy with this article. I will add info on the books Pollard wrote in his article. I hope that ends this controversy.Jroony (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Jroony[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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajoy Ghose

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

Fails WP:N. Main claim to notability is past president of Indian Institution of Engineers. Citation to support his position as "Director of the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute of India" has no mention of him. Article has been tagged for multiple issues, including inadequate sourcing and lack of notability, for three months. PROD tag removed with little improvement one month ago. Cresix (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cresix (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF criteria 6 (president of Institution of Engineers) and 3 (fellow of Indian National Academy of Engineering). Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - His status as fellow of Indian National Academy of Engineering is not confirmed by the source cited in the article. Cresix (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is, and this source, which is also in the article, confirms that he received an award for which only fellows are eligible, and would qualify for WP:PROF criterion 2 as a prestigious national award. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not necessarily saying the information is inaccurate. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that the source used in the section stating "He is a Fellow of the Indian National Academy of Engineering" cites cmpdi.co.in, which says nothing about Ghose. That's why I placed an fv tag on it. This may simply be a matter of adding the right source to the right place. If so, the problems will then be solved. Thanks for clarifying. Cresix (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not much on GS but presidency and fellowships give a keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C3 and possibly also C6. I added the NAE source found by Phil Bridger. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Phil Bridger. Enough here to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2010 (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Drobyshevski

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

Article gives no 3rd party references. List of publications do not determine notability for the purposes of wikipedia and google searches provide little information other than the publication references. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the article is duplicated at Daemon (astrophysics), which was created by the same author. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I nominated the article for PROD previously, and the PROD was contested by User:Phil Bridger. I welcome more input into this discussion. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Delete as nomintator. My impression from reading the publishing history of this gentleman is that he was once a decent researcher, but has since gone off into fringe land. He now self-publishes a lot of papers on astro-ph, which is not peer reviewed. Many of his recent papers are only cited by himself (e.g. [14][15]). Similarly, he seems to have self published his own biography here and there are no mentions of him other in reliable sources than his authorship of various scientific papers which may not be themselves notable. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The article seems to say he has a planet (albeit a minor one) named after him 4009_Drobyshevskij - if this is true is that not enough for notability? (Msrasnw (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: Notability due to having a planet named after him. (Is this a reasonable criteria?) "Minor Planet (4009) Drobyshevskij 1977 EN1. Discovered 1977 March 13 by N. S. Chernykh at Nauchnyj. Named in honor of Ehduard Mikhajlovich Drobyshevskij, physicist and astrophysicist at the Ioffe Physical and Technical Institute in St. Petersburg, author of some original cosmological ideas and theories of the origin of the planets and the minor bodies of the solar system, also known for his research on the magnetic fields of the sun and other stars. (M 19694) - Dictionary of Minor Planet Names - Fringe nature of current views/publications does not invalidate earlier notability - and seems to me to add its own form of notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The complete minor planet list is here [16]. Many of the names are not in wikipedia. Of course that's a case of Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However, adding the minor planet bio to the article would give infinitely more reliable sources than are currently present in the article, which may save it from deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ec There are thousands of such named planetesimals, so having one named after an astronomer is not an indicator of notability. It's an indicator that your colleagues know you. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The googlescholar results[17] are fairly modest for someone with such a long research career. There are no significant awards, journal editorships, etc to indicate passing WP:PROF. Having a minor planet named after him is certainly interesting, but, in the absence of stronger evidence, is not quite sufficient, IMO, to establish academic notability. The nominator is correct that this also appears to be, at least in part, a WP:FRINGE case, which I think should raise the inclusion bar a little higher. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra sources: Looking round the web for Edward Drobyshevski - it seems to me his work on the Tunguska event seems to have got the most notice. The article doesn't really seem to mention this. I think Popular Mechanics referece for this is indicative of this stuff.

and Ria Novosti

* http://www.rian.ru/science/20090330/166427555.html

The same in Google translate.

* Ria Novosti: Scientist: Tunguska catastrophe associated with the explosion of a hydrogen nucleus of comet

And his work on Giant pieces of Jupiter could kill all life on earth documented in Pravda

* http://www.pravda.ru/news/science/27-06-2008/273686-vzryv-0/

Are these the fringe things being refered too? They do seem to have attracted some notice - but don't seem too off the wall. Would adding comments on these and the references to the article help? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Added popular media refs: I have added these refs to the article in case it might help(Msrasnw (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. GS cites are 10, 10, 6, 1. Mainstream work insufficient for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Possible problem with GS cites count: I think there may be a possible problem with the GS cites reported just above as being 10, 10, 6, 1. If one looks here: "EM Drobyshevski" - Google Scholar seems to be reporting 43 , 21, 16, 16 etc. Also not so sure whether GS is so good on Russian scholastic output, Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for this useful research. Unfortunately h index still only comes to 11 which is not really enough. GS should be excellent on mainstream publications in astronomy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Question: This looks to me like on the basis of arguments here - might be going to fail WP:Prof - but seems to me having the mini-planent named after him (with the note about why) and the references to his "original" ideas discussed in Pravda and Popular Mechanics are "significant coverage" and are more than a trivial mentions in reliable sources and should be sufficient for general notability. Is the planet too trivial and Pravda and Pop mechanics not reliable or the articles not so important? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The articles are not about Drobyshevski. Secondary sources, by definition, analyze the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 08:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little comment: The articles in Pravda, Ria Novosti and Popular Mechanics are about some of Drobyshevski's work and one's work can make one notable. This is our usual logic I think. If you were to read those kind of articles - you might want to look him up and I think that is where our encyclopedia is sometimes really useful. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You will note I haven't notvoted, I am just saying that having an asteroid named after you (if you are an astronomer) doesn't mean anything, and that the articles aren't about him. Abductive (reasoning) 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to be notable given the sources. The article could and should be improved. Even if his theories are wrong he still seems to be notable. I hope that there is not a prejudice against his article because he worked in the USSR. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little copy editting and the like in an attempt to help. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - I don't know whether he is regarded as orthodox or fringe in the field of astrophysics, that's not where I live. But if you search for Eduard Drobyshevsky you will come up with articles such as THIS 2008 PIECE IN THE ENGLISH EDITION OF PRAVDA citing him as an expert. I would be very, very, very hesitant to remove this one. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Comment There's an issue here that has come up in other areas of wikipedia for which there is no easy answer. The views expressed in the linked article are clearly fringe. But they are cited in a "reliable" (I hold a low opinion on the reliability of pravda, but let's leave aside that argument for the time being) source. The mainstream and slightly out of mainstream media are happy to report fringe scientific theories. Since they are obscure theories however, there are no rebuttals published in reliable sources. WP:FRINGE states that fringe views should not be given undue weight. How can we avoid giving undue weight to a fringe theory covered in reliable sources, but for which a rebuttal is not available? In my mind, the solution is to delete such articles, especially when the fringe view itself is thinly sourced. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, more specific to this article, is someone being quoted in an article sufficient to establish notability? My impression based on WP:GNG is that it is not. There must be a reliable source that is substantially about the individual, not just their views. The asteroid citation is the only source that remotely qualifies, and I don't feel that it is adequate. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , first by precedent as namesake of a minor planet, second because of notable fringe scientific theorist. If someone's distinctive views are notable, they are notable. With the exception of media personalities, what is important about a person is the work or accomplishments that they are known for. If we have significant coverage of that, it's sufficient--people are not generally notable for the miscellaneous facts of his biography. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from this discussion that there is no consensus that having a minor planet named after a person confers notability on that person. Your use of the word "precedent" is troubling. Abductive (reasoning) 06:14, 14 October 2010 (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.

Academics and educators Proposed deletions

Barry Azzopardi (via WP:PROD on 2 October 2010) - removed prod as passes WP:prof 5 now with ref. (should I have struck this out or is this an admin role?)
~~Aravind L Iyer (via WP:PROD on 2 October 2010)~~
Philip A. Keith (via WP:PROD on 1 October 2010)
~~Hamid Etemad (via WP:PROD on 1 October 2010)~~
Tressie leitan (via WP:PROD on 29 September 2010)
~~Harland Whitmore (via WP:PROD on 28 September 2010)~~
~~Linnwood Holdridge (via WP:PROD on 23 September 2010)~~