Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


Purge page cache watch


Academics and educators

[edit]

Iren Dimitrova

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

Pianist that fails WP:GNG. No in-depth sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lyza

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

Fairly unremarkable other than a few published papers on a largely niche topic (tornadoes/severe weather). By this stretch, every meteorologist (especially many professors in academia) who author papers should have Wikipedia articles, which isn't the case. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Hate to say it but I agree that they just don't meet the bar of notability. I think instead of making new articles on meteorologists we should, as a project, work on improving the quality of existing articles; see the dreadful state of Ted Fujita, for instance. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also say that the USA Today source doesn't mean anything for notability in my eyes. Lyza was brought on as an expert to explain the individual study about the same topic covered at EF5 drought. This is, in my eyes, as routine as coverage gets - especially his qualifications being described by USA Today as simply lead author on the new study about the EF5 tornado drought. It would be different if the article was specifically about Lyza, or if Lyza was described as being top of his field or otherwise academically vital. Departure– (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - enough sources to justify notability.
WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Several secondary reliable sources besides academic papers reference or interview/quote Anthony Lyza and his works, including the New York Times and many other articles: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Clearly passes the bare minimum of WP:PROF and WP:BIO, especially since the US government even posted he is a tornado “expert”. WP:PROF says if a person passes any of the listed items, then they are notable. The first point of WP:PROF is “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” That seems clear, given the tons of sources discussing Lyza and his work. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS gives 167 cites. Normally 1000+ cites is required for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: Oh! That is what you meant by not many GS citations. Most meteorologists use respective country-based academic publication societies, rather than GS to find sources. For example, in US is the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Just by looking at the AMS-website metrics alone for the 2025 paper that Mr. Lyza was lead author on ([9]) show 7281 full text views. AMS does not keep track directly of who cited the paper, only records of downloads and views. That paper has over 7,000 views just since January 2025 (it was released January 23, 2025). Hopefully that helps. AMS contains probably 80% of the meteorologically published papers that are often cited in textbooks or by other meteorologists. This is one of those fields of science where GS is actually not the most used/useful measurement tool. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Takis Sakellariou

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

Fails WP:GNG - clearly falls into WP:LUGSTUBS. Réunion! 03:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is not a typical Lugstub at all. Has anyone searched in Wikilibrary sources? Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalypso Nicolaïdis

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

She ought to be notable but a BEFORE search is only returning material BY her, not ABOUT her. Tagged for a lack of sources for 8 years already. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She's well-known in my discipline of International Relations, and her works have over 10,000 citations on Scholar. I would say it's not uncommon that academics have plenty of output and notability in their field without much coverage about them as a person. Completely agree that the article needs more sourcing, of course - but that feels like a better avenue than deletion.
— Arcaist (contr—talk) 22:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think her citation record is good enough for WP:PROF#C1, but I also found quite a few published reviews, of one coauthored book (The Greco-German Affair in the Euro Crisis, [12]) and several co-edited volumes (The Greek Paradox, [13], [14]; European Stories, [15], [16], [17]; The Federal Vision, [18], [19]; Echoes of Empire, [20], [21]; Strategic Trends in Services, [22]; In the Long Shadow of Europe, [23]). Because they are mostly not authored books I think this only makes a weak case for WP:AUTHOR but there are enough of them to make the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Feinberg

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

WP:BLP1E, all of Feinberg's mentions are related to KIPP and can be hosted there. The accusations against Feinberg didn't result in a criminal conviction and appear to be the main source of articles about him directly, rather than articles where the subject is KIPP & Feinberg is a passing mention. Either way, this is largely unsourced and fails WP:N. 30Four (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Wilson (soprano)

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

Article is mainly based on bios published by the subject's employers or written by their PR management. The one independent source, Herkimer Times Telegram, is predominantly about another artist and the subject is only briefly mentioned in passing in the latter half of a single sentence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her New York concert debut was covered by the Times[24] and I'm fairly confident we'll be able to find other sources. Jahaza (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian reviews[25][26], feature on Vancouver production[27]. Jahaza (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another review: 2004 in the Vancouver Sun[28], Vancouver Sun profile ahead of the same production[29], Washington Post concert review[30], another WaPo review[31], 2008 review of Vancouver production in Opera Canada[32], a German review from 1999[33]. I suspect that the Dusseldorf newspaper has a lot more reviews, since she was a principal there. Jahaza (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xxanthippe I'm confused. Did you mean keep or delete? Your edit summary marked your vote as delete, and your comment seems to support that; but then you voted keep in bold.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the alert. I am so sorry for my carelessness. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Jack Trammell

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

Non-notable author, professor, and political candidate. He received some national coverage in 2014 because he was the Democratic nominee in the race where Dave Brat primaried out House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, but not very much. The fact that news coverage of him completely dried up after the 2014 race shows he is not a notable person. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mark Hewitt (mathematician)

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:BIO. The subject's publications in academia.edu reads to me as nonsense. Current sources include Mark's Medium page, a Wapo article that doesn't mention his name, and a press release that also doesn't mention his name. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 20:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[34] I also suspect Mark Hewitt may not hold a degree from Columbia University as claimed. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 20:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MathGenealogy, MathSciNet, and zbMATH all have no record of a person by this name. Having no entry in MathSciNet casts serious doubt on the claim of having a Columbia mathematics PhD. Google Scholar has a profile of someone with a single publication on nuclear weapons policy [35], lists several publications by a linguist studying optimality theory with respect to the Alutiiq (linguistics, not mathematics, but with a PhD from Brandeis in psychology [36]), a thesis of an Australian mining engineer, and a book on pro wrestling. Which is to say, no trace of a fringe mathematician, as our article makes Hewitt out to be. The Babcock Ranch source [37] does not mention Hewitt. The Frontier Communications press release [38] does not mention Hewitt. That leaves us with no evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG, none of the mainstream sources needed to provide a neutral article on a fringe theorist, and no verifiability of anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the thoughtful review and the concerns raised regarding verifiability and sourcing. I would like to respectfully clarify and respond to the points noted.
    I am indeed Mark S. Hewitt, Ph.D., and I earned my doctorate in mathematics from Columbia University in 1987. As many researchers from that era can appreciate, online academic databases such as MathSciNet or zbMATH did not comprehensively catalog dissertations or publications prior to the widespread digitization of academic records in the late 1990s and 2000s. My graduate work focused on recursive mathematical sequences, which informed much of my subsequent work in telecommunications and systems engineering.
    Regarding the Google Scholar references — I would like to clarify that none of the sources cited in that search pertain to me. There appear to be multiple individuals named Mark Hewitt across various fields (linguistics, nuclear policy, psychology, and even professional wrestling commentary). I am not affiliated with those works.
    My professional career has been deeply embedded in industry — not traditional academia — which explains the absence of a conventional academic publication footprint. My work has spanned roles at Motorola, Frontier Communications, and several other telecommunications and technology companies throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. During this time, I contributed to early VoIP infrastructure, digital switching systems, and secure communications frameworks — areas often governed by proprietary development and trade secrecy rather than academic publishing.
    I understand Wikipedia’s sourcing policies, and I appreciate the concern for verifiability. I am happy to provide additional credible references, public records, or third-party coverage that may support the biographical details provided in good faith. I am also open to revising the article to reflect a more modest and factually supported description of my contributions, consistent with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.
    My intent with the page is not to overstate claims or introduce unverifiable content, but rather to document the emerging theoretical framework I am developing (Tribernachi Theory) in a transparent and respectful manner, acknowledging that it is undergoing peer review and academic discussion.
    I welcome further guidance from experienced editors on how best to align the content with Wikipedia standards or alternative pathways to document this work appropriately within the community. Mark (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please clarify if you got your PhD from Columbia University or Columbia Pacific University? Are you lying on your autobiography? Good day—RetroCosmos talk 21:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found https://web.archive.org/web/20031223054928/http://mark-hewitt.com/aboutme.htm, a 2003 web page in which someone named Mark Hewitt (matching particulars from our article including connections to companies named NextBend and Frontier Communications) describes himself as having a business and engineering degree from the University of Alaska. You might think that if he also had a 1987 Columbia University (or even Columbia Pacific U.) mathematics doctorate he would have mentioned it there, though, right? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The linkedin attached to the academia.edu profile shows a PhD from CPU. I think it's starting to become clear what's going on here. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 16:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hewitt has since clarified at Talk:Mark Hewitt (mathematician) that it was Columbia Pacific University. I've corrected the article. Belbury (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re alternative pathways to document this work appropriately within the community maybe the WikiJournal of Science is a better place to start. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No reliable sources. All sources appear to be self-published. Supposed theories appear read like a hoax.
    Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I could find no WP:SIGCOV of the subject in decent sources, and the article as it stands is ridden with conflict of interest issues per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I can't comment on the merits of the Tribernachi Theory, not being a mathematician; that said, if it is indeed an emerging theoretical framework that has not been thoroughly tested through peer review and academic discussion, it is WP:TOOSOON. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above, for lack of sourcing supporting encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator for lacking notability. Hewitt taking the known Tribonacci sequence, spelling it "Tribernachi" and believing it to have applications in quantum, cryptography and machine learning areas does not sound very significant and it's unclear what "academic forums and online publications" he's claiming to have presented this theory to. --Belbury (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saliu Hassan Ajisafe

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

This biography does not meet GNG as all the sources mentioned are not independent and the one reliable source does not cover the subject in depth. My concern is mostly on the sources. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanos Sinos

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

Deprodded without improvement. Current sourcing does not show notability, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of a whopping 11, and not seeming to meet any of the other criteria, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Mazzucelli

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

Not notable academic. She has had a number of positions at assistant professor or program development associate level over the last thirty years, mainly lecturing. No evidence of tenure or mentoring of PhD students. Excluding her thesis, 6 publications of which she was author of 2 and a book co-editor of the other 4. Total citations that I can validate since her thesis in 1997 are 307, two co-edited books have 202 & 101, the others are negligible. Only award is an honorary degree which looks dubious. Page has a complex history with AfD concensus draftification, abandoned draft and several PRODs; full history has been resurrected. Version prior to some cleaning (1) was full of name dropping, peacock and promo; current cleaned version still contains some unverified claims. Overall conclusion is fails WP:NPROF, publications are WP:MILL for an academic and do not meet WP:NAuthor, nothing for general WP:GNG. Page might need salting. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Floyd (diplomat)

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

The person is not holding any notable office nor has multiple significant reliable coverage in third-party media Norlk (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, thank you for your comment. The person is a politician holding the office of head of a notable international organization, which is an international office. Under the notability guidelines, "Politicians...who have held international.. office" are presumed to be notable. Further, all other heads of international organizations based in Vienna are considered notable and have dedicated articles, many with similar or lower levels of coverage in third-party media. Your feedback on the level of coverage is noted, and a further five third-party media sources have been added to the article based on your feedback to demonstrate significant reliable coverage.
Ffe9 (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he is not a politician. He has held no elected political office, nor is he known to be a member of any political party. Per the sources, he worked as was as a bureaucrat in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Australia), which may be where the confusion arises. However this is not a political appointment. Dfadden (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the article sources, while he was not a politician in Australia he was elected to his position as Executive Secretary, which is a political office at an international organization. Further, his candidacy was put forward by the Australian Government, as a political appointment. Ffe9 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Khanna

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

My comment in the last AfD discussion was "Subject is middle author on a couple of highly-cited, highly-coauthored papers. I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NPROF C1. The journal editorship is of a new journal [1], which does not pass WP:NPROF C8. Little other sign of notability, and WP:TNT is relevant." I am less certain of TNT, but the rest still holds. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check out some research papers authored by him, please, guide me if I am wrong in quoting it, thanks a lot. IQR (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Altoumaimi

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

Does not pass any notability criterion. Not reliably sourced D.Lazard (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article about Mohammed Altoumaimi should be kept, as he meets several notability criteria outlined in Wikipedis guideline on notability for academics (WP:PROF).
To begin with, there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As early as 2009, Altoumaimi was featured in major Swedish national media such as Dagens Nyheter and SVT, where he was recognized as a young mathematical prodigy. This early recognition indicates that his notability is not recent or fleeting.
In addition, he has academic contributions that demonstrate active engagement in research. He has authored peer-reviewed work in the fields of theoretical physics and applied mathematics, including a 2025 publication available on arXiv (arXiv:2502.12205). This shows sustained academic activity and relevance.
Furthermore, Altoumaimi public and academic presence has been consistent for over a decade, satisfying the criterion of enduring notability, as he has remained relevant both in media and in academic circles.
Based on these points, he clearly meets at least two of the WP:PROF criteria:
1. He has made a significant impact in his academic field.
2. He has received substantial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.
While the article could benefit from structural improvements and additional citations such as including sections on his biography, academic career, and list of publication it meets Wikipedias standards for notability and should not be deleted. 217.65.132.36 (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that he has made a significant impact on his scholarly field. He has not received any coverage in reliable scholarly sources. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammed Altoumaimi received substantial coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources in 2009 when, as a 16-year-old Iraqi immigrant in Sweden, he developed a mathematical formula related to Bernoulli numbers. This achievement was verified by Uppsala University senior mathematics lecturer Lars-Åke Lindahl and reported in multiple international news outlets including The Local, Al Arabiya, and UPI.com, satisfying Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline.According to Wikipedia's guidelines, "Notability is not temporary." Altoumaimi established notability in 2009 through significant media coverage of a substantial achievement verified by academic experts, not a trivial or fleeting event.Altoumaimi has continued his academic career with his 2025 publication "A Rigid Beam Acting in the Shearing Manner to the Quasi-Crystalline Half-Space," demonstrating ongoing contribution to mathematics and showing his early promise led to a sustained academic career.His story has significant educational and inspirational value, particularly for young people from immigrant backgrounds, enriching Wikipedia's coverage of diverse contributors to mathematics.I propose the article be retained with improvements to its structure and sourcing, with a potential review in one year to incorporate any new developments in his academic career. Mohammed Altoumaimi clearly satisfied Wikipedia's notability requirements through significant coverage in reliable sources. His continued academic activity and the educational value of his story provide strong grounds for retaining this article. 94.191.137.26 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLM spam
  • In my view, Mohammed Altoumaimi meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, even if some of his academic work has not yet been published in widely recognized journals. The fact that his research is currently available through platforms such as arXiv does not diminish its value. It’s important to recognize that not all scholars or researchers have access to the resources or institutional support necessary to publish in high profile outlets—especially if they aim to maintain a low public profile or come from underrepresented academic environments.
    Publishing in a lesser-known outlet does not mean the work is without merit, particularly considering Altoumaimi’s academic background and the attention his story has received in credible media sources. A historical parallel can be drawn to the case of Grigori Perelman, one of the most brilliant mathematicians of our time, who initially published his groundbreaking results on the arXiv rather than in traditional journals. His work was still groundbreaking and ultimately celebrated, despite the unconventional publication route.
    In a similar way, Altoumaimi appears to maintain a modest profile, which may explain why more information is not yet publicly available. However, based on what we do know, and the significance of his achievements, the article about him should be retained. 130.237.96.130 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add another perspective regarding Altoumaimi. Im honestly surprised by how some individuals are allowed to remain on Wikipedia despite not even coming close to meeting its notability guidelines, while someone like Altoumaimi is questioned. Ive tried to investigate whether there has been any serious or official criticism of his work, and found none,even though his story has been in the public domain for years and has been followed globally. The absence of controversy is telling.
Attempting to solve a major mathematical problem at the age of 16 is in itself a remarkable achievement. While he may not have “cracked the code” in the traditional sense, he approached the problem in a unique and arguably more complex way than the known solution. That alone should be acknowledged.
Its also possible that Altoumaimi prefers not to seek attention or be in the spotlight, unlike many public figures. Perhaps he values privacy over publicity, and that might explain the lack of widespread recognition. Nevertheless, his story is clearly motivational, especially for young people interested in science and mathematics.
In my opinion, the article should absolutely remain on Wikipedia. At most, the biography could be refined to clarify that he approached an already-solved problem from a different, more challenging angle. But removing the article altogether would ignore the significant impact his story has had and continues to have, as a source of inspiration. 2A00:801:70B:54A2:D850:1C18:9ADA:17A1 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In advocating for the retention of Mohammed Altoumaimi's Wikipedia article, it's essential to consider the nuances of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, particularly as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (people). These guidelines emphasize that a person is presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.​Wikipedia+1Wikipedia+1
Altoumaimi's early recognition in 2009 by reputable Swedish media outlets such as Dagens Nyheter and SVT highlights his prominence as a young mathematical prodigy. This level of coverage suggests that he meets the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources.​Wikipedia
Furthermore, his academic contributions, including a 2025 article available via arXiv (arXiv:2502.12205), demonstrate ongoing engagement in theoretical physics and applied mathematics. While arXiv is a preprint repository and not a peer-reviewed journal, it is widely used in the scientific community for disseminating research findings. Notably, esteemed mathematician Grigori Perelman also utilized arXiv to publish his proof of the Poincaré conjecture, underscoring that the platform can be a legitimate avenue for significant academic contributions. It's important to recognize that the absence of publications in major journals does not inherently diminish the value of one's work. Various factors, such as resource limitations or a preference for privacy, might influence an individual's publication choices. Altoumaimi's decision to maintain a low profile does not negate his achievements or the impact of his work. Moreover, the enduring interest in Altoumaimi's accomplishments over more than a decade indicates sustained relevance, which aligns with the criterion of enduring notability. His story serves as an inspiration to young individuals pursuing mathematics and science, highlighting the importance of recognizing diverse pathways to achievement. 94.191.138.200 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I may cut short these extended apologias. It does not matter whence "obscurity" arises - a lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources makes a topic unsuitable for a WP article. If Einstein had not received wide recognition, we would not have an article about him, genius or not. If some Eurovision clown gets worldwide coverage, we will have an article. Special pleading need not apply. Second, if you can't be arsed to write your own arguments, and then even leave the ChatGPT links in your text, your contributions are not welcome to this discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the work is as important as its proponents claim it will receive hundreds of citations. Currently it has none. We typically expect 1000+ citations for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Chris Macdonald (scientist)

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

Fails WP:SIRS and so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Has anyone seen if he passes one of the criteria for WP:PROF? The Prof Test is an alternative method of showing notability, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a young professor who has just gotten an under-40 years old award. The "extensive coverage" of his work is the newspaper reports generated from a single University of Cambridge press release. He appears to have only that single paper in Google scholar, which has mixed him up with a Canadian business professor. It is too soon for him to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete:.
  • Dr Macdonald has multiple publications: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3880-6563
  • His coverage was not the result of a ‘single University press release’ – it was the featured research story on the University homepage – and independently of that, it was covered by BBC, ITV, etc.
  • He clearly passes the criteria for WP:PROF (of which you only need to meet one):

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline: His recent article is “in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric”.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: His research won the National Innovation Award, the Digital Health Award, and the 40 Under 40 Award.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Dr Macdonald is a Fellow at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of the Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: His research has appeared in over 100 international news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)

JayneDavis07, our criteria can be confusing for a new editor. Most researchers have multiple publications. What matters is not how many they have published but how other researchers have responded to those publications by citing them in their own papers. That is how we determine significant impact. Most awards, and definitely not young investigator awards, are not what we mean by "highly prestigious". Having newspapers cover ones research when publicized by their employer is common and not considered "substantial impact". "Fellow" is a term used in many different ways. In Macdonald's case the first Fellow is one of the terms used by Cambridge for their employees, so does not qualify. The second Fellow is just the name of the level of dues paying member of the ICRS, not an honorary award given for major contributions to a field. Macdonald is a promising researcher, and may well qualify according to WP:NPROF in the future, but not now. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the impact of his publications see here. He has only been publishing for a few years. We would need to see over a hundred citations per paper for impact, but he is just starting out so hasn't had time to develop. He does have 14 papers in Google Scholar, but his latest one is linked to another author. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Do not delete:

Fellow in the Cambridge system is not merely a term for employees. Fellows are voted in by the Governing body and are special honours for “distinguished, learned, or skilled individuals in academia, medicine, research, and industry.” There are different types of Fellowship at Cambridge (Visiting Fellow, Research Fellow, Fellow Commoner, Bye-Fellow, etc) – Dr Macdonald holds a full unrestricted permanent Fellowship and as a result is a full voting member of the Governing Body of the University – the highest honour.

Under the criteria for WP:PROF, Academics only need to meet one of 8 conditions.

1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

With regard to condition 1 – Dr Macdonald won the 40 Under 40 Award in the Science category. The award has two rounds of voting – the first is an expert panel, the second is a public vote – the award programme is at the national level and is for the nation’s most influential and accomplished leaders.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

With regard to condition 7 – Dr Macdonald developed and launched a virtual reality public speaking platform to help individuals overcome speech anxiety. He made the platform fully open access, and it is used by people around the world. It is a first-of-its-kind platform – the only to be free and accessible on all platforms and operating systems. Accordingly, it received widespread global media attention - it was covered in over 100 media outlets - including The Times, The Guardian, ITV, BBC, etc, etc. This is outside of a conventional academics remit.

It makes the academic “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not been able to find evidence that Chris Macdonald meets the criteria for GNG or NPROF. As noted by StarryGrandma, most of the publicity appears to be based on a press release from cambridge. Public press about a single VR program is not indicative of academic notability.
  • Responding specifically to arguments above concerning NPROF:
    • 1. AltMetric is not good for determining academic notability as any mention on any site online can improve altmetric. If we're considering notability based on academics, then his work needs to be highly cited by other academics, which it is not.
    • 2. The awards he has won do not appear prestigious on a national or international level, names notwithstanding. Think Nobel prize (international) or something like a Priestly medal (national chemistry award in US). I'm not even sure which 40 under 40 list he was included under because there are so many of these lists today and the specific list is mentioned nowhere in his bios. A public vote for an award is also not good criteria for academic notability.
    • 3. Elected member/fellow of a society. A fellow at a uni is not the same thing. Reading through the types of fellow at Lucy Cavendish College, it sounds like he is just a professor (not the same thing as Cambridge wide fellowships --- each college has their own processes). Nor is being a "fellow" at a non-profit think tank funded by a bunch of corporations in the name of "responsibility"
    • 7. Unlikely over 100 international news outlets covered his virtually reality public speaking VR work independently. This is also definitely WP:TOOSOON as the impact of the work that was released a month ago is not yet known.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Switzer

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

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC; the two news articles relating to his death in a traffic accident aren't enough to demonstrate sustained coverage. Otherwise, it's referenced with primary sources of Switzer's own work. Klbrain (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The primary sources are enough to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC (. Three of them were single-author, invited scientific articles in the most renowned and widely read journals in their subspecialties (Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine for pathology, Circulation for cardiology, and The New England Journal of Medicine for the entire medical field), and had a substantial impact on the way medicine is practiced. Switzer was notable enough to have warranted inclusion even without his obituaries in newspapers, although those were the source of his personal information that was not available in the scientific articles. (Disclosure - I created the article.) Ira Leviton (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is for another person [40], that gets coverage... I don't see much for this Sam, we do have confirmation of his journal papers in Gscholar. I don't see that his work on the after effects in Hiroshima were notable, with only a blip when they were published (I suppose it's not a bad thing that we've never had to study it again), but I'm not showing notability. Appears to have had a low citation index, but it's been a while so studies on radiation after-effects likely don't get used much. I don't see that the awards won add much to notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Staff-written obituary in the New York Times is one of the gold standards of notability, particularly further back in time before we would expect citations of work to be digitized. As @Ira Leviton notes, he's a single-authored writer of a New England Journal of Medicine article, so clearly not getting his obits based just on a traffic accident. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Golshani

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

There's no indication of notability as per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The subject probably passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a legislative body SCCR, but it's good to reach a clearer consensus. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, WP:SK3. What is the point of starting an AfD when the nomination statement itself states that the subject probably passes a notability criterion, WP:NPOL? But for the record I think he also has a good case for WP:PROF #C2 (Templeton prize), #C3 (Academy of Sciences of Iran), and #C5 (distinguished professor), so the nomination claim of "no indication of notability" through academic notability is both a WP:VAGUEWAVE and completely erroneous. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein. As for #C5 I couldn't find any independent sources for the distinction claim. As for #C2 how is "winner of a course program" and a "former judge" notable? As for #C3 it has hundreds of members most of which are not notable. So I don't think it passes WP:PROF as suggested. Xpander (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the point. Why would you nominate a former member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution for deletion when you say yourself that it's enough for NPOL? People who are notable need only be notable for one thing; even if you don't believe he is notable as an academic, notability as a politician is enough. For that matter, he's also likely not notable as an athlete (because we have no record of any athletic accomplishments) nor as a musician (likewise); do you think that should be a valid rationale to delete someone notable as a politician? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @David Eppstein I certainly respect your points. The issue with SCCR is that it is not a de jure legislative body, and if it is, it is not a common one, i.e. as compared to the US, UK etc. where the only legislature is the Congress/Parliament/Assembly. On their website they mention:

      The duties of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution can be divided into three areas: policymaking, regulation development, and supervision[1].

      So it doesn't say lawmaking specifically, although it is mentioned in their by-law, that in case of needing law-changes they can ask the corresponding body to provide the necessary arrangements:

      Article 32 - If the Supreme Council resolution requires a law, regulation, or resources to be implemented, the matter will be sent to the head of the relevant authority or the highest official of the relevant body for legal procedures to be carried out, in order to provide the necessary arrangements.[2]

      So maybe it could be interpreted as an executive body rather than a legislative one? That's why I said probably. Some editors have rejected the notability claim based on membership of this body. So the rationale was to reach as clear a consensus as possible. Xpander (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  2. ^ "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might do to revisit some tacit assumptions, David Eppstein. I found a potted biography preceding the main interview in Richardson & Slack 2005, and whilst it has degrees, awards, and books it has no mention of membership of that organization. The claim to membership was not in this article for the first 10 years of its life, only being added without source nor edit summary in 2017. It's not even made in Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, which merely claims, with zero sourcing, membership of a predecessor organization. Is the whole back-and-forth above based upon assuming as a given a claim that is not actually true? Certainly, even with the assumption, what the status of the SCCR is is irrelevant, as the (unsourced!) claim is that this person was a member of an appointed council of university professors in the Cultural Revolution HQ that preceded the 1984 foundation of the SCCR. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Richardson, Mark; Slack, Gordy, eds. (2005). "Mehdi Golshani: The Ladder To God". Faith in Science: Scientists Search for Truth. Routledge. pp. 121 et seq. ISBN 9781134516568.

Stanley Shaftel

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass GNG. The two obits are paid spots. Onel5969 TT me 13:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Sweis

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

The subject does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC in spite of years of opportunity to do so. It seems kind of a strech for an associate professor to be notable. There are name-drops about who interviewed him, and a list of his publications, but that doesn't confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Definitely needs cleanup to remove the promotional material for his self-developed coaching method and his self-published CreateSpace book. Not notable as an academic, but he passes WP:NAUTHOR as the co-editor of Debating Christian Theism, which has received multiple reviews in independent sources, including International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, The Journal of Theological Studies, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philos, Theological Studies; and co-editor of Christian Apologetics, which has also received multiple independent reviews in the Heythrop Journal and the Southeastern Theological Review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (Lean Keep) -- Definitely in the scope of "Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable" based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, plus one additional high prestige article. This in itself is borderline for WP:PROF -- it seems on the face of it enough for WP:AUTHOR, but these publications are not what that guideline was primarily meant to evaluate. My hunch is what Dclemens1971 was able to find will turn into more and will be a keep, but based on what I quickly found and what's here, I'm neutral. But it's definitely not an easy del. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, not an easy delete. I may withdraw this nomination, seeing how it pans out. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "'Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable' based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, ..." I don't think that follows at all. J.P. Moreland is the "name" author on the Oxford anthology, the other authors don't have to be notable for Oxford to be willing to publish it. Jahaza (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. he's third editor on the Oxford anthology, doesn't have an essay in the book himself, and the introduction is not a substantial piece of scholarship, it's only a page and a half long. The Zondervan anthology is a little better, but absent evidence of widespread adoption of the book as a textbook, I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC. I don't feel that it really meets WP:AUTHOR, he's only a part of the team compiling anthologies, not creating new works in his field. Jahaza (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are three accreditations I got from Dr. Khaldoun Sweis himself. I am positive links can be arranged.
    "Dr. Sweis and I had a chance to work together on a project in Chicago’s South Loop neighborhood. The goal was to engage highly skeptical people in honest intellectual conversations around some of the deepest challenges to the Christian faith. Dr. Sweis spoke on the topic of ‘If there is a God, why is there so much evil.’ The conversation he led was spot on. His style of lecture was both hard hitting and emotionally powerful. He spoke from his heart and that came out in his passion on almost every point. But he also managed to make the highly intellectual and philosophical topics of his discussion accessible to everyone in the room. Beyond his ability to communicate, he was also a blessing to work with from the very beginning. I’m hopeful to work with Dr. Sweis many times in the future."
    -Raef Chenery, South Loop Campus Pastor, Park Community Church
    "Khaldoun Sweis is a solid Christian scholar with integrity and deep commitment to Jesus and His Kingdom. He has taught at a secular college for some time now, and he has remained faithful and learned a lot about how to talk to unbelievers. He is a respected teacher and speaker with passion and enthusiasm for his topic and the care of his audience. I was privileged to co-edit a book with Khaldoun that came out a few years ago with Oxford University Press. I recommend him as a speaker and friend of your ministry.– JP Moreland, Ph.D. JP Moreland Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California Moreland was selected in 2016 by The Best Schools as one of the 50 most influential living philosophers. He has authored, edited, or contributed papers to ninety-five books, including Does God Exist? (Prometheus), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Debating Christian Theism (Oxford.) He has also published close to 90 articles in journals"
    “It has been a privilege to know Khaldoun Sweis over the years. I am pleased to recommend him as a speaker and scholar who communicates with insight, honesty, and clarity about the reasonableness and relevance of the Christian faith in the marketplace of ideas.”
    Paul Copan
    Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics. AudunNilsenOslo (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If these testimonials (which look like book blurbs) are published anywhere, then they can be used. Otherwise it's no better than primary sourcing if Sweis is the only source. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per their talk page[43], @AudunNilsenOslo is an employee of Khaldoun Sweis. --Jahaza (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to your claim about being a third editor, WP:NAUTHOR encompasses book editors: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if...The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). (Emphasis added.) Co-editing two books that have received multiple independent periodical reviews counts toward WP:NAUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971, I don't think that's likely to be the intent of that guideline. Editing an academic compilation is very different from the kind of work people tend to think of when they say "editor". It's not like editing, say, a new edition of Chaucer, or publishing a historical text for the first time, or being "so-and-so's editor". I might consider it for WP:NPROF if the edition was something like a Norton Anthology - but that kind of academic is almost certainly already notable for other things (that's why they're editing the Norton). -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having worked many years ago in academic publishing (unrelated to this person's area of expertise), I would respectfully disagree; co-editors do a lot of work in selecting, editing and preparing anthologies -- but I understand others may not read NAUTHOR the same way I do here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the many notations on this article.

There are so many of them, and ominous ones.

"This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (March 2025)"

I think this may have suited my initial draft a little more than what is there now ?

"This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (March 2025)"

Can you be more specific?

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. (March 2025)"

He has three degrees, is a member of two associations, has held talks all over the world, and has his name on the roster of three books. Not sure exactly what more you can expect? He, clearly, has made contributions in his field, even if they are not in paperback.

"This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (April 2025)"

I redid the publications-list, so I believe this point is now addressed ?

Yours truly Audun H. Nilsen

Bryan Bergeron

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

I can’t find any sources that aren’t connected to the subject. ProtobowlAddict talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. ProtobowlAddict talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? What does the nominator think about the subject's citation record? It appears to contain hundreds of sources that are not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF. I see three articles with over 500 citations, a fourth with 478, and more articles with over 100 citations. That appears to pass the PROF Test. Plus, while Harvard cheats at hockey, the medical school is sort of prestigious. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we confirm that he's actually a Harvard professor? Not all self-described "teaching at Harvard" is prestigious. --Jahaza (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure that info is out of date. Note that most of his books were published between 2001-2003, and we have so far articles from 2007-2019. We won't be able to include his teaching unless we find some actual biographical info. He can meet NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC on the basis of his writings alone, although that isn't satisfying as an article. Lamona (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did find a press release that gives a full bio: "Bryan Bergeron Named Acting Director of Clinical Investigation Graduate Program." Business Wire, 31 July 2007. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A166986885/ITOF?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=89c774e5. Accessed 13 Apr. 2025. It says: The MGH Institute of Health Professions, an academic affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, announces the appointment of Bryan Bergeron, MD, as Acting Director of the Graduate Program in Clinical Investigation. There are various prior positions and what AFAIK some minor awards. So far I haven't found an independent source for this info. Lamona (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has been here since 2005. The article is just one line and one weak source. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ramos1990, that has nothing to do with whether the subject is notable or not. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see at least 2000 reliable sources not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete. It is a bit of a red flag to me how low his ratio of book reviews to books is. I found only two reviews, from many books, and one of the two is in a journal I think may be dubious: [44] [45]. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me and I don't think his citation record is strong enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a list of his books and a few articles. His books get hundreds of cites (905, 690, 620 ...). I did not find bio information (yet) and the one reference that is there from business wire is a press release. I did find an interview. I still think he passes NAUTHOR and possibly NACADEMIC. Lamona (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

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

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a deletion discussion about a person, and yet so far the discussion has not come to a consensus about this person, and has instead determined that a book they wrote - which does not currently have an article - is notable (noting here that the arguments for keeping that have been presented are all about the book, and do not establish notability for the author). The AfD closer cannot be responsible for implementing such a reframing, and it isn't reasonable to move what is patently a biography to a title about a book without reframing. As such, this currently looks like a "delete" outcome - I'm relisting for one more week in the hope that someone will do something to avoid such a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote was not considering notability from the perspective of WP:NBOOK but if anything WP:AUTHOR, the BLPs consensus is leaning if anything towards a Keep if I were to look at it again. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I said in my !vote, the book reviews are enough to establish notability under WP:NBOOK or under WP:NAUTHOR (specifically criteria 3, which says that an individual who created a significant and notable work can themselves be considered notable). With authors who have written a single notable book, it's obviously a common outcome to prefer having an article about the book rather than about the author, since having both is typically redundant. But the sources that establish WP:NBOOK notability here also establish WP:NAUTHOR notability, and as the nominator here said themselves, there is value to retaining the article history. So I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep this article on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR, and a discussion can be had outside of AfD about whether or not to reframe it to be about the book. MCE89 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators&oldid=1286042102"