Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

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

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators

Mark Katakowski

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

I am the subject of this article. I consider myself a non-notable, private person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markkata (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Science, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Popescu (author)

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

Seems like a pretty random guy, with no in-depth coverage, just some self-generated, promotional profiles. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not a vote (yet) but I don't think the article title is sufficient to differentiate this Andrei Popescu from possibly 1-2 other academics with the same name. I am having a hard time finding information about the crypto Popescu compared to the mathematician Popescu. Moritoriko (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Fasenfest

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

Not noteworthy enough to be in an encyclopedia Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF 1c as the honoree of a festschrift, Interrogating the Future: Essays in Honour of David Fasenfest (Studies in Critical Social Sciences) ISBN 978-9004541788. Jahaza (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to 1c again it is a very low-impact journal (in Q4) so one can argue it would not count. Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The festschrift is a book and not a journal (published in hardcover and e-book by Brill and in paperback by Haymarket), so I don't understand what you mean by "it is a very low-impact journal". Jahaza (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also Fasenfest himself is the series editor Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained what you mean\ by calling it a journal. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF 1c. I also note the concern expressed by User:Liz on the nominat'rs talk page. They are still far too new at less than 100 edits to be creating AfDs. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Four reasons:

Looks like a low-citation area, so an h-factor of 20 is fair, #C1.
Editor of a decent journal, #C8
The festschrift, which should be added
Lack of experience and no strong reasoning by nominator.

Combined this lean me to keep; one or more alone would not be enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about the festschrift being a conflict of interest since he himself is the publisher Historyexpert2 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the publisher (which is Brill Publishers and Haymarket Books), he's the series editor. (He's also not the volume editor, which is two other folks.) I agree that this is something of a conflict, but a whole bunch of other folks thought that a festschrift was worthwhile as authors, editors, and publishers. Regardless, @Ldm1954 provides other good reasons to keep. Jahaza (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Gainza

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC: low h-index, few or no significant reviews of her work, and no major awards or recognitions. Also doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a ministerial undersecretary lacking significant independent coverage Mooonswimmer 13:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. NAUTHOR pass has been confirmed by LEvalyn, no need to drag this on. Mooonswimmer 14:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Chile. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the h factor is low, she is an important scholar in the electronic literature field. Please retain for electronic literature LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that she is notable as a pioneering female figure in recent Chilean politics and has spearheaded movements for universities, as added in the political citations. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gainza is notable in the field of electronic literature, and as noted in WP:ACADEMIC h-indexes tend to be lower in the humanities than in experimental sciences. Gainza has been described as "one of the most important pioneers of Luso-Hispanic Digital Cultural Studies" in the book Language, Image and Power in Luso-Hispanic Cultural Studies. Lijil (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This woman is eminent in multiple fields. I completely concur with Liljil. Gainza's h-index is of little concern. I would delete half of Wikipedia before I would consider deleting this article. Sincerely, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ With so many books and other works published, I'd check for WP:NAUTHOR. If she has 2-3 books which each have 2 reviews (thus passing NBOOK), that's a pass of NAUTHOR. (It can function as a sort of counterbalance to the low h-index in the humanities, that almost any really established prof in a humanities field will pass NAUTHOR for their books.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, now that I've taken a look, I found two books each with two reviews (added to the article). She has a third book too but I didn't look into it (almost certainly a third NBOOK pass). I don't see any slam-dunk NPROF evidence, but I'm satisfied that this is an NAUTHOR pass. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Carolina Gainza is an important figure in Latin American electronic literature and it is vital that the English Wikipedia showcase these international literary figures

Criterion C1 itself only asks for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" and this should not be related solely to h-index counts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samya Brata Roy (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did not see an immediate NACADEMIC or NPOL pass when I checked this page during New Page Review, but LEvalyn has confirmed an WP:NAUTHOR pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NAUTHOR pass. For transparency: as "one of the most important pioneers of Luso-Hispanic Digital Cultural Studies", the subject is of interest to WP:WPWW. Sincerely, WPWW founder, --Rosiestep (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Arora

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. I have had some concerns over notability and verifiability, as well as commissioned editing; I've discussed these with the creator at User talk:Woodandoil#Jason Arora. There are some impressive prizes, but the question is whether these are more 'early career' initiatives insufficient to support notability. Research output is low for career stage for a "public health scientist". The article is filled with puffery; for example, " worked as a National Health Service (NHS) physician", translates to mere mortals as 'worked as a junior hospital doctor'. This makes it very difficult to trust any claims being made. WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is consistent with numerous other accepted and regularly visited articles on Wikipedia, and page creator has made numerous attempts to improve the page in line with feedback from Klbrain. There is plenty of evidence to support notability, including national and international awards, high-profile entrepreneurial activities, media work, and more, with notable 3rd party independent sources referenced numerous times. I do not believe this warrants the page for deletion - these independent sources are available to be checked at any time. Woodandoil (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough proper sources to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. wp:Too soon for this early career candidate. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - the awards, grants, and fellowships are what are considered expected for a scholar, but not above average. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Fried

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

All primary sources and routine coverage of cases Joseph Fried was involved in, but nothing to show that he meets GNG. Googling didn't turn up anything. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes no claim to notability which would satisfy either WP:BLP or WP:NPROF. I have also done some searches and see nothing which would change that but will reconsider if further sources are found. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He appears to have quite a following among lawyers, but the article as currently written is a mess. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly seems to be active in a lot of committees, and has published a bit, but I see no evidence he's getting published recognition. The article cites to things that quote him and then a bunch of primacy sources. I can't assess the law.com article as it's paywalled, but even if it is substantive and not just puff/interview, that's only one source. His book, Understanding Motor Carrier Claims is apparently self-published, has no WorldCat entries, and based on a Google Scholar search has one citation. Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not find any independent and significant sources. The ones in the article that are not primary are his "blurb" in membership organizations, undoubtedly written by him or his company, and two sources specifically about legal cases, but they are about the cases, not about him. Lamona (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Loui

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

Delete: Ronald Loui is not a notable person - he is an adjunct professor at my school (CWRU) and he created this page about himself so that he can show it to students/professors/networking targets in order to appear more notable. It is written in a very self-promotional style and various aspects (boastful tone, links to personal websites including his personal LinkedIn page) are not suitable for an informational article on Wikipedia. Fwaff (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The career doesn't seem to meet NPROF. Supplying biographical info for a book isn't terribly notable. I don't see notability for this perosn Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. The nomination fails to address the reason this was deprodded in March 2024, and fails to address the appropriate notability criterion for this topic, WP:PROF. I think his citation record [1] is good enough for WP:PROF#C1. Being an adjunct professor does not mean being non-notable through PROF; it merely means the subject is doing it the hard way, making his citation record that much more admirable. (In particular "the career", as discussed in the comment above, is completely irrelevant for this notability criterion.) As for the promotional edits and content, see WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively, his publications are not "extremely highly cited" nor has he a "substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" as per WP:PROF#C1. Fwaff (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively, he has 10 papers with over 100 citations listed each, and one of his papers appears to be the second-most-cited about defeasible reasoning. Subjectively, my opinion differs from yours in that I think that's pretty high. One has to consider these things relative to the citation rates of the topics he has worked in, and argumentation theory is not exactly a heavily cited topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You bring good points. Please excuse my incorrect usage of "objectively" Fwaff (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Keep per David Eppstein, several papers with a few hundred citations in scholar is an easy WP:PROF. Speedy keep per WP:FRUIT as the nominator has declared a WP:COI in the nomination itself, because they admitted that they know the subject of the article personally, and so should not have made the nomination. Psychastes (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per David Eppstein. While it's rare that we don't keep non-tenured professors, it's not unheard of, and his citation count seems to get him to pass the PROF Test. If kept, I would be very rough on cutting out unsourced material. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criterion 1 of NPROF. Article needs improvement but that’s no reason to delete it. Qflib (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Wightman

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

A decent author and professor that wrote some interesting short stories that by and large seems to have escaped notability to live a quiet life. Nothing in the article claims notability and other than his name being included in a couple lists of science fiction authors I can't find any independent information about him. (But give some of his short stories on TWL a read maybe) Moritoriko (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Moritoriko (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science fiction and fantasy, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It would be great if here at Wikipedia we could keep up the level of coverage found in the secondary sources as described in the nomination and the sources in the article. I expect that there is not enough for stand-alone notability, so a merge as WP:Alternative to deletion would be best. The main question is where. List of science fiction writers unfortunately does not offer itself to merge in accordance with the suggestion of WP:ATD-M, so I guess Tachyon Publications, where Wightman is already mention, would be best. Open to other suggestions. Daranios (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What information from this article would you merge? The fact that he wrote for Thirteenth Moon and the name of his (only?) book are already on the Tachyon page. His name is on the Future on Fire page (but unlinked interestingly). That leaves his education and employment at a community college which I don't believe belong on a different page. Moritoriko (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, thinking about it, content-wise I would like it best to WP:PRESERVE everything except the sentence about his degrees, maybe shortening the occupation. That's the problem with the deletion request. That kind of information would be worthwhile for the encyclopedia, but without a separate article I don't know if it fits into any existing target. Additionally, Wightman contributing in Amazing Stories should be added based on The History of the Science-fiction Magazine Volume 3, p. xix, and his year of birth based on isfdb. Daranios (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has a decent portfolio of SF publications but without much evidence of attention to them, of a type that might lead to WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability, and obviously his community-college teaching position is not going to pass WP:PROF. I found one short review of one short story, and three long-list nominations for a minor award. That's not enough. Wikipedia is not the Internet Speculative Fiction Database nor should we aim to include everything that can be found there. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nial J. Wheate

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

It doesn't appear to be Relevant, possibly an advertisement. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a light general consensus to delete? No objections? Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 03:5

? Could the nominator comment if they think that the citation record contributes to notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Doesnt seem to be. Most references are either basically his University profile or a copy of that. Also some of the papers he published. Only notable thing is a SMH article about Magnetically directed drugs that mentions him. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: h-index of 42; is fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute sufficient for WP:NPROF#3? Curbon7 (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently 10% of its members are fellows. Meaning 418 people, I dont think it counts as "highly selective". Unless all 418 members should have pages made Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds more like a regulatory body, if they handle CChem designations. You basically need this to exercise your trade, much like a medical license. That's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing he is notable for is the magnetically directed drugs reference, which doesn’t have its own page Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is the professional body aspect, but I was focusing on the learned society side, as the institute article states Election to Fellow of the institute ("FRACI") is dependent on a position of eminence, services rendered, academic honours, experience and status, creative achievement, responsibility and contribution to chemical science, and recommendation by the RACI Assessment Committee, which is more towards what we generally consider for that criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, maybe, but still 10% of members are fellows meaning approx 418 people. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. To me his citations at 42 are on the margins. He does have in his GScholar profile 3 papers with > 1K cites. However, beyond this he does not seem to have major peer recognition; as mentioned above the fellow is not that major. If he had a truly significant award that would tip my vote to weak keep. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a pass at PROF. The rest is rather typical for someone in his position. Being a member of the Society is not notable, for me anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree that the citation record looks borderline for NPROF#C1 and that the RACI Fellowship is borderline for NPROF#C3. The RACI fellowship does have a lot of the characteristics that would suggest it might satisfy C3 (elected fellowship, requires nomination from two existing fellows, reserved for people in a position of "eminence" within the profession). But the number of fellows does seem to be on the high side, and looking through their recent fellows I don't think it quite meets the standard of being a highly selective honour. MCE89 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolanle Arokoyo

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

Non-notable Nigerian academic. Page seems very likely created by paid account (note image of subject is claimed to be "own work" of author, so at minimum there is an undeclared WP:COI. No evidence that subject meets WP:NPROF or WP:AUTHOR. At best subject is WP:ROTM lecturer. Cabrils (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable scholar, non notable professor, fails WP:PROF, fails WP:ANYBIO, fails WP:SIGCOV, no valid independent secondary source, majority are source from the education institution that only verifies she’s a staff/professor. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 02:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She was promoted to full professor in 2023, though I note that detail was not listed in the article as it existed when nominated. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DaffodilOcean, I still stand my ground on my delete vote, she might be a professor but she isn’t notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, still

fails WP:ANYBIO, she doesn’t have independent reliable secondary sources, it’s not just passing mentions, most coverage here aren’t independent of the subject, secondly I support the reason why the nominator nominated this article, maybe in few years she would be qualified. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 17:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Language, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Academic citations and H-index level are too low.Goodboyjj (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She is a full professor at the University of Ilorin, the first female to attain the position of professor of linguistics. I have added coverage of her work in English-language sources (Discover Magazine, ref 7 is the best source; Radio Nigeria is another). Given our ability to search out sources in Nigeria, and what has been found, I am inclined to keep this. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lyal S. Sunga

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

I don't know that this person is notable. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one article is not primary. He also doesn't have too many academic citations in Google Scholar.Goodboyjj (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Débarre

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:NPROF. While she is quoted in a BBC article, the mention is brief and does not constitute significant coverage per WP:N. The NZZ article offers more sigificant coverage, but still falls short of the in-depth, sustained coverage required to establish independent notability. The bronze medal from CNRS hardly makes her notable either. BoldPlatypus (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination. She may become notable, but she's not there yet. The list of selected publications has just one entry, a paper in which she's just one of 23 authors! Not very impressive. Being a director of research at the CNRS is not wildly impressive either (I was one myself before I retired): there are lots of other directors of research. Athel cb (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is the senior author on the Cell paper, so she led the team of 23 authors. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep via WP:NPROF #1 given her role in downloading and analyzing the Wuhan Covid data while it was still online and the coverage it's received in multiple independent reliable sources. The Guardian actually has significant coverage of her (unusual for an academic) [2]. She also has a respectable publication record with seven first author papers with 50 or more citations. Not sure if the CNRS Bronze Medal is enough for #2. Nnev66 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt yet pass WP:NPROF#1 since it is probably WP:TOOSOON. Her h-index of 25 (22 on Scopus) is on the low side in a high citation field. Similarly, I dont see a pass of WP:GNG as the Guardian article isnt really in depth about her but about her research and a lot of it is quotes and thus likely primary source. --hroest 00:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the h-index is not a great way to evaluate NPROF #1. One can be a middle author, one of many, and still have a high h-index. A better gauge is if the academic has first author and/or corresponding author status (often last author position). The question is whether this subject's body of work to date meets the threshold of having a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, which is what I'm arguing here based on the coverage it's received as well as the number of citations - I think more time elapsing will make things clearer. Has the subject crossed this threshold yet?... Nnev66 (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree that the h index doesnt capture the full component of NPROF#1 but it can be an indicator. I looked at her publications as well, she has a single publication with 100+ citations as a last author and one such highly cited publication as a first author. Again this is in a relatively high citation field of genetics. In general that is what can be expected of an "average professor" at a Western research institution at her career stage, so this is another indication that she doesnt pass the "average professor" test. She is doing well in her career, but about as well as one would expect an average professor to do. I do agree that there could be an argument that she passes GNG due to her media presence but most articles do not have SIGCOV of herself as subject but cover the subject of the origin of COVID which is indeed a notable subject for an article. However it is unclear if she passes GNG, I would argue not since I dont see WP:THREE high quality sources but it is fair to argue otherwise. --hroest 02:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep- H-index level over 25 and over 2000 academic citations are good. Passes WP:NACADEMIC.Goodboyjj (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is a credible argument that she meets WP:NPROF criteria #7 ('substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity'). She has been widely cited in the news over the last several years for her work examining sources of the COVID-19 virus. Her work has been discussed in major media outlets, in multiple countries. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for certain her publication record is low for her field if you look at others in her area of expertise according to GS. It appears that there has been some misreading of #C1 in some of the comments above; an h-factor of ~20 is assistant-associate professor level, well below the standard in WP:NPROF. 2000 citations is a good start, but also low for notability; 8-10K is more the standard for her moderately high-citation field. While she does have a bit more coverage, I do not feel it goes far enough or is WP:SUSTAINED. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of her work on the COVID-19 virus spans two years, starting with her initial discovery in 2023. I think this is sustained. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Débarre is an important scientist publishing in relation to the origins of COVID, and she is a prominent public figure addressing the COVID-19 lab leak theory. See BBC, NY Times, and The Guardian. There may be additional non-English sources, given her French origin, like this one that notes her prominence. ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francis J. Castellino

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

References fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Medicine. UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page clearly is worded almost like a advertisement/promotional page, and Wikipedia is not for that. Deleting until further sources are found might be the best option, and we should tell the page creator(@Stjiafle) to word it from a WP:NPOV and put some more info, like DOB, DOD, images and other things. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:CD97:DAED:E1E6:3705 (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NPROF. Scopus h-index of 68 is a pass of WP:NPROF#C1, position as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is a pass of WP:NPROF#C3, named professorship at Notre Dame is a pass of WP:NPROF#C5, and position as former editor-in-chief of Current Drug Targets is probably a pass of WP:NPROF#C8. MCE89 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Jahaza (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have some sympathy with the nomination, and with the rejection of the submission by another editor in March, but on balance I think this article is acceptable (though capable of improvement). The subject's publication record is respectable. Athel cb (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've tidied up the article a bit. Clearly notable under NPROFG as per MCE86; article may need further work.Qflib (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I echo what the KEEP voters above have said. Subject is notable.Goodboyjj (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep joining the chorus, a very clear pass of WP:NPROF#C1. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the users above, clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James P Mahon

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, Sports, Ireland, Romania, England, Scotland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some about himself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tricky one to try and assess. Ultimately I think notability is not there. There is some coverage but is it significant? I think not. Looking at the academic side, I don't think the research and published works are there yet. The awards are non-notable really and as for the references, most are published own works. It almost feels kind of WP:Auto even if it isn't. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael E. Cuomo

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

Associate professor who doesn't meet WP:NPROF. His work has been covered in news outlets, but these seem to be passing churnalism, likely driven by his institution's public relations team. The book seems to be self-published by an out-of-business published (Booktango). Scopus shows H-index of 17, which is modest for the field and correct for career stage. Overall, WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is well known in the field of addiction and cancer. Even just a couple days ago, MSN published the following article:

Raphael Cuomo Is Changing How the World Understands Cancer

A couple months before that, one of his articles published in the Annals of Epidemiology generated a firestorm of media attention:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14659567/habit-millions-daily-colon-cancer-death-rate-study.html

https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/health/colon-cancer-patients-are-24-times-more-likely-to-die-within-5-years-if-they-had-this-habit-before-their-diagnosis/

https://www.deseret.com/lifestyle/2025/04/29/cannabis-use-history-deadly-colon-cancer-patients-die-new-study/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/heavy-cannabis-linked-worse-colon-180248380.html

On social media as well:

r/science High Cannabis Use Linked to Increased Mortality in Colon Cancer Patients

r/worldnews https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1ka03fz/high_cannabis_use_linked_to_increased_mortality/

He's also been cited as a "leading expert" and "top doctor" in a number of outlets. Here are examples:

Professor says 'up to 50% of cancer cases' could be prevented by erasing one factor

Top doctor says that one lifestyle choice could prevent 'up to 50% of cancer cases'

This is just recent stuff. There are plenty of examples before that as well. Also, per his IMDB page, he's frequently recorded on TV interviews, symposia, podcasts, etc. Overall notable enough to meet WP:NPROF per criterion 7. wikicreativity (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Creativitywiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Request to Improve Article

Keep: Subject meets notability through significant academic and media coverage in cancer epidemiology. Request time for article improvements. Lasetunde (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Lasetunde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Request to Improve Article

~~Keep~~: Subject meets notability through significant academic and media coverage in cancer epidemiology. Request time for article improvements. Lasetunde (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Lasetunde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete. The highly cited papers I see are also highly coauthored, and I am not convinced by WP:NPROF impact. The Royal Society for Public Health fellowship [3] does not appear to be the kind of fellowship considered in WP:NPROF C3. The coverage discussed in the above !vote is mostly in tabloid sources (see e.g. WP:RSP), other sources tend not to significantly mention the subject here, and I don't think WP:BASIC is met. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with Russ, the subject is not yet established enough to pass WP:NPROF#1, seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Having one study mentioned in the Daily Mail and such isn't the same as having biographical sourcing available. Also worth noting that this article has been a target of paid editors, so expect the socks to come out of the woodwork on this one. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_217#Raphael_E._Cuomo The part where they accidentally replied from the incorrect sock puppet account is especially enlightening. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a well-known researcher. Per WP:NPROF (C7), he is "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." There are several examples of this (some already discussed here), but here are a couple additional ones where he was interviewed by popular media sources on the topic of early-onset cancer:

Sacramento Bee: https://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/living/wellness/article301115259.html

Miami Herald: https://www.miamiherald.com/living/wellness/article301115259.html

Here is some further coverage where he is quoted on a study he authored on UVB and colon cancer:

SciTech: https://scitechdaily.com/lower-exposure-to-uvb-light-from-the-sun-may-increase-colorectal-cancer-risk/

New Telegraph: https://newtelegraphng.com/study-links-lack-of-sunlight-vitamin-d-to-colon-cancer-risk/

There are many others. CNET, Women's Health, etc. Some are listed on his current page and others are not yet added, so perhaps this needs an update but certainly meets the WP:NPROF standard to keep. Willkgauss (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Willkgauss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Hello, this is Raphael. Please do delete this page. I never wanted a page on this website as I have other sites, like my faculty site and personal webpage, which exist for anyone who wants to learn about my work. However I'm honored that someone wanted to put up this page and I appreciate all the supportive comments here and elsewhere on this website. Rapha1023~enwikibooks (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is absolutely nothing conclusive to indicate that the account Rapha1023~enwikibooks belongs to the subject. Bear in mind that this subject publishes research on things like cannabis and cancer, and also nutrition and cancer, both of which draw a lot of attention and cause controversy. To illustrate, see the massviews analysis below where this page is the most highly-viewed in the category for cancer epidemiologists on Wikipedia. Anyone can create an account and claim to be someone on here, or any other site, in an attempt to influence the removal of a page of someone publishing research that they don't like. The page should be assessed on its merits where it clearly meets C7 of WP:NPROF.

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=category&range=latest-20&subjectpage=0&subcategories=0&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cancer%20epidemiologists wikicreativity (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikibooks account is 19 years old. That's a long time to lie in wait to disrupt an AFD. I think it is rather more likely that this person is who they say they are. And again, see the COIN section linked above. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-cited enough that I might consider keeping per WP:PROF#C1, but still borderline-enough as a case that I think we should respect WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, taking the comment above this one per WP:AGF as legitimately from the subject despite this not having been verified. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I cleaned up the absolute worst of the deprecated sourcing, and underneath is a very marginal case, for which I'm leaning towards deleting. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned by others above, the citations are for multiple author papers, and even without that 24 and 250 cites/paper are not big numbers for an h-factor. In addition, the awards do not look to be senior enough, and there is far too much WP:MILL here. While he has made a good start, he needs to become better established with recognition from his peers (as against churnalism). Note: we do seem to have a couple of drive by WP:SPA participating here, whose opinions seem contrary to the norms of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johny Joseph (news anchor)

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

Searched in Archive.org, the dLOC, ProQuest, Newspapers.com, and many Haitian newspapers, but only returned these three sources:

"Décès de Johny Joseph, ancien présentateur de la TNH". Haitian Press Network (in French). June 27, 2009. Archived from the original on July 1, 2009. Retrieved May 26, 2025.
"Décès du professeur Johnny Joseph". Le Nouvelliste (in French). June 29, 2009.
Cadet, Pierre Josué Agénor [in French] (July 10, 2009). "Pour dire adieu au professeur Johnny Joseph". Le Nouvelliste (in French).

All are after his death, two are by Le Nouvelliste, and the last is a by a colleague and friend of his. To me, this falls short of WP:GNG. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haiti, News media, Journalism, and Academics and educators. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gainer

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

Local activist in Buffalo, New York. The creator of the page appears to be Michael Gainer or someone close to him, judging by the fact that all of their edits are on Gainer's page or related pages and that they uploaded this photo of him and tagged it as their own work. I don't see the argument for notability here. He doesn't seem to have gotten any in-depth news coverage of him as a person, even within Buffalo. There does seem to be a lot of coverage of the group he founded, Buffalo ReUse, so maybe that group could have a page, but not Gainer himself. Many of the articles about ReUse don't even mention Gainer. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not affiliated with Gainer other than creating the article. Photograph is from my archive. I took care to make sure the article is well-sourced, so I'm not sure why you would question his notability. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Environment, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, please be aware that Democratic supporters tried to get the page for India Walton deleted as non-notable multiple times during the leadup to the 2021 Buffalo mayoral election, as she was the only progressive in the race. I feel Democratic supporters for Gainer's opponents might be trying to do the same here, as he is a viable candidate for the 2025 Buffalo mayoral election. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is this why you accused me of having a conflict of interest with zero evidence? LOL. Not everything is a big conspiracy, sometimes a person just isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Do you have any evidence that "Democratic supporters" were trying to remove India Walton's page or is that just another conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not engaging in good-faith, so I won't address you further. You can read the AFD logs for yourself. I've been here a lot longer than you, and unlike yourself I edit a broad range of topics.TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously accusing BottleOfChocolateMilk of bad faith after you more or less accused them of being part of a conspiracy to? If you have no proof then that's like ANI-worthy levels of bad faith. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This comment comes from someone who is clearly referring to a separate matter where BottleOfChocolateMilk is being investigated for conflict of interest editing. He posted a link to this AFD page last night to initiate vote brigading. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither DNC representative nor mayoral candidate passes WP:NPOL. Heavily refbombed making it difficult to determine whether any sources are sufficiently independent and in-depth to pass WP:GNG. The sources in the version I examined appear to be from non-independent publishers (1, 4, 8), non-in-depth campaign-related (2-3, 10, 36-44, 46-47), reliable news stories about other topics that mention Gainer but have no depth of coverage about him (5-7, 14, 31-33, 48-50, 52), interviews (non-independent in content despite publisher; 9, 15), not reliable (35, 45) or background material not about Gainer at all (16,51). Many of the sources are more about Buffalo ReUse than Gainer (11-13, 17-30, 34) and might support notability for Buffalo ReUse, in which case we could redirect to an article on it rather than outright deletion, but I don't think those sources have enough depth of coverage on Gainer himself to support an independent article. If the article creator is trying to promote mayoral candidates with a certain agenda, they should not be surprised when their articles are brought up for deletion, not because we are biased towards or against that agenda, but because Wikipedia has safeguards against promotionalism in general and NPOL is one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Environmental historian Charles Lockwood identified and interviewed the top 25 global environmentalists for his 2009 book The Green Quotient: Insights from Leading Experts on Sustainability^[1]. He dedicated a chapter to interviewing Michael Gainer, and these are the other subjects he interviewed: Thomas L. Friedman, Ché Wall, William D. Browning, Christopher B. Leinberger, James Howard Kunstler, William McDonough, Björn Stigson, Jaime Lerner, Hank Dittmar, Elizabeth Economy, Rick Fedrizzi, Paul Hawken, Vivian Loftness, David Gottfried, Julian Darley, Robert S. Davis, Maria Atkinson, Ron Sims, Frances Beinecke, Mindy Lubber, Van Jones, Earl Blumenauer, and Cesar Ulises Trevino. Darley and Lubber pass WP:GNG, but Gainer does not? TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC) TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the sources I already considered, and classified as "more about Buffalo ReUse than Gainer". But per your comments here we can also classify it under "interviews (non-independent in content despite publisher)". Either way it does not contribute towards the sort of significant independent coverage of Gainer himself needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To piggyback off David Eppstein's reply there's the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS policy answer, but the assertion made Gainer is one of the "top 25 environmentalists" would imply that Charles Lockwood was somehow a supreme authority overall via a book that fails N:BOOK. That's even more troubling when you take into account that 80% of the "top environmentalists of the world" are from the US and only 2 (Stigson and Trevino) of the 25 appear to have been operating from non-English speaking countries. I would also love to know how many of Lockwood's "top 25" were clients of his consulting business but a simple search hasn't been able to unearth anything. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lockwood, Charles (2009). "The Green Quotient: Insights from Leading Experts on Sustainability". Internet Archive. pp. 171–178. ISBN 9780874201215. Retrieved May 23, 2025.

Delete Per David Eppstein's reasoning, although "DNC representative" is generous to take it lightly. He was elected as a member of his county's democratic committee by receiving a whopping 36 total votes in a party-specific election for one of at least 11 committee seats in his district. In general, mayoral candidates and especially primary candidates are considered non-notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vote should be disregarded, as GPL93 admittedly came here from the COI Noticeboard where BottleOfChocolateMilk linked to this AFD[4] for purposes of vote brigading. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is just sad BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheNewMinistry I had no knowledge of the WP:COIN case against BottleOfChocolateMilk at the time of my comment and vote. Can you show me the specific proof? I actually found this AfD through a check of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania. This is another personal attack BTW. Of course, if you think this is a true case of brigading you are obviously more than welcome to report me to ANI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Proof? Sure, we have lots of that here:

GPL93 - Top Edits

You haven't made an edit off the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania page since September 17, 2024. Nice try. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheNewMinistry Holy Shit you're right! It's almost like I instead commented and voted on the previously listed actual AfD pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md Amiruzzaman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Young Democrats in the past month or so alone and it's not because I haven't started an AfD that needed to be categorized under Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania since then instead. It looks like the Admins have told you that ANI is where you need to file against BottleOfChocolateMilk at WP:ANI anyway, you can report me as well if you feel the need to. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment I have p-blocked TheNewMinistry from here and the article and warned them against disruption or the block would be broader. Star Mississippi 01:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Somaiya

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

Not a notable manager and CEO. I don't see the sources to pass WP:Anybio. Cinder painter (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources. Darkm777 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can identify only one reference for consideration [5]. If you own any other substantial coverage, please provide it; I may be inclined to support a Keep. B-Factor (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable profile, Most of the coverage is non-reliable.Almandavi (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like there's stuff out there if you search with google.co.in instead of google.com.^[6][7] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: He heads not only a business but also an eighty year old charitable organisation running several educational, healthcare organisations which are doing good work for the benefit of society and underprevilaged. Further, references give from Times of India, Economic Times, ThePrint, ANI, BusinessWorld and Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers are quite reliable. KhrushchevN (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to AfD guidelines, votes should be made by choosing one of these options, "Keep," "Delete," "Merge," "Redirect," or another relevant choice. Please avoid saying "Do not delete", Instead, use "Keep" to support keeping the article. Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks KhrushchevN (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete:~~ I have furtrher developed the article with additional reliable references. KhrushchevN (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree with B-Factor and A. B.. There seems to be more information and sources available. . I believe the article can be improved. Let me try working on it to improve the article.--Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have worked on improving the entire article by adding more relevant details and credible citations, have made sure it aligns well with WP's policies. The subject meets WP:ACADEMIC as he is the Chancellor of Somaiya Vidyavihar University and head of multiple educational institutions, which satisfies the guideline that states, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." He also qualifies under WP:ANYBIO for receiving the Order of the Star of Italy, a major international honour. So, keep. --Vikram S Pasari (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate recent revisions to article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Bocklandt

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

The article lacks sustained, notable coverage of the subject via third-party sources. The majority of sources on this page are research papers partially authored by Bocklandt. The TIME article does not mention Bocklandt at all. The subject's work on the "gay gene" is detailed in the Biology and sexual orientation article. Various aspects of their work could be detailed in their respective subjects, but Bocklandt himself doesn't appear to be notable. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Science. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over 30 references (out of 46) were added to the article, where the subject did not partially author the source. Several links to interviews in magazines, newspapers, radio and TV were included, where the subject's work was the main topic of discussion, which implies notability. Eurenansantos (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:REFBOMB was not the way to go about this, considering 17 of the total references are only used to state that Bocklandt has appeared in media. The sources are not used to support any other claim on the page. The articles that speak to Bocklandt's research would be great applied to the Wikipedia articles about the subject rather than Bocklandt himself, especially considering he typically worked within a team of researchers. There are multiple 45+ minute long pieces of media with no timestamp, multiple primary sources linking to companies that Bocklandt is affiliated with, and some paywalled links that I do not have access to. There are also many blogs linked within here as well.

It still appears that a majority of the press here mentions Bocklandt in passing, where the focus is on the research itself. A Dutch editor may be able to speak to the availability of higher quality sources (unrelated to interviews) in that language, but from what I can see, the reliable sources in English on this page only mention Bocklandt in passing in relation to his work - particularly about the Sexual orientation studies - (The Boston Globe, The Guardian), or not at all (Time, The Conversation).

Also, if you intend to vote "keep" for this article, please format your comment appropriately. If this was meant purely as a comment to persuade others, disregard that sentence. 30Four (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Noble (computer scientist)

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

Self-published article; notability not established Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The award might be notable, but there is nothing to be found in Gbooks, scholar or Jstor. Gnews also has nothing. The article is unsourced, so could be a hoax? There is nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b can you have a look at his https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners GS profile] for re-evaluation, he seems clearly notable in my book. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a ton more sourcing than that, we still need sources that talk about the person Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b no we dont, this is a WP:NPROF evaluation. --hroest 19:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One source showing he won a prize still isn't enough sourcing, it indicates a pass at notability. I'm trying to avoid permastub articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on.

Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Sources, plural, indicating at least two. I still don't see those. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need independent sources for his h-index and the award. These are provided by Google Scholar, Scopus and the organization that provides the award (independent from the subject). This is exactly how the guidelines are supposed to work. To clarify: the subject cannot just upload a CV to his institution and claim to be a highly respected and highly cited professor. However, if independent sources confirm that he got an award and is highly cited, then this criteria is fulfilled. --hroest 01:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is clearly not a hoax which some WP:BEFORE shows. The GS profile shows an respectable h index of 57 which is way above our usual threshold and more than 20 papers with 100+ citations, thus satisfying WP:NPROF#1. Plus he also won the Dahl-Nygaard Prize contributing to WP:NPROF#2 - overall I see a profile that is substantially stronger than most other AfD candidates that end up being kept and I cannot follow the arguments for deletion here. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your GS profile link goes elsewhere; I think you want this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am surpsised by the discussion about deletion.

James Noble is an influential, widely known and recognized member of the Programming Languages research community. Here some further indications, on top of the Dahl-Nygaard Prize:

He hasreceived the "2008 OOPLSA Test of Time Award" for his 1998 paper. see here: https://sigplan.org/Awards/OOPSLA/. OOPSLA is a most prestigious conference run under ACM Sigplan.

And he has been PC Chair for the ECOOP 2012 conference. Its proceedings are published by Springer, cf https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-31057-7.

---

Full disclosure: I am Sophia Drossopoulou, and I have often collaborated with James. 209.35.70.71 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This person does not attain notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). His racist (see 2022 deletion) views in themselves are not relevant but they illustrate the use he is making of this article for promotion of political views. This is confirmed by his edit today at Waitangi Tribunal, where his edit cannot be attributed to ignorance or a good faith error, due to his background in academia. The one secondary source provided is of low quality and focuses on only one event, in 2016. Even if accepted as a genuine RSS, because it is only one event, he is not deemed notable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC) (this is a duplicate vote for reasons stated below this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger, your nomination is taken as a delete !vote. You can't also !vote in the discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy Protect PROMO RACIST per nom. BLP1E. POV

why this is still here? - this article is well below multiple criteria for speedy deletion (G10, G11, A6, A7) as well as notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT).

In particular, the only reference cited by the wikipedia page has no actual information on the subject! That should be more than enough to get rid of this (as if the rest of it wasn't enough). Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are James Noble (the connection between username is obvious) you can request self-deletion of your article per WP:BLPREQUEST, I'd look into that if you don't want an article (Assuming you are James Noble). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning a prize is not enough to make a whole article. As it stands it's barely enough for a stub. What notable contributions to computer science has he made? What has he published? I realize that Google Scholar could probably shed light on these questions, but it's the author's job to study these. Athel cb (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy... Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost the entire discussion above is predicated on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, when he should be evaluated against WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG and does not require independent sourcing. The nomination statement is worse, as says nothing about WP:BEFORE evaluation against notability criteria beyond the merest WP:VAGUEWAVE. His citation record passes WP:PROF#C1. "Founding Editor-In-Chief of the journal Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming" (removed as part of large-scale gutting of the article by the deletion nominator) passes WP:PROF#C8. Fellow of the Institute of IT Professionals of New Zealand and the British Computer Society could well pass WP:PROF#C3 depending how selective they are. Full professorship in the UK system operating at NZ universities is somewhat more selective than at US universities and may be a step towards #C5, although I think not a full step in that direction. The award is a pass of WP:PROF#C2 (for the senior-level award, the one he has; the junior one wouldn't be): we describe it as a highly prestigious in its area (software engineering, a major subfield of computer science) and every winner is bluelinked, significant evidence for its prestigiousness. Deleting this article would make him the only non-linked winner. He may have expressed distasteful views in his social media but that is not part of the article and not an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes WP:PROF per David Eppstein's analysis, so I would normally be in favor of Keep, but as of writing this comment, the article has zero sources. Perhaps it might be a good idea to Draftify so an editor can complete the article. Madeleine (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of it can be sourced to his 2022 curriculum vitae. It's obviously not independent, so usable only for uncontrove×rsial education and career details, not evaluation and opinion, but I think that's all we really need. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if he passes PROF, we need more sources than just one, which would violate our rules against WP:OR and WP:BLP. We also recently deleted the article of a notable dancer who was featured in a documentary about Madonna, because it was substantially an autobiography. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bearian please have a look at WP:NPROF first before you cast your vote. An academic is not a dancer, we have very clear guidelines in WP:NPROF which are sufficient for notability. Other guidelines that you cite do not apply here. We do have multiple sources to establish notability per WP:NPROF#1, namely Google Scholar and Scopus. --hroest 03:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and have discussed PROF in hundreds of AfDs. When I see at least one more reliable, independent, secondary source about him in the article, then I'll change my !vote. You do your thing. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we agree that NPROF applies here and even that he potentially passes NPROF? If we agree on that, NPROF states that the guideline is independent from WP:BIO and is explicitly an alternative path to notability and that any reliable source that demonstrates NPROF#1 or NPROF#2 is sufficient. Your request for additional sources again is covered by NPROF which clearly states that no independent sources to confirm trivial undisputed facts are required under NPROF. Are you disputing that a reliable source exists to demonstrate that he passes NPROF or are you unhappy with NPROF as a guideline itself? Because reading your argument it seems you are trying to challenge NPROF itself and its assertion that it provides an alternative path to notability independent of GNG. However this AfD is not the correct place to have this discussion, if you disagree with NPROF itself, we should have this discussion over there. --hroest 15:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it isn't a usable independent source, he has a bio here that might indicate other places to look for further information. He is an adjunct prof, but was a prof from 2003 to 2022, and seems to be currently freelancing. His CV (very detailed) lists other awards. Would confirming those add to notability? Lamona (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into the awards, although most are not "big" - these are awards given to the "best paper" at a conference, and I don't think they are enough for notability:
- Best Paper Award, Eighth European Conference on Pattern Languages of Program Design (EuroPLoP) 2003
- Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference “Best Paper Award” 2010.
This also does not seem to be notable in the WP sense:
- VUW PGSA Award: Best Supervisor in the Faculty of Engineering 2010.
This is the only one I have so far been able to confirm that might be significant but not sufficient:
- The ACM SIGPLAN Most Influential OOPSLA Paper for 2008, was shared by the three authors of the paper: David G. Clarke, John M. Potter, and James Noble
Lamona (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NPROF states 'Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources', but no reliable sources (a CV isn't reliable its self-published) have been presented. Notability ultimately cannot override WP:V and if there are no reliable sources to use we simply cannot maintain an article irrespective of SNGs. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle the reliable sources in this case are Scopus and Google Scholar to substantiate the claim he passes NPROF#1 and the organization providing the award for the claim he passes NPROF#2. All of these sources are independent from the subject and can be considered reliable. But yes, just trusting the CV doesnt do but these sources hold up. --hroest 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly can you write with these sources? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle Nothing per se but that is not the point, the point is that reliable, independent sources establish notability and the article can then be written per his CV / institutional page and biography on the award homepage as WP:NPROF intended. There is a very specific reason things are done this way for academics, to avoid the embarrassment of the Donna Strickland case. Often academics do not have SIGCOV but are notable due to their contributions to advance human knowledge in a field as judged by experts in that specific field but not widely known to the general public. --hroest 12:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY states 'Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article' and WP:SNG states 'Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.' If we cannot write an actual article with reliable independent sources then we should not have one. NPROF allows for less coverage but there should still be something so we can have an actual article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a medium citation field, as backed up by Google Scholar [8]. I don't think that the editorship of the series Transactions on Pattern Languages [9] passes NPROF C8, but it may give some support. I take the Dahl-Nygaard prize somewhat more seriously for NPROF C2 [10]. I am skeptical of NPROF C3 -- the British Computer Society fellowship, per their description [11] does not seem to be the kind of fellowship that we're looking for. The Institute of IT Professional fellowship looks a little stronger [12], although I'm uncertain whether it is the kind of scholarly society that we are looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor being discussed has recently added a lengthy comment to a talk page discussion here. It may or may not be relevant to this discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPROF is a guideline and WP:V is a policy. WP:DELETION, which is also policy states 'If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.'

Simply put if we do not have any sources to verify basic details to have an actual article and not just a list of his papers and awards we should not have an article, irrespective of any WP:SNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per David Eppstein, he meets WP:PROF. I have added back two sources - the 2016 Dahl-Nygaard Prize winners (which includes a bio of Noble), and his Victoria University Wellington profile. Such university profile pages are the main source of info for academics - their notability comes through the criteria listed at WP:PROF. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did add back two sources. The nominator of this AfD (who deleted text and refs before bringing the article to AfD) has deleted the university profile, with the edit summary "Best not to edit this article while an AFD is taking place." Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states clearly WP:EDITATAFD "You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period." RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nobel meets WP:NPROF according to the criteria and verified by sources specified there. If you are unfamiliar with NPROF and think it is something Wikipedia should not use, raise the issue elsewhere. This is the not the place for such discussions.

StarryGrandma (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I see no consensus. Arguments seem to rest on whether meeting WP:NPROF is sufficient in itself to Keep an article or whether other policies should be valued more highly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be specific, as well as important, we are not looking for other policies because WP:NPROF is a guideline, not a policy. It is poorly written anyway but read it carefully and it boils down to a person having to be notable as verified by independent reliable secondary sources, both of which are policy requirements. The notability hinges on several citations to several academic publications that name him as one of the authors. The 2016 prize was a single event and as such should be dismissed as not enough to verify notability. Based on some of the comments here, almost every person teaching at a tertiary institution who happens to have her or his name added to two or three internally published papers that sit gathering dust on a library shelf, suddenly becomes notable and worthy of an Wikipedia article. Does it matter that the subject of the article in question also says, above, that it should be deleted? I agree, a wider audience would be welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @User:Roger 8 Roger it seems like you are intentionally trying to discredit WP:NPROF which was written after lots of discussion and debate, if you have something to contribute please dont hijack the current AfD for your grievances. almost every person teaching at a tertiary institution who happens to have her or his name added to two or three internally published papers that sit gathering dust on a library shelf, suddenly becomes notable and worthy of an Wikipedia article. is a deliberate misrepresentation of the intent, spirit and letter of WP:NPROF which is written to exactly prevent that which you could have gathered from reading the documents point #1 "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Passing NPROF is sufficient for notability. Cheers --hroest 13:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roger 8 Roger, please remember that Wikipedia:Notability, including the WP:GNG section, is also "merely a guideline". StarryGrandma (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly surprising responses. StarryGrandma, why should I remove a factual statement? I will remove the word 'merely' which could be seen as a slight but that is all. It does sound as if you want to ignore the fact that WP:NPROF is a guideline, not policy, but I assume that is not what you mean. Please elaborate if you want to. Hi hrest, I'm not hijacking or discrediting anything, or dismissing WP:NPROF. If you mean the 'poorly written' part, I think it is - it is too detailed and constantly uses 'impact'. (What's wrong with 'effect' or 'affect'.? It looks as though a small group of editors has written some rules that allow them to sideline Wikipedia policy rules. But this is off-topic. I'm sorry if you were one of the team who wrote the guideline, I'm just giving an opinion. To get back on topic, and the quotation you use, yes, I do think that (only) in some cases, certain people are unreasonably elevated to a position of notability. Academics would sometimes fit that description. I want to keep it simple - what makes this person notable outside a very small clique? I am sorry if my mildly flowery language has upset anyone. Removed 'merely'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein and RebeccaGreen. Thank you for your analysis - I find it persuasive and consistent with my experience at WP:AFD. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Satisfies WP:NPROF #1 (Google Scholar shows an h-index of 57 and >20 papers with 100+ citations) and WP:NPROF #2 (winner of the 2016 Dahl-Nygaard Senior Prize). Pollia (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Emily CoBabe-Ammann (via WP:PROD on 30 May 2025)

[b971-1] Lockwood, Charles (2009). "The Green Quotient: Insights from Leading Experts on Sustainability". Internet Archive. pp. 171–178. ISBN 9780874201215. Retrieved May 23, 2025.

[1]