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

W. Lawrence S. Prabhakar

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

The subject does not seem to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NACADEMIC or the more general criteria at WP:BIO. Most of the cited sources are associated with the subject (e.g., his faculty pages); the one independent cited source is a review in The Hindu of a book he edited [1]. —Bkell (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was nominated for speedy deletion immediately after it was created in 2010 [2]. This was contested by User:Shawn à Montréal with the note "appears to widely published in field of maritime security, etc.; deserves a fuller hearing" [3]. —Bkell (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to be well-published, I can't pull up his citation/h-index though. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I poked around a bit, I didn't find anything for this person, beyond various articles or publications. The one review is fine, but that's not enough to meet AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Kalmus

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

Was de-PRODded with suggestion to take to AfD. Per PROD, I don't think the subject is notable whether under GNG or under artist specific criteria.

Maybe you could say being a Fellow at Pembroke College is solid enough to hit criterion 3 of WP:NACADEMIC but Kalmus was in fact "Kettle's Yard Artist Fellow in Residence at Pembroke College", not just a Cambridge fellow. There are many Cambridge fellows sans Wiki articles, being one at Kettle's Yard isn't exactly noteworthy.

I've already cleaned content which is either unreferenced/OR but there still exist some bits of question e.g. ~~reference 1, where Kalmus isn't actually listed in the book (unless under a different surname?)~~ (strike through - only version available online i.e. the one I was checking is 1998 pub, referenced one is 2007 pub) and reference 13 which is, as far as I can tell, just citing a person.

It is a separate thing but the majority of the creator/primary contributor's edits have been to Marion Kalmus, Peter Kalmus (physicist) and George Kalmus. I haven't really done a deep dive on the latter two (who are related) but in all three cases there have been significant amounts of unreferenced/unverifiable content which I have had to strip out. Can't confirm it but wouldn't be surprised if Marion is a member of the same family and given the amount of unsourced content across the three it makes me think there could be some potential COI editing at play. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Artists. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment/Context~~: (Keep: per comments below I'm persuaded that WP:NARTIST is met) I've been to Kettle's Yard and it's lovely, and they do excellent work, but it's a fairly unremarkable local museum (albeit one operated by the University of Cambridge) -- it isn't a notable enough academic institution that its fellowships automatically confer notability. Indeed, as we saw with Elena Giusti recently, even a fellowship of the university itself doesn't cut it without additional qualification. I haven't done enough WP:BEFORE to !vote delete, but I notice three authored books: any reviews for WP:NAUTHOR? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just the University of Cambridge, no big deal. It's two authored books ~~and then one book about her~~ (doesn't everyone have those?). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Authored books need independent reviews to count for notability, but if those exist for both books, it would be fairly conclusive evidence of notability. One book about someone is likewise a good start, but we need multiple sources giving significant coverage to make the alternative WP:GNG argument. Incidentally, as far as I can see, Marion Kalmus : restoration drama isn't a book about her at all: it's a short film she has written. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Deserter" and "I Won't Promise You The Earth" also are/were art pieces/installations - yeah, we do have ISBN numbers but I'm not sure if these are "books" as so much material supplementary to said installations e.g. printed imagery? The author for the latter is listed as in some cases Marion Kalmus and others Helen Sloan, who is a photographer. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who wrote the bulk of the articles for Marion Kalmus, Peter Kalmus (physicist) and George Kalmus. There's no conflict of interest. I am not a family member and have nothing to gain from these articles. I worked on Peter and George's information from notes provided by the physics and academic bodied they have represented and from notes they supplied which had been prepared to assist in their eventual obituaries. Marion is the daughter of Peter. She was a significant and leading figure in modern British art during the 1990s and had been tipped for stardom. While she was actively making art her career was similar to Damien Hurst's in that she was already winning art awards and achievements whilst still a student, and she was anticipated as highly likely to achieve similar success; until other circumstances led to her stepping back. She was influential enough that when she did step back, other artists in the field described themselves as being 'the new Marion Kalmus'. I'm very unclear exactly why this article is nominated for deletion? She's just as valid as a modern British artist as the others from the same movement who also have articles.

I have to say that I find your accusation of COI rather unwarranted and insulting. How about believing the best of people rather than the worst? I was under the impression that Wiki's strength was that it is a community and built from the contributions of that the community. It's not much of a community if contributors' work gets trashed wholesale. I may not be a professional author or a Wiki expert, but the articles are sincere. Admiralquirk (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Admiralquirk:: it's important not to misunderstand AfD as a judgement on a subject's importance, achievements, validity and so on. The purpose of the exercise is to verify whether it (she) meets the criteria for inclusion in a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, which are known slightly misleadingly as the notability guidelines. For a biography of an artist, the main ways in which this could be demonstrated are:

WP:GNG: the gold standard for all articles -- we could demonstrate that there is significant coverage of her and her work in multiple independent reliable sources. These don't necessarily have to be included in the article -- it would be enough to find them and link them here.
WP:NARTIST or WP:NAUTHOR (which are the same standard): can we demonstrate from independent reliable sources that her work has had a major impact in her field -- in particular, that her books and/or artworks have been widely reviewed?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the avenue for it but it falls on for me raising it - a WP:COI doesn't inherently suggest you are a familial relative or have anything to gain, financial or otherwise. I've just pointed out a pattern of editing which could indicate a COI. "Notes" provided to you personally by the subjects aren't reliable sources because no one else can verify them. ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A WP:BEFORE search finds that she meets criteria #4a of WP:NARTIST for her notable permanant public art work created for the National Botanic Garden of Wales. The sculpture and fountain, titled, Thirty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety Eight which serves as the public "gateway" or gatehouse to the garden. There is a lot of coverage online of this work. She has also been commissioned for projects by the Tate Museum, and Royal Festival Hall. [4]. Other site-specific works include those for th Jerwood sculpture park, a sculptural work for Canterbury City Center UK[5], a site-specific event for the Victoria and Albert Museum. She also meets WP:GNG: her work has been reviewed in the Sunday Herald (Glasgow) by Giles Sutherland on 10 March 2002; the New South Wales Evening Post on 3 March 2011; in the Western Mail (Cardiff, UK) by Steve Dube, 30 November 2001; among others, all found via ProQuest. Regarding the possible COI, the creator has disclosed that they don't have a COI, and even if they did, while COI editing is strongly discouraged, it is not a valid rational for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the permanent work at the Welsh National Botanic Gardens, and installations at Tate Liverpool, V&A, ICA, indicate notability. It's a pity the "issuu" copy of the Buckman ref seems unavailable ... unless someone else can track it down ... as that contributes to notability. PamD 09:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Internet Archive is temporarily (I hope) unavailable, otherwise I'd have tried to find an archived copy of some of the refs; I've already upgraded the BBC News Nov 2001 ref to include a link. @Admiralquirk: please try to provide usable links in your references, rather than partial URLs, so that readers, and editors, can find your sources. Thanks. PamD 09:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pam, I did provide complete URLs for my internet references originally. Someone then subsequently compacted them about a decade ago, applying what was supposed to be a Wiki rule. I'm sorry it is causing a problem. Admiralquirk (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Admiralquirk Well the version at the end of your major creation set of editing was this, which seems to have several somewhat malformed refs already such as "issuu.com/powershift/docs/dictionary_k" for the Buckman ref. Yes, I can see that some 2017 edits then incorrectly changed your citations from inline defined to list defined, while trying to improve them, but this article seems never to have had a well-formed set of refs. PamD 08:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to know which edition of Buckman's Artists in Britain since 1945 was used. Netherzone (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not in the 1998 version, I just checked. The 2006 edition doesn't have a match for "Marion Kalmus" on HathiTrust either [6]. Katzrockso (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso, the book you mention on HathiTrust (Britain Since 1945 by Terry Gorvich and Alan O'Day, published by MacMillan) is not the same book. We are looking for David Buckman's Artists in Britain since 1945. Published by Art Dictionaries Ltd. Nevertheless she still meets WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're correct I don't know why i thought that. Katzrockso (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

issuu.com/powershift/docs/dictionary_k was a valid reference, but no use now as the domain is no longer in use and up for sale. It pointed to an alphabetical list of recognised artists. From memory I believe that it claimed to display Buckman's data, but it was a long time ago. There are three crawls on the Wayback Machine which confirm that it did exist and did resolve as a URL. Unfortunately the crawls that the Wayback Machine captured seem to also show that issuu.com relied on Flash to display properly, and it would probably be hard to find anything that uses Flash as a core technology these days. Sadly it is no good as a reference, even from archive as the pages don't load any more. Admiralquirk (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the good work of Netherzone and the Admiral. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koray Erdoğan

AfDs for this article:

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

Spammy bio of non-notable hair restoring surgeon, no more notable today per WP:BIO or WP:NACADEMIC than when it was deleted at AFD four years ago. Sources are, again, all press releases and sponsored content, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up only more of that, and a book he wrote about his hair transplant technique, published by Springer.

The smiley posed photo is courtesy of User:Mutlutopuz, a blocked sock of User:Ertanguven, and this latest attempt shouts undisclosed paid editing loudly, e.g. this "reference" by Koray Yılmaz about Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, nothing to do with this hair transplant guy. Wikishovel (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Turkey. Wikishovel (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. It's pretty much press releases and general website all the way down. That this is listed under selected publications shows just how much grasping at straws is going on to try and inflate this guy to the level of qualifying for an article. GMG ^talk 12:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Rigetti

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

His company, Rigetti Computing appears notable, but he doesn't seem independently notable from it. I can't see an article with any remote encyclopedic value developing from this as it stands. I want to put it here to see what others think. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rigetti Computing#History – Simply add whatever is relevant from his personal biography to the section. Svartner (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Physics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have added, as the nom, my preference/!vote is to merge per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON DarmaniLink (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sounds good to me. Founder and the company he named after himself, mutual context and does not appear it would be too unwieldy. WP:NOPAGE and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suhadi Mangkusuwondo

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

The notability tag has been on the article since June, which indicates ongoing concern about whether the subject meets WP:NBIO. The only source currently used appears to be autobiographical written by the subject, which is not independent of subject and cannot be used to establish notability. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He has a festschrift dedicated to him, published by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies: [7]. Per WP:NPROF#C1c, The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses. He was also awarded the Bintang Jasa Utama (id:Bintang Jasa) by the Indonesian government in 2008, and was one of six recipients in the country that year Factiva ANTARA0020080814e48e0000c. Idwiki suggests there have only been about 100 recipients of the award in total (id:Kategori:Penerima Bintang Jasa Utama). There are also a ton of articles in the international media quoting him as an expert on the Indonesian economy. I'm leaning keep on a combination of WP:ANYBIO#1, WP:NPROF#C1 and WP:NPROF#C7, but will keep looking for more. MCE89 (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points raised by MCE89: a Festschrift is an almost automatic pass, and the other material seems to cement it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Goodman

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

Most sources in the article are primary and a majority of coverage I've found online were talking about an unrelated journalist. Nighfidelity (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Television, and Minnesota. Nighfidelity (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV, the article also appears to read like a vanity page. All the attempts to prove notability fail WP:INHERIT. Somepinkdude (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Pandit Kashinath Mishra

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

Declined at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace. Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, India, and Odisha. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Hinduism. jolielover♥talk 15:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:BIO as presented here. I am not convinced that a return to draft will help, bit would not quarrel with that under WP:ATD 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May as well deal with the notability issue here to be able to point to a consensus opinion instead of returning this to draftspace. Non-notable, self-congratulatory writing without any real citations for the context given in the article and no citations otherwise to be found that would suggest notability for biographies. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails WP:NBIO and WP:NACADEMIC. As Fiddle said, WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies here. I'm not sure this writing is self-congratulatory, but still it's problematic to say the least. Gommeh 📖 🎮 19:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to show WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and also WP:BIO. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: As per nom AlphaCore talk 22:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Lindsay Robert Guest

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

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Guest (researcher and author)

Non-notable family history researcher. Almost all of the sources here (and those available) are the subject's own works. None of the sources are independent or deal with the subject as a topic in own right. Article on same subject was recently deleted based on AfD outcome (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Guest (researcher and author)). Draft on same subject was also recently deleted based WP:G7/author request (see: logs for Draft:John Guest (author)). Nothing has changed since previous AfD outcome. (I, along with several AfC reviewers, undertook substantive WP:BEFORE as part of AfC review of now-deleted draft. There is nothing to indicate that subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. All of subject's family history works are self-published. None have been subject of reviews or represent the type of highly cited academic works expected by applicable guidelines. The WP:IDHT overtones (in the repeated recreation of this title) are concerning. As are a number of apparently related WP:CITESPAM actions of a number of seemingly overlapping contributors). Guliolopez (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing appears to have changed since the previous AfD. Still absolutely no indication of notability. MCE89 (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the page creator and a number of the other users refspamming Guest's work have now been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NLA-Collections. MCE89 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening the SPI MCE89. Saved me doing it. Thx. Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sports. jolielover♥talk 13:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Seems like a case of WP:G4 to me.

Oakchris1955 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From memory I think the version of the page that was deleted in January was quite different, so G4 is probably unlikely to apply. G4 would only be applicable if the pages were sufficiently identical copies of one another. MCE89 (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still a !delete. I only find a mention in what looks like a family history project [8], sourcing now in the article is primary. When you have that many socks that come out, it's usually an indication the person isn't notable. Otherwise there would be sourcing available and no need for the sillyness. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a poorly sourced article about a BLP, totally lacking in significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piran-Maria

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

Declined speedy. I do not think that being a puppeteer on on of the star wars films is a credible claim of notability, nor are the public speaking gigs. For which the cites are essentially self published. TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Christianity, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 13:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article gives any clue as to why this person might be notable, searches turn up nothing. Orange sticker (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has presented at the Birmingham and Midland Institute; see WP:BIO#Any biography. Nononsense101 (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear which part of WP:BIO#Any_biography applies here, could you explain? Orange sticker (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. To answer the "keep" !voter, many non-notable people speak at various institutes and there is no evidence presented that speaking at this institute confers instant notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking at an institute is a well-known and significant award or honor (quoted from WP:BIO#Any biography). Nononsense101 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of thousands of people speak at "institutes". It's not some kind of significant award or honor. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking at an 'institute' is simply a gig.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuhara Sukra

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

The notability tag has been on the article since May, which indicates ongoing concern about whether the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Another issue is that the main source currently used appears to be autobiographical written by the subject, which raises reliability concerns. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and Indonesia. jolielover♥talk 13:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gscholar profile only shows 170 or so citations. Article is now mostly sourced to primary information (appears to be written by the subject)... Some of the others look ok, but I don't think this individual meets notability requirements, wouldn't seem to pass Academic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost all of the sources are by rather than about the subject. Please ping me if you find anything else. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hellmut Wolff

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

Does not seem to be notable - no sigcov, and there only seem to be seven passing mentions in Reveal the Power of the Pendulum. I found no reliable source to link him definitively to the third Reich. N.B. this Hellmut Wolff is a different person, and previously appeared erroneously as an external link in this article SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Religion. jolielover♥talk 12:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Per WP:OFFLINE sources in de.wiki article. Despite it being an unusual activity, he appears to be someone of at least some noteworthy. Svartner (talk) 23:43, 16 November 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Broady

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

Economist at a bank. No WP:SIGCOV fails WP:GNG; WP:ANYBIO nothing thrown up by WP:BEFORE, no evidence of significant or enduring impact. An economist economisting. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't this making here quite notable: Dean of the College of Business and Barron Hilton Endowed Professor of Financial Economics at Dillard University. Here [9]. Mag2k (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if there are no further sources like scientific publications I would suggest delete Gawrawiki (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago is not just an average bank. Appointments at several significant academic institutions. She not a research economist, so many publications are policy papers rather than theory.

The references section could use some fleshing out. Diekhans (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kristen Broady has had many significant publications (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lymxGUAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao) including at the Brookings Institute, Hamilton Project, and The Review of Black Political Economy (see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1007/s12114-017-9243-9) Longmermaidhair (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a significant publication record, as measured by citations, satisfies WP:NACADEMIC though. She might meet "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.", but that would need to be supported by something beyond just citation count. I think she's more likely to be notable under WP:GNG since there is some coverage of her outside of the academic literature. GenomeFan92 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I checked again, and being the "Barron Hilton Endowed Professor of Financial Economics at Dillard University" [10] might qualify her under "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." How do we know if that particular named chair indicates a comparable level of achievement to being a distinguished professor at a major institution? Dillard University has history back to 1869. It's fairly small (so maybe it isn't itself "major"), but the school does say in [11] that its various Barron Hilton endowed positions are "one of the highest honors a faculty member can achieve". GenomeFan92 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's significant coverage of her published by the St. Louis Fed, who I think is independent and sufficiently reliable, in [12] where they decided she was interesting enough to interview about her work for half an hour. And similarly, the "Sustaining Capitalism" podcast has published a similar show about her and her work at [13], and even though the name suggests an obvious agenda in any debate over economic systems, I'd expect them to be reliable on the subject of this person, and I see no particular connection between them and her. Both of these are cited in the article. So Alexandermcnabb I think that meets the 2 independent, reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject bar that's needed for WP:GNG, right? Or is there a problem with one or both of those sources in your view? GenomeFan92 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GenomeFan92, that's what I was thinking. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is a reputable source I would hope, and is not her employer, and they considered her notable enough to feature her work. Likewise the Conference Board is a real organization and not obviously connected to her as you said. And while the Fortune magazine article [14] gave a fairly brief summary of her work, they did consider her notable enough to include in their list. AngieTheMicro (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no significant independent news coverage beyond institutional profiles. Does not clearly meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Shinadamina (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinadamina: Can you elaborate on why you think https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/women-in-economics/kristen-broady and https://www.conference-board.org/podcasts/sustaining-capitalism/Kristen-Broady-on-workforce-training-for-the-post-COVID-economy aren't sufficient to satisfy WP:NBASIC? Neither of these is an "institutional profile" as I would understand it (i.e. the web page that an institution puts up to profile one of its members, where you might find biographical text that the person in question may have written about themselves).

At WP:NBASIC it says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Do you think that one or both of those sources don't satisfy all those criteria? Or do you think additional similar sources would need to be found to have enough to demonstrate notability?

Neither WP:NBASIC nor WP:GNG articulates a specific requirement for news coverage; do you think that news coverage in particular actually should be required? GenomeFan92 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GenomeFan92 these are interviews, which are typically fairly dubious for establishing notability. There usually needs to be non-interview analytical content (think a section introducing/analyzing her work before the actual content of the interview) for editors to count it towards notability. Katzrockso (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't something like this move the needle in favour of keeping the article? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Katzrockso, that does seem to be the reasoning here.

I did a little more digging looking for why people think this or where this might be articulated. The word "interview" doesn't appear in Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people); in Wikipedia:Reliable sources it gets mentioned once on the context of something an article should do to be more reliable. Wikipedia:No original research mentions interviews on a footnote, to say that in some contexts they are primary and not secondary sources, and says to see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations, which doesn't really clarify the point.

There are, however, lots of talk discussions like Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2016#We really need a sentence/paragraph/section on interviews and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2020#Interviews_in_WP:RS/WP:IS_as_notability_indicators, which are the latest in a series of discussions calling for the policy page to say something about interviews. There's also an essay at Wikipedia:Interviews which seems to explain the position that interviews ought to be treated as less valuable than normal news coverage for notability, but it hasn't been promoted to policy, I think because the talk discussions aren't reaching consensus. GenomeFan92 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 5 of WP:NPROF as an endowed professor of Financial Economics at Dillard University.4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A position she no longer holds... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As notability is not temporary, that is not particularly relevant to this discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I disagree. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 05:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it just about meets GNG per GenomeFan92's sources. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the other keeps. MisawaSakura (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WP:NPROF is clear that having held a named/chaired/distinguish professor position at a notable university (like Dillard) shows notability. Alexandermcnabb's interpretation is completely out of precedent (we don't delete named prof articles once they die or retire either...). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5 and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein, whom I trust on such matters. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mubeena Ramzan

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

non-notable Dr. Vicodine (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Islam, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep -- You can't just say "non-notable." According to AfD rules/norms, you have to cite a policy and reason. If you do, I'm more than happy to change my position. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per AnonymousScholar49 -- I treat a nom as "non-notable" as a PROD, and there is definitely enough there to remove a PROD deletion. Article has a plausible claim to notability via Muslim 500 and citations of articles. A rather unusual nomination from an account that otherwise has focused almost exclusively on Croatian sports and last participated in an AfD in 2012, but assuming good faith that an explanation may be forthcoming. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sources currently in the article demonstrate notability via BASIC but I don't know if I'd have the time to do the usual with the other nominations I'm planning. Though, for the record, I'm not particularly happy with the nom either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep You need to cite policy for why you think it should be deleted and show that you did WP:BEFORE Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Palestine Exploration Quarterly. There is consensus against retention, but a mild split on the best redirect target. This can be changed at editorial discretion Star Mississippi 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Hulin

AfDs for this article:

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

It has been almost 10 years since the last AfD [15], and she does not seem to have had any major publications since. One of the arguments then was WP:TOOSOON. Certainly now it is clear she does not have sufficient academic notability per WP:NACADEMIC. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: her university page says she released a 2019 book, Conversations Between Objects. One work isn't normally enough for WP:NAUTHOR, but it would be useful to look into reviews for this. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Archaeology, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not seem to meet notability. This site [16] notes only 8 publications, with a low single digit h-index... That does not seem to satisfy academic notability. I can't find much else about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an area where high citations and a pass of WP:PROF#C1 are likely, and I don't see it for her. I was only able to find one review of one co-edited volume [17], not enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per WP:PROF#C8 -- "head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area" -- of which being the Editor of the over 150-year old Palestine Exploration Quarterly surely qualifies. Her appointment announcement and the many editorials she wrote during her time as editor show that this was not a caretaker position. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC) -- changing to Merge/Redirect (in)to Palestine Exploration Fund section on P.E. Quarterly, editors. based on findings below. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she was editor of the journal is notable, but I'm not sure if there's anything else notable about her work other than that. What do you think about merging into Palestine Exploration Quarterly? To have another page just for Hulin might be a WP:RFORK? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally more inclined to accept redirects (and draftify's) when consensus suggests an Ignore All Rules/"overrule guideline" is going to happen (here the relevant guideline is "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable: person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal"), since the history and text of the article can later be restored. But I don't see how any close other than Keep can be justified by reference to any notability guideline--there is a specific and relevant one here and it is clear that she passes it.

@David Eppstein: -- I was surprised by your argument for delete based on lack of C1 pass -- I've felt that you've historically been one of the people who has argued that not only is C1 not more important than the other guidelines, that it (and C4, C7) is more subjective than C3 (Fellow), C5 (Named Prof), C6 (President), and C8 (editor). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't look at the previous AfD and didn't notice the editorship. I wasn't arguing that C1 overrides the other PROF criteria, merely that C1 seemed like the most obvious PROF criterion to be a pass and that it was not passed.

I do tend to consider C8 the weakest of the PROF criteria, though. It is difficult from the outside to distinguish the journals for which the EIC is selected by a process that aims for distinguished scholars and for which being selected is a marker of notability (I happen to be currently on the search committee for one of those now), journals that someone started because they saw the need but for which being EIC is merely a routine service commitment rather than something that should convey notability (I happen to be co-EIC of one of those now too), journals where the EIC is passed on a rotating basis to a junior member of the department, again not conveying notability, and even journals that are run by the graduate students as an extracurricular activity (typical for law). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And looking again at this specific journal: It is long-established, but we do not have a separate article about it. The idea that its editors might be picked for being distinguished scholars is undermined by the choice of Hulin's successor, Charlotte Whiting [18], who is also a scholar with multiple books (and possibly notable as an author through them) but appears to have gone directly from a postdoc to academic administration and holds a non-academic position at Aga Khan University as "Head of Operations, Communications and Development at AKU-ISMC ... works closely with the Dean to develop strategy and deliver all operational functions at the Institute". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it may be that this is a long-established and once significant/independently notable journal (it should be a redlink from what I can quickly gather) that is in its sunset years--in this case the notability of the journal is WP:NOTTEMPORARY but its current applicability for C8 is no longer eligible; I can accept that, if there's a trend (not a one-off) of not choosing academics from top of career positions. Changing my keep to a merge to Palestine Exploration Quarterly where there can be a list of editors. (thanks David!) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 03:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ranganathan Janardhanan

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO. Few of the sources cited mention him, and only two are secondary. According to the source cited, it wasn't him that set the record for "most people solving Rubik's cubes", but the school he heads, so there's not even a WP:BLP1E here. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no significant coverage in English or Tamil (ரங்கநாதன் ஜனார்த்தனன்). He founded several schools, which is admirable, but WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG aren't met yet. Wikishovel (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Tamil Nadu. Wikishovel (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Education. jolielover♥talk 14:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't even meet the low bar for NACADEMIC/whatever its called now and is pretty much just run of the mill vanity spam. SPOOKYDICAE👻 18:33, 14 November 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.

Mojsej Ignjatović

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

The article describes a professor but only seems to use cursory mentions that appear to have been derived from a casual search of Google Books and bibliography websites, not WP:secondary sources. I tried searching for this person's name on Serbian websites, and it shows that they are mentioned in the context of an early Serbian gymnasium in the Kingdom of Hungary, which seems to have been notable, but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the person.

This was a draft accepted from anonymous contributions that are in my opinion a behavioral match with an earlier case of an editor who's done a huge number of low-quality biographies on Serbian people, and never responded to criticism, including about copyright, and had to be blocked. Joy (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Croatia, Hungary, and Serbia. Joy (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ignjatović is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. His work is mentioned in scholarly publications, including the voluminous Hstory of the Serbian theatre: please see here and here. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the links you posted are just that - mentions. They don't demonstrate significant coverage.

The first link is a summary of a paper "Melodrama u vremenu rađanja srpske dramske književnosti" by Kovaček [sh] (1995), but we don't have the paper itself. I guess it is good as Ignjatović is worthy of a mention in the summary, but at the same time this author says their year of death was 1843?. If they don't even know the year of death of a person from the 19th century, I don't see how we can surmise sufficient notability for a standalone encyclopedia article. I tried googling the paper name, and found no other online references to it.

The second link, Stojković [sr] (1977), p. 42 has a single paragraph about him. It starts with saying:
Zna se da je od 1811. godine (a verovatno i nešto ranije) do 1826. godine prevodio pozorišne komade...

So it's "known" that he started doing something in 1811 and probably somewhat earlier - the author tells us that those are scraps of information they're working off of. Or:
Poznato je samo da je Ignjatović 27. IX 1826. godine spremio s diletantima u Novom Sadu predstavu...

So it's "only" known that this play was prepared, and it was with dilettantes, amateurs. Again the author is telling us in no uncertain terms that very little is known about Ignjatović.

This person clearly deserves a similar level of mention in the encyclopedia - in a topical article about the history of Serbian theatre. A standalone biography - I don't think so. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a borderline situation, and I am more inclined toward a 'weak keep.' In the History of Serbian Theatre, we are presented with a short text about his life, a typical short encyclopedia-style entry. The fact that the actors were not professionals is not a valid argument, considering that hiring amateurs or semi-professionals was widely common in European theatre, and there were few, if any, institutions for the education of actors in the Balkans.By the way, in some sources, Ignjatović is listed as Mojsije, not Mojsej. Anyhow, what we know for a fact is:

1) He was highly educated and served as the superintendent of high schools, which from a modern-day point of view may sound trivial, but back in the day there were only a few active educational institutions.

2) He was a prolific translator, translating and adapting plays from several languages into Serbian, by at least seven authors. That's no small feat.

3) He was a theatre producer, arguably one of the pioneers in the region at that time, producing plays during the first half of the 19th century.

4) He wrote at least two original works.

5) He has been covered in several papers and is included in the Teatroslov database.

For me, all things considered, that outweighs the reasons for deletion, but then again, I'm an inclusionist. Just my two cents. Take care. — Sadko (words are wind) 15:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this argument if we were talking about e.g. 12th century or the 2nd century BC. But this seems like a stretch for the 19th century in Europe, where the standard of documentation is usually far higher.

I mean look at the Mojsije Ignjatović entry in the Teatroslov database - [19] - there's almost nothing there. And if we follow the links to Artelo to the director Atanasije Nikolić [20] or the composer Josif Šlezinger [sr] [21] - both have quite a bit more documented. And our article on Nikolić barely mentions his theatre work next to all the other notable things that are documented.

Which also brings up another parallel - Ignjatović doesn't even have an article on the Serbian Wikipedia, unlike the other two. --Joy (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mojsej Ignjatović article.

Hello Joy,

Thank you for your thoughtful attention and the care you bring to article quality. I moved the Mojsej Ignjatović article from draft to mainspace because I felt he was a culturally significant figure whose name appears across scattered sources, yet remains largely unseen.

After reading your comment, I took time to re-examine everything — from old book footnotes to university theses available in PDF format. He is mentioned in many academic contexts, especially in works related to the history of Serbian theatre. You're absolutely right that deep analytical coverage is rare, but I was able to piece together his activity from 1802 to 1839 through these fragments.

One thesis from the University of Vienna explicitly refers to him as a “professor.” Another promising source is In That Sombor Town by Milan Stepanović, available on Academia.edu, though I don’t have full access to it.

As someone passionate about cultural history, I published the article simply to help bring visibility to a forgotten figure.

Warm regards, Vodnir (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but not at the expense of following the spirit and letter of applicable policies and guidelines. You had made a number of basic policy violations that I've had to explain at User talk:Joy#Follow-up on Mojsej Ignjatović article edits. Afterwards, I see more dubious edits, like this one where you replace a cleanup tag for needing non-primary sources with a reference to a library catalogue for Ignjatović's own 1839 book.

I mean, sure, technically it's a reference to the fact that the City of Zagreb Library considers this book worthy of keeping in their collection of rare books and manuscripts, which is sort of an indication of notability. At the same time, they're a library from the person's place of origin whose mission is to preserve those sorts of works, even if their utility to the average English reader may be comparatively small.

In that case, the cleanup tag was saying that it would improve the encyclopedia if we had a reference to a secondary source. For example like Stojković (1977) linked above, where the work is put in context and we can cite a scholar's assessment. That way we're not putting the burden on the reader to try to figure out what does this library placement really mean. (Disregarding for the moment the fact that that specific assessment is brief and uncertain as well, but at least it's not our original research.) --Joy (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Joy,

I hope you are doing well,

Thank you for your thoughtful and policy-grounded feedback. I want to emphasize that I fully respect Wikipedia’s guidelines and the experience of editors like yourself. My intention was to follow your earlier advice and improve sourcing not to disregard cleanup tags or editorial standards.

I truly appreciate your attention to detail and your commitment to upholding the integrity of the encyclopedia. It’s precisely because of contributors like you that editors like myself have the opportunity to learn and grow. I do not intend to make inappropriate edits, and I take your guidance seriously.

I remain committed to learning, improving, and contributing constructively within the framework of Wikipedia’s policies. My decision to replace sources was solely based on your earlier guidance regarding the need for secondary sources. I had also expressed my good faith intentions on your talk page, and I truly appreciated your generous response.

That said, I now fully understand that the expectations you outlined and Wikipedia’s sourcing standards were not adequately met. For now, I’ve suggested keeping the article as is, so that when time allows, I or any experienced editor may revisit it and work toward meeting the sourcing standards you described.

I recognize that the subject and his work are historically significant, but as you rightly pointed out, the currently available sources may not be sufficiently persuasive. Your guidance helped clarify that, and I’m grateful for it.

Thank you again for your time, clarity, and generosity in sharing your expertise. Sincerely Vodnir (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Hammett-Jamart

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

Insufficient depth of coverage from reliable sources; most of the sources listed are mentions or written by the subject. A Sunday Telegraph article from 1991 is referenced, but it doesn't appear to be available anywhere. Likely undisclosed COI editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, France, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie. Interesting. Did I miss something? The article seems to have a bucket-load of independent sources. Copy/Paste here below:

References

List of references from article

"Julia Hammett-Jamart on the Global Impact Producers Alliance network" (https://globalimpa ctproducers.org/directory/member/julia-hammett-jamart). globalimpactproducers.org. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
"Who's Who 2025" (https://fifdh.org/pro/whos-who-2025/). FIFDH (in French). Retrieved 9 November 2025.
"Sound of Therapy (1991) - The Screen Guide - Screen Australia" (https://www.screenaustra lia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/sound-of-therapy-1991/2739/). www.screenaustralia.gov.au. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
Mason, David (26 May 1991). "Film Rookie in a Hurry". The Sunday Telegraph.
Stewart, Alison (6 May 1991). "Guide Preview: Through Australian Eyes". The Sydney Morning Herald.
"Universal Language". Northern Herald. 9 May 1991.
"Through Australian Eyes". TV Week. 11 May 1991.
"Program Review: Through Australian Eyes". Brisbane Courier. 11 May 1991.
"Graduate Profile" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180203124812/http://www.aftrs.edu.au/sh owcase/students-and-films/students/1994/julia-hammett-jamart). AFTRS. Australian Film Television and Radio School. Archived from the original (http://www.aftrs.edu.au/showcase/s tudents-and-films/students/1994/julia-hammett-jamart) on 3 February 2018. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
"The Screen Guide" (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/p/julia-hammett-ja mart/8902/#ccTall). Screen Australia. Australian Government. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
"Surrender [videorecording]" (https://primo-slnsw.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/full display/SLNSW_ALMA21137587260002626/SLNSW). primo- slnsw.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.
Bailey, Julie Francis; Hammett-Jamart, Julia (1994). Surrender (https://primo-slnsw.hosted.e xlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=SLNSW_ALMA21137587260002626&cont ext=L&vid=SLNSW&lang=en_US&search_scope=EEA&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engi ne&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,surrender). South Melbourne: AFI Distribution. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
"Surrender (1995) - The Screen Guide - Screen Australia" (https://www.screenaustralia.gov. au/the-screen-guide/t/surrender-1995/9832/). www.screenaustralia.gov.au. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
Tubb, Rochelle (23 April 1995). "Film Graduates Under Spotlight". Sun Herald.
"University of Wollongong Graduates: July 22, 23 and 24, 2015" (http://www.illawarramercur y.com.au/story/3229758/university-of-wollongong-graduates-july-22-23-and-24/). The Illawarra Mercury. 25 July 2015. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
Hammett-Jamart, Julia (2014). "Trade in National Cinema: Australian Film Policy Implementation on French-Australia co-productions 1986–2006" (http://ro.uow.edu.au/these s/4525/). University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 1954-2016. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
Hammett-Jamart, Julia (1 May 2004). "Regulating Diversity: Cultural Diversity, National Film Policy and the International Coproduction of Films". Media International Incorporating Culture and Policy. 111 (111): 46–62. doi:10.1177/1329878X0411100107 (https://doi.org/10. 1177%2F1329878X0411100107). S2CID 146503320 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu sID:146503320).
Hammett-Jamart, Julia (March 2004). "Context for International Co-production" (https://searc h.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=911902706313946;res=IELLCC). Metro Magazine (140): 122–126. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
Hammett-Jamart, Julia (2017), "Bridging the Gap: Towards a Dialogue between Screen Production, Policy and Scholarship" (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97 81315189932-15/bridging-gap-julia-hammett-jamart), Reconceptualising Film Policies, Routledge, doi:10.4324/9781315189932-15 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F9781315189932-1 5), ISBN 978-1-315-18993-2, retrieved 20 November 2023
King's College London (June 2002). Menzies Centre for Australian Studies Annual Report 2001-2002 (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/ahri/centres/menzies/Publications/Reports/Annua lReport01-02.pdf) (PDF). University of London.
Raben-Levetzau, Lene (11 March 2019). "Book Launch: European Film and Television Co- production Policy and Practice" (https://cemes.ku.dk/activities/2019/book-launch-european-fi lm-and-television-co-production-policy-and-practice/). cemes.ku.dk. Retrieved 9 December 2020.
"Institut national d'histoire de l'art - INHA" (https://www.inha.fr/fr/index.html). www.inha.fr (in French). 3 January 2022. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
Goldsmith, Ben; Spurgeon, Christina (1 May 2004). "Introduction: Culture, Trade, Services". Media International Incorporating Culture and Policy. 111 (111): 46–62. doi:10.1177/1329878X0411100107 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1329878X0411100107). S2CID 146503320 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:146503320).
Yue, Audrey (2014). Sinophone Cinemas. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 185–202. ISBN 978- 1-349-45687-1.
Khoo, Olivia; Smaill, Belinda; Yue, Audrey (2013). Transnational Australian Cinema: Ethics in the Asian Diasporas (https://books.google.com/books?id=N-2tyYccpx0C&q=julia+hammet t-jamart&pg=PA188). Plymouth UK: Lexington Books. p. 188. ISBN 9780739173244. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
Baltruschat, Doris (2010). Global Media Ecologies: Networked Production in Film and Television (https://books.google.com/books?id=8xDHBQAAQBAJ&q=julia+hammett-jamart& pg=PT264). New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781136966170. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
Baltruschat, Doris; Erickson, Mary P (2015). Independent Filmmaking Around the Globe (htt ps://books.google.com/books?id=kl6zCAAAQBAJ&q=julia+hammett-jamart&pg=PA290). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442626836. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
Brean, Samuel (25 October 2013). "Film and TV Policies in English-speaking Countries" (htt ps://inmedia.revues.org/809). In Media: The French Journal of Media Studies (5). doi:10.4000/inmedia.809 (https://doi.org/10.4000%2Finmedia.809).
https://rm.coe.int/mapping-of-film-and-audiovisual-public-funding-criteria-in-the- eu/1680947b6c
European Film and Television Co-production | SpringerLink (https://www.palgrave.com/gp/b ook/9783319971568).
Hammett-Jamart, Julia; et al. (2018). European Film and Television Co-production: Policy and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-319-97156-8.
https://www.formasup-paris.com/pdf/formation_pdf/197
"Inside Gaza" (https://moviesthatmatter.nl/en/festival/industry/take-on-film-impact-2025/insid e-gaza/). Movies that Matter. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
"INSIDE GAZA documentary film" (https://insidegaza-film.org/). insidegaza-film.org. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
"INSIDE GAZA" (https://distribution.arte.tv/fiche/INSIDE_GAZA). distribution.arte.tv (in French). Retrieved 9 November 2025.
"« Nous étions au cœur de la cible » : les journalistes de l'AFP piégés à Gaza racontent leur travail dans un documentaire saisissant" (https://www.nouvelobs.com/culture/20251009.OB S108583/nous-etions-au-c-ur-de-la-cible-les-journalistes-de-l-afp-pieges-a-gaza-racontent-l eur-travail-dans-un-documentaire-saisissant.html). Le Nouvel Obs (in French). 9 October 2025. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
"Zinder - Production & Contact Info | IMDbPro" (https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt11400272/). pro.imdb.com. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
Macnab, Geoffrey. "Three African doc filmmakers talk bringing the stories of their generation to a global audience" (https://www.screendaily.com/features/three-african-doc-filmmakers-tal k-bringing-the-stories-of-their-generation-to-a-global-audience/5165465.article). Screen. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
"Surrender (1995) - The Screen Guide - Screen Australia" (https://www.screenaustralia.gov. au/the-screen-guide/t/surrender-1995/9832/). www.screenaustralia.gov.au. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
Surrender (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6908156/?ref_=nm_knf_t_3), Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS), retrieved 9 November 2025
"Game (1993) - The Screen Guide - Screen Australia" (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/t he-screen-guide/t/game-1993/7820/). www.screenaustralia.gov.au. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
Game (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6908230/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk), Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS), retrieved 9 November 2025
"My Father's House (1993) - The Screen Guide - Screen Australia" (https://www.screenaustr alia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/my-fathers-house-1993/7827/). www.screenaustralia.gov.au. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
"September (1993) - The Screen Guide - Screen Australia" (https://www.screenaustralia.gov. au/the-screen-guide/t/september-1993/7829/). www.screenaustralia.gov.au. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
September (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6908300/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk), Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS), retrieved 9 November 2025
"Sound of Therapy (1991) - The Screen Guide - Screen Australia" (https://www.screenaustra lia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/sound-of-therapy-1991/2739/). www.screenaustralia.gov.au. Retrieved 9 November 2025.
The Sound of Therapy (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6845542/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk), Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), 12 May 1991, retrieved 9 November 2025

~2025-32325-56 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to copy/paste all of the references that are already in the article. Please re-read what I wrote above; nearly all of the references are either articles written by the subjects or just links to film listings; for example, this link from screenaustralia.gov.au is simply a listing of a film by the subject. I don't see any third-party reliable sources that have in-depth coverage of the subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another indiscriminate list of references from the same not-logged-in editor

Seems to me that the following sources, which are cited in that article, would be considered reliable third-party sources?

- Screen Australia (Australian government agency)

- National Library of Australia

- University of Wollongong

- ARTE International Film Distribution

- Taylor and Francis publishers

- Palgrave Macmillan publishers

...the list goes on.

Again...am I missing something? ~2025-32421-42 (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A third indiscriminate list of references from the same not-logged-in editor

Article looks legit, but needs improving. Quick search gave these more recent third-party sources:

https://journals.sagepub.com/page/con/call-for-papers/xr-for-social-change

https://www.amazon.com/European-Film-Television-Co-production-Practice/dp/3319971565

https://www.boxofficepro.fr/futurcinema-annonce-sa-promotion-2022/

https://comm.ku.dk/calendar/2019/european-film/

https://cemes.ku.dk/activities/2019/book-launch-european-film-and-television-co-production-policy-and-practice/

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315189932-15/bridging-gap-julia-hammett-jamart?context=ubx&refId=95b21dd8-6e7a-420b-a303-374d77c8562f

https://www.fjpi.org/events/formation-le-documentaire-developpement-financement-diffusion/

https://ircav.fr/member/julia-hammett-jamart/

https://app.swapcard.com/event/newimages-festival-2025/planning/UGxhbm5pbmdfMjU4MDc1Nw==

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/european-film-and-television-co-production-julia-hammett-jamart/1128963532

https://www.cinecosa.com/about-us/cinecosa-network/

https://www.cinecosa.com/cycles/film-tv-policy/photos/

https://www.cinecosa.com/cycles/film-tv-policy/screen-policies-in-the-21st-century-2014/

https://www.3continents.com/en/production-and-storytelling/decouvrir/temoignages/

https://www.3continents.com/en/production-and-storytelling/rechercher/universitaire-en-residence/univ-2018/

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cmstudies.org/resource/resmgr/2017_conference/scms2017program_norooms.pdf

https://formations.afdas.com/extranet/organismes-de-formation/projets-pedagogiques/copy_of_produire-un-documentaire-pour-la-television

https://www.afeccav.org/colloque-afeccav-dune-europe-audiovisuelle-strasbourg-5-7-juillet-2018/ ~2025-32052-93 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the grand claims of the article, she only gets 2 google news hits. Lacking coverage to meet WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO, and some serious WP:COI concerns here. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I’m a new user so I hope it is OK to join the discussion here (new to wikipedia but experienced at editing text). Am I right in thinking that this article is not a new wikipedia entry (history tab shows entries dating back about 8 years)? Also looks like it has had more than 20 contributors, which suggests a certain level of neutrality.

I was checking out the Wikipedia deletion policy, and found this: “If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page”. So just wondering whether improving the article might be an important first step (and may be more consistent with Wikipedia policy)?

A quick search brings up quite a few sources sources that could be added to improve this article. For instance, I found this reference, which is a third party, independent article with depth of coverage from a reliable source: https://comm.ku.dk/calendar/2019/european-film/

I'm guessing there are probably more. Don't know for sure but could try. ~2025-32854-94 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A guest lecturer mentioned in a university press release is a long way from showing notability... None of these are helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that despite the request to join the discussion as a new user, this appears to be the same editor that dropped the three lists of references hatted above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wouldn't pass academic notability [22] with a sub 100 citations... a regular Gsearch brings up social media, LinkedIn, Imdb, then off a cliff for RS. There just isn't enough here to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't feel I can responsibly close this discussion as a Delete without at least a minimum investigation into all of these sources dumped into this discussion. There are a ton so a source assessment doesn't need to be comprehensive but at least a summary of sources would help out here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 15 November 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 no consensus. While the discussion pivoted some toward the end, it is not enough to say there's a clear consensus to retain this. Star Mississippi 03:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Lutter

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

Dead-end self-admitted autobiography.

Edit (November 20th): I would also like to point out that the article in question goes against the procedures recommended in Wikipedia:Autobiography. GrinningIodize (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, and Texas. GrinningIodize (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems like it could be a WP:NACADEMIC pass based on the subject's achievements. Some of the sources do look good. Definitely needs cleanup, though. MediaKyle (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete created in a moment of WP:COI and developed short of WP:GNG. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Don't see any notable coverage about her. Bruhpedia (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gscholar says she's cited by over 4700 other papers, that would imply academic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I checked her GScholar profile (now added) and looked at her co-authors who are also academics. She compares well, so I conclude that she has to be considered as notable within her area which is one with a relatively low citation rate; I would double her citations for comparison to, for instance, solid-state physics or chemistry. Hence passes WP:NPROF#C1. The page could do with some work, it is a bit promo and does not include Important (for academics) roles as editor or in societies -- a quick search found some.Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC) See end for explanation.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This professor does not seem to meet WP:GNG due to most of the sources being primary/non-independent, however she does seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC based on the fact that she held a named professorship for two years (although it's unclear if it was a named chair position or just a funded appointment with a name). I'm not familiar enough with the h-index scale for her field, but 33 seems acceptable, and that her work has been cited by many. I cleaned up some self-promo and trivia, and reformatted the article. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC
Weak keep There are lots of problems with this article, the first being that it was created by user Sonya.lutter. That version was based almost entirely on non-appropriate sources. It has been improved, and I went through and deleted statements and sections that glaringly did not meet BLP standards. There are still too many primary and unreliable sources, so I think the "multiple issues" statement should remain. She meets NACADEMIC. Lamona (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject appears to meet academic notability under WP:PROF through leadership roles (co-founder and president of a recognized professional association) and significant academic contributions. While the article could use more independent sources to strengthen verification, deletion would remove information on a notable figure in the emerging field of financial therapy. A cleanup and sourcing improvement tag would be more appropriate than deletion. Herinalian (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To address your point on applying maintenance tags over deletion. There is an essay (which I can't remember the name of) that correctly says that tags are not a protection against article deletion. If the individual or subject isn't notable, a tag isn't going to change that. 11WB (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I dislike that this article was created by the person whom it's about, that is a blatant violation of the WP:COI guidelines. From a notability standpoint however, I am unconvinced this individual meets WP:NACADEMIC. The sites that I found mostly consist of puffery. Whilst undoubtedly experienced with extensive qualifications, I don't see how Lutter fully meets the NACADEMIC criteria:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

The sources that make claims eluding to this are interviews with Lutter, and constitute puffery. This one for example. Fail.

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

Lutter won 'the Best Theoretical research paper award at the national Financial Planning Association meeting two years in a row with her colleagues on topics related to Savers & Spenders and The Financial Implications of Cohabitation. Her developmental work in financial therapy is summarized in Financial Therapy: Theory, Research, and Practice with co-editors Drs. Brad Klontz and Kristy Archuleta. Her research for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on The Intergenerational Transfer of Money Attitudes and Behaviors in 2015 was instrumental in moving practical implications forward at the national level.', according to Standard Deviations. As this is at a national level, this is a pass for this criteria. Source may not be reliable however.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).

Lutter is a judge for the Women to Watch Awards 2025, as is documented here. She has also been 'named director of the School of Family Studies and Human Services' at Kansas State University. I don't know if these qualify for this criteria so I'll just put this as a maybe.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Sources can argue this, but most if not all read as puffery. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and put maybe.

5. The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Lutter is 'professor of financial planning and financial psychology at Texas Tech University'. See this. Pass. The source is WP:PRIMARY however.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

There is the director post from point 3. I don't know whether director is the highest unfortunately. Fail unless confirmed otherwise.

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

Same as point 1 and point 4. I don't think being the founder of ENLITE would qualify this point. Fail.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

This is not confirmed by any source. Fail.

Based on this, Lutter only meets points 2 and 5, which equate to an academic position at a university and winning two awards. There is nothing here that makes Lutter stand out beyond simply being an extremely qualified individual in her respective field.

The fact Lutter herself was the one to create the article, not somebody else who thought she was in fact notable means I have to go with delete on this occasion. 11WB (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Close to a no consensus here. Will allow another relisting to address latest WP:NACADEMIC disagreement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a !keep for me, decent citation numbers and some recognition as explained above. Sourcing isn't the best, but it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider reading my update to the nomination, which mentions the COI issues in a more direct manner. GrinningIodize (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every autobiography is a violation of their, and our, fiduciary duty. It's also a silly excuse to take away our charitable status. Bearian (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, revised vote. A few minutes ago Sonya Litter added a portrait of herself. I was prepared to overlook the creation of an autobiographical article, every newbie is entitled to a mistake. However, such a blatant violation of norms after a COI warning was made back in October means that I have now revised my thinking. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched for her under both her current name Sonya Lutter and her maiden name Sonya Britt. I found two sources with her maiden name that validate something about her claims, but both are paywalled so someone else will need to validate what. It is arguable the image may not be owned by her, so that should probably be addressed. It has been said on other AfD's that COI is not a reason alone for deletion. The sourcing is an issue, one of them is an interview she appears to have done with herself, considering she is the author. However, these sources all support that she meets WP:NPROF. She's also spoken at so many national conferences it was difficult to parse the Google results and obviously her Google scholar profile shows she has made a significant impact through her research.

Italian Journal of Sociology of Education [23]
Journal of Family and Economic Issues [24]
Journal of Financial Therapy [25]
Financial Planning Review [26]
NYTimes Source (paywalled) [27]
WSJ Source (paywalled) [28]

Revolving Doormat (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercury Source [29]
Competency Standards Commission [30]
2nd NYTimes Source (paywalled) [31]

Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To nominator's edit:

This doesn't compel me to change my vote. Others have done plenty of clean-up work thus far such that I don't see those issues. I think deleting it, rather than continuing to fix the issues, would be a detriment to Wikipedia. Revolving Doormat (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but I would argue that the article should at least be rewritten by someone other than the subject. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why a COI template would help mark that, rather than deletion. Katzrockso (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 11WB and Revolving Doormat. Passes NPROF (which doesn't require passing all 8; Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources). Any issues with the fact that the article was written by its subject are remedied by editing rather than deletion (WP:ATD-E). COI editing calls for sanctions against a user rather than the deletion of an article about a notable subject. Katzrockso (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions