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]
Delete per lack of any reliable sources; Newsfile is basically a press release. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 22 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]

Comment the dewiki article says his first name was Alfred Kurt Hellmut Wolff and he just published his books under the name Hellmut. This seems to be true [9] (this seems to refer to the third reich thing). Alternatively the Nazi connection way be from confusing him with a different astrologist with the same last name who did (claim to, at least) work for the Nazis. My guess is he's probably notable but he seems to have used a bunch of different names so finding sources is hard and I don't feel comfortable voting yet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 - [10] - there's almost nothing there. And if we follow the links to Artelo to the director Atanasije Nikolić [11] or the composer Josif Šlezinger [sr] [12] - 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 [13] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As other users have already pointed out, the subject of this article does not seem very notable (hence the only 2 google news hits) and does seem to show some signs of COI. I say this because, if a Wikipedia user woke up one day and decided to write a new article and contribute to the overall internet literacy of the world, why, of all things would they write about Julia Hammett-Jamart? Poland44444444 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions