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

Hugo de Garis

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBLP. (Definitely doesn't meet WP:NPROF.) Leaving out the first-party sources and blogs, all that remains are:

two Wired articles from '97: basically interviews, one explicitly calls him "fringe"
the BBC article from '99: somewhere between credulous and Britishly bemused
the 2010 Geraci book: does mention him a bunch of times, but only as an example of a transhumanist / posthumanist / extropian / I guess we would call this TESCREAL now?

We also know now that his research program was not successful in creating artificial brains, let alone planet-sized ones. That doesn't invalidate any of the sources but it does put them in a different light. It's not at all clear that he originated any of these concepts: most were established scifi tropes well before he started his research. I did do a WP:BEFORE search, which is when the two Wired articles were added. As far as I can tell, with the available reliable sources, he isn't notable outside of a certain segment of the internet. Apocheir (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Technology. Apocheir (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Krejcarek

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. (Created & re-created by the person the article is about; deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Krejcarek. The new version has even less evidence of notability than the deleted version, but it is not similar enough to justify a G4 deletion.) JBW (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Artists. JBW (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significantly less detailed, less well sourced, and with less evidence of notability than the deleted version. Sadly, WP:CSD#G4 only allows speedy deletion for substantially identical re-creations, not merely for re-creations that do not provide new evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Philip Krejcarek satisfies WP:GNG for artists. He has exhibited in institutional venues like the Lynden Sculpture Garden, whose exhibition catalogue details his conceptual photography and sculpture work. His work is in the permanent collections of major museums (Milwaukee Art Museum, Denver Art Museum, etc.) and the Waukesha Public Library. He’s authored instructional photography texts published by a major educational press, and his awards include nationally competitive scholarships and grants. These sources are independent and establish his notability in the art world. I’ve updated the article with citations and can provide further improvements if needed.Sweetabena (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you added for the claims of being in the permanent collections of these museums do not actually mention these museums at all. Google Scholar cannot find any hits for "Milwaukee Art Musem" "Krejcarek". And some of the other sources that you added are tagged as being generated by an LLM. Are those claims even true? Did you check them yourself or did you believe that an AI hallucination was valid? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, anything generated by an LLM should be expunged from article space, since machines that spew out statistically plausible strings of words are the opposite of trustworthy. ChatGPT is the anti-encyclopedia, and we should show zero tolerance to it. LLM implies TNT. Second, there isn't enough reliable, independent sourcing (either in the article or elsewhere) to make a case for notability, so there's no point in trying to write a replacement. He has written books, for example, but we'd need multiple published reviews to make a case that he meets our standard for notable authors. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to note, I’m not the original creator of this article. I only made some good-faith edits to improve its structure and sourcing. I wasn’t trying to restore previously deleted content or push a specific outcome. I appreciate the concerns raised and trust the community to reach a fair consensus. If anything I added fell short of expectations, feel free to revise or remove as needed.Sweetabena (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benedicta Neysa Nathania

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

Based on the user name, this is an autobiography. There is no significant coverage to establish notability. Doing her post-doc, there is no indication that the specific notability for academics is met either. There are also this odd claim Benedicta is the female Secretary-General of the United Nations since 2021, still, she is kept as the ace of the United Nations and not publicized as his position. There is simply no such position. If it does exist and not publicized, then it isn't a significant position. Whpq (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bibliographies. Whpq (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely a HOAX as the UN position does not seem to exist. Either way, this is not a notable individual. Only one source and nothing else we can find, I don't see anything in Scholar or Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator/subject removed 5 tags, but didn't address 4 of them. She added a source, so technically it's referenced, but having a single source in an article is tantamount to original research. While it has been sourced to at least 1 reference, there are still 5 major issues: it needs (1) more citations, (2) to be re-written from a (3) promotional (4) resume to an encyclopedia article, and (5) the extraordinary claims of notability need extraordinary proof. I remind you all that for a BLP, the burden of proof flips to the side that needs to come up with significant coverage in reliable sources. In 2025, everyone knows that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC) P.S. The creator/subject actually knew that autobiography is discouraged here since at least last year, and this could not possibly be done at the worst possible time, that the richest person in the world wants to destroy us entirely, while the most powerful man in the world just wants to destroy our finances. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax/unverifiable per WP:V. Possible WP:CSD#G3 speedy deletion. I tried verifying the claim "Currently, Benedicta is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Cambridge and has completed a PhD in mathematics at Universität Hamburg". Google found nothing with her name on the Cambridge and Hamburg web sites. The Mathematics Genealogy Project does not list her. On another note, this article claims her to be the daughter of Sérgio Vieira de Mello but all I can find online is that his children were two significantly older sons [1] [2] [3] [4]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence of hoax: there are no mathematics publications by anyone with the name "Neysa" or "Nathania" in MathSciNet and zbMATH, and both of these list essentially all legitimate mathematics publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Germany, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a possible hoax that, at any rate, makes no verifiable claims to significance. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also "reincarnation of Joan of Arc" and "secret daughter of Dag Hammarsköljd" in the history of Sérgio Vieira de Mello. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José María Balcells Doménech

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

(Note: Trying without Doménech yields many more results (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL))

WP:PROF. Article deleted for similar reasons in eswiki and cawiki. Author also tried to recreate the material there, but it was denied (WP:COI suspected). Author removed PROD. Article clearly written as a CV. SFBB (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SFBB (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. No citations found in GS for this scholar. Can WP:Author help? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
- - I think one can find citations in GS if one looks under José María Balcells (without the Doménech). Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, some respectable citations but not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

- I found two reviews of his books [5] [6] (the second one a co-edited volume). It's not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me yet, but maybe there are more? His academy memberships also might make a plausible case for WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to me a noted old (perhaps semi-retired) Spanish philologist. Notable by multiple reviews of his works. Have tried adding reviews of a couple of his books but am old myself and struggling a bit with formatting and Spanish naming conventions (Msrasnw (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Also having checked the Spanish Wikipedia deletion this seems to me to have been done without anything by way of a proper review of what was submitted but just on the basis of it having been deleted many years ago. The author of the article seems to me to have claimed there it to be a new article and he was unaware of the earlier one. I think the Spanish procedure doesn't look to me to have been a fair one. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)) See here: (https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tabl%C3%B3n_de_anuncios_de_los_bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Solicitudes_de_restauraci%C3%B3n/Actual&oldid=168308882)[reply]

@Msrasnw: The eswiki process was previously discussed on the Village Pump, as the author brought the subject there before the notification. If you look at the argumentation used to reinstate the article, everything refers to WP:PROF; and based on that guideline, the article cannot stand. It’s also important to note that the article had previously been deleted due to suspected COI (same as now).SFBB (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Msrasnw's efforts there are now enough book reviews to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. (For writing in Spanish in the humanities I wouldn't expect citation counts to be very informative; reviews are better.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nice work Msrasnw! Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Eventually, the article might be kept under WP:AUTHOR, but if you take a look at it, it’s entirely framed from the WP:PROF perspective. As such, it does not satisfy that policy and should be deleted, as it's merely a collection of irrelevancies. If it is decided to keep it based on WP:AUTHOR, then it needs to be completely reframed accordingly. SFBB (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: WP:PROF#C3 is certainly not met. None of those memberships are anywhere close to what is listed in WP:PROF#C3. SFBB (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think looking at his membership of the Reial Acadèmia de Bones Lletres de Barcelona (founded (1729) via - his being an Elected National Corresponding Academicians No 39 seems to me at, or close to, meeting WP:PROF#C3 (Msrasnw (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. I agree that the book reviews are enough for him to meet NAUTHOR. I also have no idea what it means for an article to be "framed from the WP:PROF perspective" — it's very common for humanities professors to meet NAUTHOR rather than NPROF, since in many fields the majority of influential academic research is published in the form of books, so there's obviously going to be an overlap between describing someone's research and describing the books they've written. Nothing about this article needs to be "completed reframed" on the basis of him meeting NAUTHOR rather than NPROF. MCE89 (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick D. Kim

AfDs for this article:

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

The lack of independent sourcing to establish notability is still an issue since the 2009 discussion. Sources are still not present to establish his notability.

Since that discussion, he has been mentioned in many books, but those are passing mentions crediting him for the pictures used in them. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Science, and New Zealand. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single source referenced in the article is not an independent source as it is written by the subject. The claim of notability in the article is ‘best fan artwork’ from a fan convention, which is not a notable award that would be considered as "won significant critical attention" or any other part of WP:ARTIST. My search for other possible significant coverage in independent reliable sources turned up nothing. I found instead a self-published book and wikipedia copies. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation count is solid but falls short of WP:NPROF#C1 for me, and I don't see any indication that he passes any of the other NPROF criteria. I unfortunately couldn't find any independent coverage that would indicate that he is notable as a cartoonist. MCE89 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Popescu

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV of this individual that I could find. The article relies on a single reference. GhostOfNoMan 06:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMan 06:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a surprise, another Topcipher/SwisterTwister/Trampton substub. These are bad and in need of cleanup but almost always based on underlying notability, and WP:DINC. In this case, IEEE Fellow is an automatic pass of WP:PROF#C3, the exact case that is used as an example of what passes in WP:PROF. The record is confused by the 2021 death of someone with the same name, supposedly a billionaire bitcoin holder, but I have not yet been able to determine whether there is any connection other than in name and I have no opinion whether the bitcoin Popescu is also notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Finland, Hungary, Romania, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; As others have said, he meets WP:PROF#C3 (by being an IEEE fellow which is an autopass) and so is notable. If you don’t trust the source in the article (a facebook post), this is the table of fellows of the IEEE. Select “P” and go to page 30, he is at the top of the page. Or go to the year of 2015 and select “P”, he is mentioned there. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 11:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adding another vote. A very obvious pass based upon the IEEE Fellow election. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he passes WP:PROF#C3 due to his IEEE fellowship. --hroest 19:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sreenath Subrahmanyam

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

Academic who doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Provided references are links to papers by the subject, not articles about the subject, and I didn't find significant independent coverage. Note: Article was originally tagged by User:Sexy scientist without any proper followup--I have chosen to complete the nomination myself. @Sexy scientist: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Environment, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete. Very much a borderline case. He has one publication with 1200 cites where he is a middle author, and another with 430 as one of many. His senior co-authors have high h-factors, so this is a fairly high citation area and his total citations and h-factor are not great. No awards of note that I can see. Decisive for me is that his citations with year are stagnant to dropping. I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt; if his citation trend was strong I would have. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is also a strike against him that the top-cited papers appear to be student work (they list the university where he received his doctorate as his affiliation) and therefore are difficult to disentangle from his more-senior coauthors. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is a low rung scientist working with other scientists and still generating low quality research and review articles. There is even a section labelled as 'popular articles' which are his most cited articles as any place author and still, they are low quality papers. Sexy scientist (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, if this chap is a "low rung scientist". The person is a Fellow in two prestigious International societies--- FRSB and FRSC, both of which need solid contributions to get admittted into. I read on the internet that admissions to these societies are by nominations from other accomplished Professors. I would give him the benefit of doubt at the least. Tuckerbaba (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid, the "popular articles" section does not appear to present the most cited articles of the author claimed by Sexy Scientist. Please see below.
Environmental impacts of thermal power plant: case study (4 publications presented in google scholar with 0 citations)

Salivary proteins of plant-feeding hemipteroids–implication in phytophagy (109 citations)

Application of natural receptors in sensors and assays (166 citations)

Analytical methods for determination of mycotoxins: a review (1299 citations)

Ecological modelling of a wetland for phytoremediating Cu, Zn and Mn in a gold–copper mine site using Typha domingensis (Poales: Typhaceae) near Orange, NSW, Australia (6 citations)

Effective climate change adaptation strategies for biodiversity conservation (6 citations)
His top six citations are (1299, 430, 229, 166, 109 and 98). Perhaps, the cited articles in the "popular articles" section seem to broadly represent the subject areas covered by the author. Tuckerbaba (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ldm1954, Many thanks for your comment. The author seems to have won a couple of internationally acclaimed awards. Tuckerbaba (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) as a bit too soon. Bearian (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Publish: I would suggest that the article continue to be published for two compelling reasons. 1. A new approach has been developed by him that is being followed around the world for the "computational design of molecular imprint" and 2. for proposing that natural receptors can be used for bio-recognition. I conducted some random internet research, and before these two papers, there was no mention of the work. Additionally, he is the first author on both papers. To support him, a quick check on the impact factor of advanced materials (the journal in which one of the two ideas was published has an exceptionally high impact factor of 28.9). This scientist is also an FRSB and an FRSC, both of which are extremely prestigious and difficult to obtain.

Additionally, I visited the FRSB website, which describes who is awarded the FRSB.

"A Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology (FRSB) is an individual recognized for their prominent contribution to the advancement of the biological sciences and who has demonstrated at least five years of experience in a senior leadership role. Fellowship signifies distinction in biological research, teaching, or the application of biological principles. Fellows are entitled to use the post-nominal letters FRSB."

I did not check the requirements for FRSC, but I am sure only accomplished scientists are permitted to be a part of the league.

I will therefore recommend that the article be published. Vijay Venkateshwar (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the article be published, possibly with some revisions if the other editors deem it suitable.

Often, in science, although the first author does the majority of the work, the other contributors may make substantial contributions, fundamental, and conceptual on many occasions. It will be unfair to make assumptions and delete the article altogether.

I will clearly give the benefit of the doubt. The scientist also introduced some new ideas in the field, and they have been shown to have helped several research groups around the globe.

Additionally, although perhaps not in the tenets, the Wiki articles also should serve as motivational reads. I think this article in more than one way stands motivational. Musicalheart (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anahid Modrek

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

This article is for an assistant professor and doesn't appear to meet any of the 8 criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. The creater's draft submission was declined for this very reason, yet the article got created anyway. This is a typical assistant professor with typical research output and coverage in a few university webpages. Nothing that meets WP:NACADEMIC. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 15 July 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}}.

delete clearly a promising academic but WP:TOOSOON for an article. GS indicates an early career assistant professor. --hroest 17:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added fellowships and notability addressing the the criteria for an academic Spicymagnet (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added fellowships and notability addressing the the criteria for an academic. Spicymagnet (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the wrong kinds of fellowships. WP:PROF asks for a level of honorary membership in a major academic society for which this is a significant honor, often called a fellowship. Small research grants are also often called fellowships but are a totally different thing. Employment at certain academic employers (especially postdoctorates) is also sometimes called a fellowship but is another totally different thing. Only the honorary membership meaning counts. Even among academic societies not all membership-type fellowships count; the ones for which this is a highly selective honor count but the ones for which pretty much anyone can be a fellow by joining and paying a membership fee do not count. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DE, sockpuppetry

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The fellowships listed are awards, not “paid” memberships. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the fellowships and grants listed are all awarded through competition /selection committees. None of the awards or fellowships or granting agencies are “paid” memberships. This isn’t a typical assistant professor. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of these contribute to notability through any criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2. These aren’t normal awards and grants this person has gotten. This isn’t a normal assistant professor. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usually, assistant professors are not notable here, unless they have won major international awards or similar-level recognition for their work. In this case, nothing like that is visible and her citation counts on Google Scholar are only in the double digits (in a high-citation field), so she does appear to be an exception to the usual case. Additionally, I have repeatedly cut back edits that provide information about the subject that appears to be based on personal information rather than published sources, suggesting that there is some kind of undeclared WP:COI problem here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep the fellowships and grants listed are all awarded through competition /selection committees. None of the awards or fellowships or granting agencies are “paid” memberships. This isn’t a typical assistant professor. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck through your repeated comment. Editors are only allowed to contribute one boldface opinion to AfD discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The output and the funding agencies are not typical, especially for psychological science. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability; little sign of other notability. Noting in passing that the article shows signs of being an autobiography. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Keep. The fundings agencies are not memberships, and they're competitive to secure to support the level of empirical work. This spans several international granting agencies, in addition to private and federal. This is not a typical assistant professor. meets criteria.
76.176.219.32 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — 76.176.219.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. The fundings agencies are not memberships, and they're competitive to secure to support the level of empirical work. This spans several international granting agencies, in addition to private and federal. This is not a typical assistant professor. meets criteria.
2603:8000:A200:2100:1057:CE9C:5D91:E57F (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notability is clear, just because they are assistant professor level doesn't mean they are not notable. Their output is not normal for psychological science and the empirical nature of the work and several funding sources are all grants/awards (not things that are paid for). I.e., the fellowships are also highly selective and notable in their niche.

Spicymagnet (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spicymagnet (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

— Spicymagnet (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.

Keep. This isn't a normal person. The amount of fundings agencies - as listed, from the Hewlett Foundation, to the citation that includes funding from the UBS Optimus Foundation; World Bank Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund, Early Learning Partnership, British Academy’s Early Childhood Development Programme, GCRF Early Childhood Education, United Kingdom Government’s Global Challenges Research Fund, Department for International Development, etc.

There are studies she has with participant samples of over 20K... that's not typical.

Their CV also shows they have funding from B&M Gates Foundation. So that should be added.

This isn't a normal person, and is notable because they are at this point even as an assistant professor. 2603:8000:A200:2100:F1A2:D8C:2A5C:B920 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — 2603:8000:A200:2100:F1A2:D8C:2A5C:B920 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You fail to understand WP:NACADEMIC; despite getting some grants and doing work on large samples doesn't inherently meet our notability guidelines. Further, since many edits have come from the 2603:8000:A200:2100 IP range, I urge you to be aware of WP:IPSOCK just to ensure these are all separate individuals --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON to pass WP:PROF notability guidelines -- awards and publications are those that are typical for an up-and-coming well respected assistant professor, but that's generally not at the level of research notability for passing WP:PROF. Nationally significant awards or national-level coverage is needed at this level. Good luck to her. People who jump in who haven't participated in AfD are more hurting the keep cause than helping it. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rewards are at the federal/national level. 76.176.219.32 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“ Good luck to her” is extremely condescending and unprofessional. 2603:8000:A200:2100:44CB:B854:C929:9C45 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The awards are the kind of early career awards that past consensus has determined do not contribute much to notability. Wishing an early career academic luck in their career is a usual thing to do, and I think the IP should strike their aspersion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein and Mscuthbert's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep. I actually went ahead and read some of this person's work - not just looking at the wiki page or their other public profiles.

There's one paper that followed over 2,000 children in Africa for over a decade. This isn't a normal project for someone at the assistant professor level

I did read the comments and criteria, and this meets the first/second criteria of notability. Thus funding agencies are ample.

I did see the "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website..." message, and I am not sure if this is a common message but I also think its quite an attack on public voice.

No, I have not been asked by this person or anyone they know to read this.

I just use wikipedia and trust it, and I don't understand why there are all these men writing down the accomplishments of this female academic.

I don't have a wikipedia account or page so I don't know how to sign this. 2603:8000:A200:2100:E851:7A31:EBA9:E5C0 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — 2603:8000:A200:2100:E851:7A31:EBA9:E5C0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"I don't understand why there are all these men writing down the accomplishments of this female academic." <-- I urge you to assume good faith. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep (and please read why/ what I have to say).

Okay, hello everyone. I've never participated in one of these, but I do have something to say.

First, I was not asked by anyone to read this and this was not sent to me.

Second, I am not an academic or a Professor.

Third, and perhaps more importantly, I am just a musician and actually came across this person's page because it was linked to an artist I was reading about.

This page, and this person, needs to stay. This is a talent, and I don't see people like this too often - and no, I don't think this is (as others are saying) a 'normal' or 'typical' professor.

I did read some of her work (disclaimer: just the abstract!), as I don't have access to the full articles, and I see what might be happening here.

For instance, there is a study she published doing research on 20 schools across the U.S., and as others stated, one study that has a sample of over 20,000 people in it, and one study with a sample of 2 thousand children from Ghana followed for a decade. These were all her papers/corresponding, and funded by different agencies. I'm not a professor, but I do know professors, and this isn't something they can pull off at the assistant level. These aren't normal projects and their caliber are not something we see this early on. That in itself is notable.

also, looking at the criteria link for academics - the funding they have gotten is not a small accolade. Funding from the Hewlett Foundation is so rare, even I know that. The deeper learning fellowship is a funded award.

The page, I think, just needs to be more encyclopedic, AND/also, perhaps more clear about what studies they've done. One perfect example is that I'm not able to access the full journal article, so maybe including the value and details of the studies - or at least one or two, so we have more insight into the caliber of work she is doing. To me, these studies and data are more impactful than just writing a book. And then of course noting the prestige of the awards and fellowships and being part of these societies.

I know there are professors here who have commented - and I may represent the less educated - I did find this person's work very interesting, and I think she should stay on here. There are people like me, I'm sure, that might want to actually follow this person and their career. I use wikipedia. I might not be super sophisticated in my own reading and citation practices, but, i do read wikipedia.

I still don't know how to sign, but I will put the squiggle dashes at the bottom like it is recommending I do so.

I'll share that I went to the Jurassic Museum of Technology a couple weeks ago, and saw an artist's work Hagop Sandaldjian and purchased his book at the gift shop. Today, I googled him, and her profile linked to his. That's how I saw all this.

So, if you want to know who I am, you can call the museum and ask for a list of attendees from the last week of June :).

Otherwise, I do not know enough about how this works to put my full name here.

20:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC) 2603:8000:A200:2100:E41A:F69A:1CCC:AD27 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — 2603:8000:A200:2100:E41A:F69A:1CCC:AD27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Deleting Anahid Modrek off Hagop Sandaldjian’s page is inappropriate 2603:8000:A200:2100:44CB:B854:C929:9C45 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Spicymagnet (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pages/links such as the Luys Foundation just because Anahid Modrek is linked is extremely concerning given it is strategic and targeting her - this shows you are not operating in good faith and instead exploiting an agenda 2603:8000:A200:2100:44CB:B854:C929:9C45 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, agreed. Spicymagnet (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject meets neither WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Notable living person, family member, and academic. There is significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent of the subject. Meets WP:GNG.

76.176.219.32 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Struck repeat bolded vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not LinkedIn. We have almost never kept the article of an assistant professor. The fact that she's a family member of a famous person is irrelevant, and arguments that such matters harms their overall argument. It's so poorly written that it could be better deleted and started over, but, if this were kept, a serious stubification is needed. I'm taking this stance about notability as we define it, regardless of the content of her research, whether she's nice, or the quality of her teaching. Bearian (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hei Sing Tso

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

Was prodded by Nayyn with the rationale, "Non-notable academic, does not pass WP:PROF, all sources used here cannot be considered independent of the subject." Deprodded without improvement. But Nayyn's reasoning holds true, with a non-existent citation count, and no other indications of passing WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, prod removed by IP with no changes to the article, still does not pass WP:GNG for academics. Nayyn (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just a resume for a non-notable lawyer. Yue🌙 21:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Also, the sources look extremely sketchy. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Árpád Ajtony

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Beauty pageants, France, and Hungary. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is coverage in the obituary here and he won the Sándor Bródy Prize which seems notable. --hroest 18:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – More than a thousand words of coverage in Hungarian here, ~850 words of coverage here, more than 200 words of coverage here and here among others. See the search results. There's an abundance of significant coverage so this meets WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarita Shankar

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

A promotional biography of a businesswoman masquerading as an educator fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. A non-notable business woman portrayed as an educator, and a lot of non reliable and primary sources used as sources. Fails Wp:NAUTHOR, Wp:ACADEMIC and wp: GNGz Zuck28 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally created this article in December 2023 as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Here's the original version: [7]. Since then, I haven't had much involvement with it. Seeing the current state of the article is quite disheartening, and it has made me lose interest in trying to improve or save it.Thilsebatti (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Indian Express article does mention the subject’s name, and it's the only reliable source available. However, even that coverage isn't in-depth. Apart from that, there is a reference to a book published by Notion Press, which in itself is not considered a reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searched for sources, under the assumption that the Indira Group of Institutes might be notable and that therefore Shankar might meet WP:NACADEMIC about administrative posts. Can't find coverage demonstrating that either the company or she meet notability criteria. Tacyarg (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Mulladam (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Back

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

Only 1 article links to this. Just seems to be a run of the mill lawyer with most sources being primary and not SIGCOV. Nothing in Australian database trove either. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no articles about him except articles that were published by employer. 🄻 🄰 14:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Every source is by his employer or a listing in a directory. Therefore, the page lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These two articles in The Courier-Mail [8] and The Sydney Morning Herald [9] were the best sources I could find, but they're both heavily based on quotes, and the former doesn't really provide SIGCOV of Back. I don't see enough for GNG. MCE89 (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alim Abubakre

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

PROD deleted by a user with their only contributions being to this article. Does not appear to pass WP:NPROF, no valid secondary sourcing to prove notability. No WP:RS...WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 15:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 15:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the reason on the talk page about WP:RSNG is sufficient to keep this. However, the page will need additional copy editing.--83.159.74.123 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Robert Cart

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

PROD deleted by the subject himself. Non-notable professor. No valid secondary sourcing: all press releases, interviews, or self-published. No in-depth article on the subject. I could not find a single scholarly article from the subject on Google scholar.

Additionally, Professor Cart has made numerous COI edits since 2007 ([10]), the subject was warned then under a different account and again today with his new account, ([11]). His workplace has policies in place dealing with conflicts of interest. Assuming good faith in this case is quite difficult. All academics know what a conflict of interest is. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Jersey. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and all of the citations are independent reliable sources. articles are published within my discipline in internationally renowned and juried articles. Robert Cart (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: user accounts Robert Cart and Ianbrowning, both of which edited this page, were confirmed to be the same user and were blocked for sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Cart. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that all citations are independent sources: the last four are all by Cart himself. And there are other problems, for example: Montclair's website can only confirm he works there, it is not an independent source for his notability (footnote 1), or the notability of the concert on China (footnote 6); likewise the Network for New Music website is not an independent source for the notability of their concerts- let alone the notability of a single musician. UrielAcosta (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is harrassment. Please stop before I report it. Robert Cart (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user accounts Robert Cart and Ianbrowning, both of which edited this page, were confirmed to be the same user and were blocked for sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Cart. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Mamani could definitely have been nicer, sending an article to AfD after a contested PROD is standard procedure and shouldn't be seen as harrassment. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partially deleted discussion about how to post here

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My apologies, I see I added my comment for deletion below in the wrong way and it lacks a timestamp & a reply option, so if anybody knows how to add a reply button to it please do so. UrielAcosta (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can add a timestamp, and it should automatically be detected as comment syntax. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I've just deleted it & will repost it in the right format. UrielAcosta (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a professor with published work is not in itself automatically notable, see also my comments to the author/subject of the article above refuting his claim that all sources are independent. UrielAcosta (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jon Robert Cart meets multiple notability criteria under both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PROF: 1. Musical Notability Cart has performed as a soloist at major venues including Carnegie Hall and the Kennedy Center, and his performances have been covered in reliable sources such as press releases from DePauw University and concert programs cited in university and arts institution media. He has premiered works by recognized composers including Gary Schocker, Jennifer Higdon, Edgar Girtain IV, and Sergi Cassanellas at international festivals (e.g., the Atlantic Music Festival and the American Cathedral in Paris). His discography includes solo recordings with labels such as Albany and Centaur Records, which document original interpretations and commissions. 2. Academic and Professional Standing Cart holds a Doctor of Musical Arts degree and has held long-term academic positions, including professor and former dean roles at accredited universities such as Montclair State University, Rowan University, and Shippensburg University. His leadership of the Marcel Moyse Society and international publications in peer-reviewed and trade journals (Pan, The Flutist Quarterly, The Babel Flute, Flöte aktuell) indicate a sustained contribution to his field. These meet notability guidelines under WP:PROF for leadership, publication, and impact. 3. Verifiable, Reliable Sources His work has been covered in university news outlets, performance programs, and interviews, and he has an extensive public record as an educator, performer, and recording artist. This includes documented appearances and faculty affiliations on institutional websites, liner notes, and recorded media. In sum, Jon Robert Cart’s biography satisfies the notability requirements for both musicians and academics. This article should be kept. Ianbrowning (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Note: user accounts Robert Cart and Ianbrowning, both of which edited this page, were confirmed to be the same user and were blocked for sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Cart. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is your first edit here on Wikipedia – may I ask how you found this specific AfD? If Jon Robert Cart himself invited you to participate here, I invite you to look at why this isn't ideal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ianbrowning, your comment appears to be AI generated based on its structure and language. Please see WP:LLMDISCLOSE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better RS can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Although this is an autobiography, the subject probably did meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria in 2008 when this was created. However, I do not see that WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PROF in their current form are met. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons that autobiography is discouraged: WP:COI, WP:OR, weak sourcing, risk to the Wikimedia Foundation's charitable status, meat puppetry, and sockpuppetry, all like a checklist of what not to do here. The use of LLM on pages here also endangers us, but from the other side of the law. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails to fulfil the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC (and that's before taking into account the COI edits and sockpuppetry). — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 09:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and lacks WP:THREE (on top of all the other problems). --hroest 18:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dipti Ranjan Sahoo

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

Unable to find any satisfied reference to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, India, and Delhi. LKBT (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he passes WP:NPROF, the nomination based upon failing WP:GNG is not appropriate for an academic, neither is WP:SIGCOV. Checking his co-authors, he is in a medium-low citation area, so his h-factor of 34 is decent. The Fellowship elections count (I added a source for one) although they are not the most significant. Combined with his Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize there is enough, plus he has a good yearly trend to his citations.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ldm1954, I think if you view his academic credentials in totality there is a decent enough case for notability. Zzz plant (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All the authority control databases are showing it (WP:VIAF). Baqi:) (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, proabably passes WP:NPROF just about with a decent h-index plus a price which contributes to notability. --hroest 18:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Kooria

AfDs for this article:

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

Same issues from the 2022 AfD still apply, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:17, 12 July 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) 11:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Still a non-notable academic. Zuck28 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR, I could find a single review of his book [12] but that is generally not enough. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON for such a early career academic. --hroest 18:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Rind

AfDs for this article:

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

This article, recently expanded from a redirect, was previously deleted at AfD in 2019. Nothing has changed since then. The subject is still a non-notable purveyor of fringe theories - about pedophilia supposedly being non-harmful - and fails WP:NPROF. The sources in the article fall into at least one of two categories:

Sources discussing the Rind et al. controversy, on which we already have a much better article. Having a separate article on Rind himself violates WP:BLP1E and WP:CFORK. That existing article also contains pertinent details missing from this creation, such as Rind et al. controversy#Possible bias, that Rind et al.'s results "are "truly an outlier" compared to other meta-analyses", and so forth.

An array of non-significant coverage; things like minor commentary/reply pieces in journals, minor interest pieces in local news, and the like. A few bits and pieces of discussion of someone's ideas in the literature do not a notable person make (else nearly every researcher would be notable).

Taking things more broadly, Rind's views on pedophilia are thoroughly WP:FRINGE, same as other such fringe material that has been removed from Wikipedia. This article as it was created, whether intentionally or not, is effectively a whitewash, as it presents the criticism of his ideas as almost entirely a conservative moral panic, while ignoring a much broader range of criticism. What little here is significant coverage is much better covered elsewhere. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Behavioural science, Psychiatry, and Psychology. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject fails notability guidelines especially in light of there already being an article on the only matter the subject is known for. This article was already deleted once and it appears it was created again by a brand new user that was unaware of the previous decision and its reasoning.Legitimus (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources unrelated to the 1998 controversy, so other editors may examine them individually. I created this article mostly because of them. [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Cheers. V. S. Video (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't commonly comment at AfD, but these don't look like sources about Rind and more like sources about a topic he has commented on. Generally, we need the former type of source to establish notability of a person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment there are now two articles about controversies which include Rind: the very recently created Pederasty: An Integration of Cross-Cultural, Cross-Species, and Empirical Data controversy and Rind et al. controversy which indicates that this may not be as simple as a WP:BLP1E case. His academic contributions include multiple papers with 100+ citations per GS and the 2005 is highly unusual case with editors resigning over it (very uncommon in academia) which indicates notability. Clearly these topics and controversies are well sourced (including the Durber article) seem to be notable.--hroest 19:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pederasty: An Integration of Cross-Cultural, Cross-Species, and Empirical Data controversy article was not only just created but is by the same user who created this article (V. S. Video, above), and overlaps heavily with it. We thus now have two new articles elaborating upon these fringe theories about the supposed benefit and adaptiveness of "pederasty"/pedophilia. There is a copious mainstream academic literature about the causes of different kinds of sexual desires, about evolutionary psychology, about child sexual abuse, etc., and Rind's speculations about pederasty are almost entirely ignored in all of them. The recently created 'Pederasty...controversy' article has POV fluff like this opinion piece where the author bemoans "the stigmatization of groups like NAMBLA...driv[ing] forms of desire inwards and underground" and whitewashes them as merely "ask[ing] for conversations about the age of consent". All this stuff is WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is discussion here but few assertions on what should occur with this article. A source asessment table would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith N. Hamilton

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:CLERGY (note that the role of bishop in the LDS church closer to that of a Catholic Priest or a Methodist Minister, serving a only a local congregation, than to that of, e.g., a Catholic bishop, which is presumed notable). Sources consist of two articles mentioning Hamilton joining and leaving the Utah Parole board and his current employer's website. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latter Day Saints and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [19][20][21] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Military, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of Utah has a 22-member Cabinet, which is as large as any cabinet can get before it becomes too large to function. I'm not sure if we have a consensus about whether cabinet members are automatically notable per WP:NPOL. As a Mormon bishop, he only leads a single congregation, so that's run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to vote. A late law client was a former Public Service Commissioner for the State of Utah. This might create a difficult precedent and, potentially, a conflict of interest. His name is being withheld due to confidentiality. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Feedback on WikiOriginal-9's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [1] ticks all the boxes, but I don't think [2] is independent - they advertise his book at the bottom of the article (and the news site shares a parent company with the publisher). I think [3] - even though it's ultimately somewhat routine political coverage - provides enough detail to be considered significant. I also found some more sources in newspapers.com, I'm adding them to the article now. I think this passes GNG. Zzz plant (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Willard

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

WP:BLP of a local historian, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for historians. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have or had jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain defined notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by non-media organizations she was directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. (For example, people do not become notable enough for Wikipedia articles by having staff profiles on the websites of their own employers, or contributor directories on the websites of publications that they wrote for — media unaffiliated with her work have to write about and analyze the significance of her work as news to make her notable on that basis.)
As her potential claim of notability is primarily local in nature rather than national, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to the necessary resources than I've got can actually find sufficient RS coverage to get her over the bar, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She did win awards, including a state-wide award for her work. WP:Author doesn't require national accomplishments. One might make the case that winning an award from the state's primary historical society might be "significant critical attention"? --
Jaireeodell (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say people always have to have nationalized accomplishments to be eligible for an article — I said that because her notability claim is local rather than national in nature, I lack access to the kind of resources necessary to determine whether the article is salvageable with better referencing or not on my own, without bringing it to wider attention. People can get into Wikipedia on primarily local significance — but regardless of whether their notability claim is local or national in scope, people aren't exempted from having to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing.
Also, every award that exists does not constitute an automatic notability freebie — a person is not automatically notable just because the article has the word "award" in it, if the article doesn't have GNG-worthy reliable sourcing in it. "Significant critical attention", for the purposes of GNG, is a question of whether she's had news reportage and/or books written about her and her work, not just the fact of having been singled out for just any old award that exists — an award might help if it could be referenced to a newspaper article treating "Shirley Willard wins award" as news, but it doesn't help if you have to depend on content self-published by the organization that gave her the award to source the statement because media coverage about the award doesn't exist. We're not just looking for "has done stuff", we're looking for "has had media coverage and/or books written and published about the stuff she did". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful woman, no doubt, but I simply cannot find any of her writings that aren't "self-published" - i.e. by the historical society she was working with in some capacity. Keep Based on improvements and convincing arguments here. She did get two awards from the Indiana Historical Society, but I don't think that is going to confirm notability. She is given credit for unearthing the story of this "Trail of Death" but I only find a very few mentions of it by folks not directly associated with the historical society. Lamona (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking for clarification on what you are asking for here- are you asking for the historical veracity of the Potawatomi Trail of Death? If so, there is already a Wikipedia article discussing its history. I am not writing that she was responsible for discovering it, she is just a historian who has taken important steps to preserve its memory in local history. Willard is responsible for the Trail of Courage festival and commemorative caravan, if that's what you meant. Here are some mentions of the Trail of Living Courage Festival and caravan from sources not associated with Willard or the Fulton County Historical Society:

https://www.dar.org/national-society/american-spirit-magazine/beacon-history-shirley-willard (Page dedicated to her on the Daughters of the American Revolution website, already in article)

https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/local/2018/09/13/caravan-to-trace-potawatomi-trail-of-death-from-rochester/45724091/ (News article about about Trail of Death commemorative caravan Willard organized)

https://www.in.gov/ibc/legacyprojects/3261.htm (entry on Indiana government website about the festival, already in article)

If these sources are satisfactory, I can start reworking the article around these and replace the Fulton Co. Historical Society ones. DeishaJ (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at these sources, but, no, I'm not asking about the trail of death. This article is about HER so we need sources about HER. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources I've found:

https://www.carrollcountycomet.com/articles/historian-recognized-with-statewide-award/ (News article referencing her Lifetime Achievement award. I have contacted the Indiana Historical Society to see if they have any writings or press releases on her that would work as citations).

https://www.rochsent.com/willard-featured-on-publishers-blog/article_1ec925d0-4190-541b-9020-c01655ba74d8.html (Lists her history and achievements with the Fulton Co. Historical Society. Also mentions her Lifetime Achievement award and Golden Hoosier award, mentions her being a torch bearer in the Indiana Bicentennial Torch Relay. I have confirmed her participation, she is listed here under Fulton County. Link to the page of the Indiana government website I found the PDF on.

Additional sources for consideration:

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2016/09/28/chairman-barrett-honored-at-2016-trail-of-courage-festival/

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2017/06/27/indiana-declares-indian-day/

I will let others decide if these sources are good enough to work in this article, as they are technically blog posts. I will argue, though, that they are from the official Potawatomi tribe website. These sources mention Willard playing a key role in securing proclamations from Mike Pence and Eric Holcomb in recognition of the Trail of Death and establishing remembrance/heritage days. These might be notable additions to her article, but I am unsure if they would meet proper reference criteria. Is there any way to find good sources for these proclamations:

Mike Pence declaring Sept. 20, 2014 Potawatomi Trail of Death Remembrance Day

Eric Holcomb declaring April 22, 2017 Indiana Indian Day

Thanks!
DeishaJ (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, blog posts are not considered reliable because they are informal and lack a true editorial oversight. The DAR one is pretty good but may not be considered independent because she was a member of DAR and this is a "member profile." Press releases are never considered reliable sources because they are by definition promotional, and thus have a non-neutral point of view. I hope that others will weigh in on the awards. (I advise looking at the documents about those awards - unless you are already familiar with them.) Lamona (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, deletion looks likely, but at least a little more participation is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I have majorly overhauled the article from when it was originally nominated for deletion, I thought a rundown of my edits would be helpful to the discussion. Notable edits include:

-Major source overhaul: Added several Indiana newspaper articles, two book sources naming her, and replaced all blog sources. All sources that could be considered primary have been replaced except one, the Potawatomi Trail of Death Assn. webpage that states the year of its founding. I am currently looking for alternatives.

-Expansion of her career section: I have both expanded her career section and added a "notable contributions" section. The career section now lists more of her contributions to Indiana history and includes her official appointment as the Fulton County historian by the Indiana Historical Society and Indiana State Historical Bureau. The "notable contributions" section goes into her contributions to specific historical subjects. A major contribution includes establishing 80+ historical markers along the Potawatomi Trail of Death. I hope that these sections better outline her significance in Indiana history.

-Awards: I did end up adding her participation in the Indiana Bicentennial, I thought it was relevant since the torchbearers were selected by a state committee and represented individuals who demonstrated "exceptional public service" as a criteria.

Hopefully these edits do a good job of addressing the original issues with the article. I am still actively editing and will continue doing so unless the article is officially deleted. For more information, please see the article and its improved references section.

Many thanks,
DeishaJ (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Mostly per WP:PROF#C3 on the lifetime achievement award from the Indiana Historical Society, which as a 190+ year-old society passes the "significant society" test to me for possessing judgment about notability of scholars in their field. It is quite rare to have an article on someone whose work is mostly on local history without also having national-etc. level peer-reviewed publications, but she appears to be one of the few who do that. (Note also that the distinction between national and provincial/state level can be tricky with large countries -- Indiana has about the same population as Bulgaria, and we would probably accept a lifetime achievement award from the Bulgarian Historical Society as counting.) -- I came here planning to make the closing easier by casting for delete, but the sources in the article and keep arguments here persuaded me. (forgot to sign) - -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC) (originally 6 July 2025)[reply]
Weak keep With significant improvements to the article I'm inclined to !vote weak keep. In addition to NPROF#3 there are sources that support GNG including [22], [23], [24], [25]. Nnev66 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: since this relist, user Lamona has changed their !vote above from Delete to Keep. (-- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed deletions

Denis Murphy (film academic) (via WP:PROD on 8 July 2025)
Kenneth Shropshire (via WP:PROD on 8 July 2025)
Benjamin Jensen (academic) (via WP:PROD on 8 July 2025)
Umut Özsu (via WP:PROD on 7 July 2025)
José María Balcells Doménech (via WP:PROD on 7 July 2025)
Tamara Scheer (via WP:PROD on 7 July 2025)