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

Melissa Merritt

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

I don't believe she meets WP:NPROF. Not a full professor and low citation count [1] note there is a cancer researcher of same name. [2]. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Philosophy, Australia, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NPROF is the wrong lens to look at this through (as it usually is for academics of the humanities). Rather, assess through WP:NAUTHOR; I see a number of reviews of her book Kant on Reflection and Virtue listed here, indicating a possible pass. Curbon7 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James P Mahon

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

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

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

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

Raphael E. Cuomo

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

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

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

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

Raphael Cuomo Is Changing How the World Understands Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

On social media as well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to Improve Article

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

Request to Improve Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johny Joseph (news anchor)

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

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

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

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

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

Oleg Kalabekov

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

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

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

Michael Gainer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Neither DNC representative nor mayoral candidate passes WP:NPOL. Heavily refbombed making it difficult to determine whether any sources are sufficiently independent and in-depth to pass WP:GNG. The sources in the version I examined appear to be from non-independent publishers (1, 4, 8), non-in-depth campaign-related (2-3, 10, 36-44, 46-47), reliable news stories about other topics that mention Gainer but have no depth of coverage about him (5-7, 14, 31-33, 48-50, 52), interviews (non-independent in content despite publisher; 9, 15), not reliable (35, 45) or background material not about Gainer at all (16,51). Many of the sources are more about Buffalo ReUse than Gainer (11-13, 17-30, 34) and might support notability for Buffalo ReUse, in which case we could redirect to an article on it rather than outright deletion, but I don't think those sources have enough depth of coverage on Gainer himself to support an independent article. If the article creator is trying to promote mayoral candidates with a certain agenda, they should not be surprised when their articles are brought up for deletion, not because we are biased towards or against that agenda, but because Wikipedia has safeguards against promotionalism in general and NPOL is one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Environmental historian Charles Lockwood identified and interviewed the top 25 global environmentalists for his 2009 book The Green Quotient: Insights from Leading Experts on Sustainability^[1]. He dedicated a chapter to interviewing Michael Gainer, and these are the other subjects he interviewed: Thomas L. Friedman, Ché Wall, William D. Browning, Christopher B. Leinberger, James Howard Kunstler, William McDonough, Björn Stigson, Jaime Lerner, Hank Dittmar, Elizabeth Economy, Rick Fedrizzi, Paul Hawken, Vivian Loftness, David Gottfried, Julian Darley, Robert S. Davis, Maria Atkinson, Ron Sims, Frances Beinecke, Mindy Lubber, Van Jones, Earl Blumenauer, and Cesar Ulises Trevino. Darley and Lubber pass WP:GNG, but Gainer does not? TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC) TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per David Eppstein's reasoning, although "DNC representative" is generous to take it lightly. He was elected as a member of his county's democratic committee by receiving a whopping 36 total votes in a party-specific election for one of at least 11 committee seats in his district. In general, mayoral candidates and especially primary candidates are considered non-notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vote should be disregarded, as GPL93 admittedly came here from the COI Noticeboard where BottleOfChocolateMilk linked to this AFD[4] for purposes of vote brigading. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

GPL93 - Top Edits

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

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

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

Angela C. Meyers

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

Possible WP:AUTOBIO of a non notable academic (even counting publications under what seems to be her former name, Angela Cotellessa). The most independent coverage I found was a brief mention in this BBC article. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, United States of America, and California. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and the article also doesn't cite any RS and reads like it was written by a LLM Laura240406 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:PROF and the article is a very obvious ChatGTP job. Leonstojka (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP, no evidence of passing GNG or any other notability criterion. This has already been draftified so re-draftification is not an option. I'm not entirely convinced that this is LLM-written but it doesn't make much difference to my opinion; the reasons for deletion are not about writing style nor hallucinated content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Berardo

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

Fails WP:BIO. A co-driver in electric car regularity rally events doesn't get much notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Architecture, Motorsport, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails to show WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Fade258 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austin N. Nosike

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

Non-notable, promotional page of Nigerian academic. Page almost certainly created by undeclared paid editor. To the extent there are reliable sources, that coverage is WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, Management, Economics, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete very far away from passing WP:NPROF based on a search of his academic record and while a Vice-Chancellor can pass WP:NPROF I dont think a Deputy Vice-Chancellor will clear the bar. --hroest 17:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. No significant news coverage or amount of self-published work to warrant its own page. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Kukulka

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

Rejected speedy deletion many years ago and never taken to AFD. Creator has the name Kukulka so a COI article originally. KaisaL (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. KaisaL (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts too low to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, and no other evidence of academic or other notability, even without the apparent COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, low h-factor in a field with medium citation levels. He has been publishing since 1981, and there are no indications that this is going to change in the near future. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete based on his GS profile he does not pass WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 20, which is respectable but not substantially different from the "average professor" at his career stage. --hroest 17:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NPROF. His awards are minor. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sarirete

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

Created by Ahmed Sine who openly identifies as the article subject, this article's only sources not written by Sarirete are merely citations to prior work that Sarirete is claiming to build upon. I was unable to identify secondary, significant coverage to satisfy any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria in Google, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com searches. While I marked this user's other article creation, Geocivilization, as reviewed because it is a term widely used in political science literature, Sarirete's impact on it has not been recognized in secondary sources. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2025, everyone knows that (1)Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn, and (2) that Wikipedia doesn't publish original content. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article suggests many book publications but I was unable to find any reviews of them through my usual sources. No pass of WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR, even setting aside the autobiography issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no discernible pass of WP:NPROF and I even question whether Geocivilization is an accepted term in academia as I could find a only a single mention in JSTOR and some obscure articles on Google Scholar but hardly enough for it to warrant its own article. --hroest 17:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding WP:GNG which the article subject fails, this is a prime example of both WP:NOTFB and WP:OR. ZachH007 (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Martinez

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

A non-notable academic. This likely AI-generated biography appears to have hallucinated some facts, for example saying that he was editor of the journal Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the sole source for which is a permanent dead link. Martinez's own CV does not list this editorship, nor does the journal's website. Since we cannot verify that he was a journal editor, he meets no other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC; his H-index of 22 is well below the normal range for a full professor in social sciences. He does not pass WP:NAUTHOR since his edited books have not had multiple reviews (and there is no consensus on whether co-editing a book counts for NAUTHOR). He doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO#1 for his Fulbright, 800+ of which are awarded every year, so it's not a particularly distinct honor. I don't see evidence that he's quoted regularly on his expertise in the mainstream press. (The AI appears to have hallucinated a nonexistent link to the New York Times website.) The citation for the sentence These books, reviewed in *Palgrave Macmillan* for their interdisciplinary approach, have been cited in *American Political Science Review* and *Political Psychology* for advancing survey measurement of ambivalence. does not actually mention Martinez' books at all and is likely another hallucination based on keyword similarity. In addition to failing WP:N, this bio has significant WP:V problems for a BLP and should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many LLM pages created by the same editor (30 one-edit articles), too many of which have since been draftified or nominated for deletion (see User talk:Wq4m820). At least one other I checked was full of AI hallucinations, similar to this. I will leave a gentle warning, hopefully the editor will adjust how they are creating pages. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 I found another that was AI-generated and went with the non-gentle warning, considering they've already gotten four warnings this month and have been non-responsive to those but continue to create problematic articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, all the articles must seem suspect. I see 6 articles on May 17 in the span of only 5 hours, 7 articles on May 15 in the span of just 3 hours each with 5-7kb of content. this seems all a bit fishy. --hroest 16:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hits on the name in Gscholar, but I'm not sure they're about this same person. The fact that the editor has used AI to create other low-quality articles doesn't fill me with hope either for this... I don't see much of anything in a RS Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemable, nuke it and possibly start over. Geschichte (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I believe with his GS profile, with an h index of 22 and several publications with 100+ citations he is close to the bar of passing WP:NPROF but doesnt quite clear it in my book. I wouldnt quite write him off though, maybe this is just a bit WP:TOOSOON. However, given the other issues with the page, and that we cannot really trust anything that is currently written, there isnt really much to salvage. --hroest 16:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I was the original author of the article and that it was generated with AI assistance. I understand the community’s concerns regarding verifiability and notability, and I take full responsibility for the shortcomings in the original draft. That said, Michael D. Martinez does have some scholarly coverage and citations that might warrant a properly sourced and significantly rewritten article. If the community feels that the current version is beyond salvage (or intent for a new one is not worthwhile), I concur the consensus to delete.

Wq4m820 (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Somaiya

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Alexander Boon

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

Autobiograpy of non notable filmmaker/academic. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Previous PROD deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing quite enough to satisfy WP:NCREATIVE. I found half a dozen reviews for a volume of essays that he edited [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], and one review each for two of his books [13] [14]. I wasn't able to find anything for any of his films. Based on those sources I think he falls just short of the bar for NCREATIVE, but could easily be swayed if anyone is able to find additional reviews of his works. MCE89 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found one other maybe-reliable review [15] but I'm not sure it changes the case much. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Xiaolan

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

Questionable notability. This article should be moved to draft. Amigao (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Music, Politics, Olympics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the biography is rather comprehensive, and there exists a comparable article on the Chinese Wikipedia. I have incorporated more sources and information to satisfy the inclusion criteria. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This seems like WP:MILL CCP member with a bit of propaganda press. Adding some of that detail to her father's (much more notable person) page would be DUE. I think the press she does get is more because her father was so notable. For Americans this would be like having a biography for Henry Luce III. Czarking0 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2: I'll stop messaging you if it is too much but I thought you might like to look at this one. Czarking0 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha don't worry, it's ok. Hmm, well I'm not really an expert on Wikipedia's inclusion criteria but the question seems to be what makes her independently notable? Is there enough coverage by reliable sources? The Account 2 (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage of her to meet WP:GNG. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing within the article itself indicates more than sufficient WP:RS WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG and justify an article. ZachH007 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Zarzycki

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

Disputed Draftification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:NPROF. In an AFC review this was stated: "According to https://ludzie.nauka.gov.pl/ln/profiles/QAO46PMcoxU/publications he has a total of 8 publications; Scopus says 21 with 104 citations. This is far short of what we require to pass WP:NPROF. Note that being a Department Chair or Dean does not qualify him either." by Ldm1954, with whom I agree. This is WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, and Poland. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP created almost simultaneously in the English and Polish Wikipedias. At least for the English Wikipedia, he falls far short of satisfying any of WP:NPROF with a decidedly modest h-factor, publication record and no major awards. Originator (who uses two accounts, albeit acknowledging this) argued first that he passes WP:NPROF#C1, then changed it to a pass of WP:NPROF#C6 when he moved the page back to main after draftification. This despite an AfC comment that Dean's don't qualify and about publication history (subsequently removed by Laura240406 as AfC cleanup, but still there in the history). No attempt to repair other deficiencies to the article which are clearly tagged. While novice editors should have some leeway, it is not appropriate for them to make up their own interpretation of WP:NPROF.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation record on Google Scholar is difficult to separate from a different biologist with the same name but I agree that he appears to pass neither WP:PROF#C1 nor #C6, and we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion, in this regard, kindly see my comments below. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In Poland, the President grants the academic title of Professor. This is a significant academic achievement, often awarded to individuals who have made substantial contributions to their field of study. This is a definite WP:NPROF #2 and #4 pass and I think if a source can be provided in this regard, then this can be kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comment above, this source (see PDF) confirms it and this conferment is a clear NPROF#2 as being a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national level". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced by the argument brought forward regarding WP:NPROF. With regards to NPROF#1, his Scopus profile shows 21 total publications and a h index of 7 (note that there are at least 6 people publishing under the same name but I checked the publications and it seems Scopus has properly distinguished them). Based on his citation record, I conclude that he doesnt pass #1. With regards to NPROF#6 there is no evidence he held a post beyond Dean which does not fulfill #6. With regards to the document that Vanderwaalforces presented, I translated it and it seems to be the appointment to the post of "professor", this is however *not* what NPROF#2 is intended - these are major awards from academic societies or general awards like Fields Medals, Nobel prizes etc. One could argue that this may fulfill NPROF#5 since this is an appointment that (probably) not all professors get and is thus equivalent to a distinguished professorship at a US university and he thus he passes the "average professor test" since he is elevated beyond the "average professor". To me that is the strongest argument of all the ones I evaluated. However, I dont know enough about the academic structure in the country but I dont see enough evidence that this is indeed such an unusual occurrence to grant notability *on its own* in the presence of a weak citation record. In totality, both the content of the article and the additional arguments presented here have not convinced me that this a person that passes WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannes Röst criterion #2 didn't just mention awards, it says "award or honor", and FWIW, it clearly, by all means, and by all interpretation, passes #2. This is a country's highest and significant academic achievement we're talking about here, and the source that backs it up is a government ministry's site. What more do we need? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces There is some clarification in the section below that specifies "Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts" which I interpret as different from an official promotion. A named award or fellowship that is open to any researcher on a national level is different than what you describe which is more like a "distinguished promotion" within the ranks of academia that only some achieve. As I said, promotion to full professor more likely falls under NPROF#5 with "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution [...] or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. " which could be a fair argument to make but I dont see enough evidence for this (neither the "major institution" nor that this is equivalent to a distinguished professor at say Stanford/MIT/Yale ...). --hroest 13:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Comment. His article will remain on pl wiki, which considers habilitation sufficent for notability. I know en wiki does not. Interesting discrepancy, but that's wiki for you. I cannot find any other reasons to argue for keeping him, under en wiki rules (the claim that his book is an "important contributions" is cited to a routine government document justifying his promotion to the rank of professor and is in fact FAKE, since that document does not provide any justification - that falsificaiton of content made me withdraw my keep vote, since it is dishonest), although he does have the next "higher" level of academic degree (above) habilitaiton, i.e. the professor (as noted by Vanderwaalforces). Frankly, I'd support traeting that level as granting notability, but that's seems to be a dissenting view. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus is it fake? Ah. Please point me or rather direct me to where you made the conclusion from? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces "are important contributions" is footnoted to [16]; that's just gov't document stating he (and some other folks) got the title of professor, but it contains no justification. That's sloppy writing at best, and in practice, improper use of sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus I'm sorry to be asking too much questions, lol, but I need to be clearer; What do you mean by it contains no justification though?

FWIW, I think that if the highest academic "honor" (and not "award" in this case) is the President granting them the title of Professor, then that clearly satisfies criterion #2 from my viewpoint. I just feel most times, we're not consistent with our interpretation of notability guidelines and this might be increasing the systemic bias some of us are trying to reduce. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces No need to be sorry. What I mean is that it's a simple document (which you can open and translate with your phone or Google Translate or ChatGPT or such), and it simply states that such and such person received the professor title. It does not say what for, so the use of this document as a reference for the claim that he made "important contributions", is, IMHO, improper. Now, we can use common sense and deduce that only scholars with important contributions would receive such a title, but that's is meaningless WP:PEACOCK. For me, it's one thing to say that "according to reliable source X, his contributions have been called important", and another to use flowery, promotional languages. Since I am quite annoyed at the latter, I did change my weak keep to abstain, in hope that it will teach the creator to be more neutral (if they apologized and rewrote it, I may reconsider, but it does not seem that they are active enough, or care enough about this article, to comment here, so, sigh). As for your interpretation of #2, I weakly agree with you, hence my weak keep. I hope I explained why I changed to abstain (I really dislike promotion and poor/fake sourcing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sven Bocklandt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. LLM !vote discounted; LLMs do not understand Wikipedia policy. asilvering (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lolade Dosunmu Adeyemi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Aside from a single article in The Guardian Nigeria, there is no significant independent coverage to establish notability. She is an accomplished woman but has no widely cited recognized publications or major awards. A Forbes 1000 mention and involvement in a few publications and minor advisory roles do not meet the threshold for notability. Mooonswimmer 15:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again, Fails WP:NACADEMICS or WP:GNG. Insufficient coverages found to establish notability of any sort. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NPROF with 3 papers which have a total of less than 100 citations among them. I also dont see evidence of passing WP:GNG. --hroest 20:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This renomination raises concerns about procedural fairness. The article was previously soft deleted, indicating that there wasn’t strong consensus for removal. Following its undeletion by an admin, the second nomination appears to rely on the same arguments from the first discussion without introducing substantial new evidence. Wikipedia encourages improvement rather than immediate redeletion, especially when an article has already been reconsidered.

Moreover, the notability standards applied here seem overly rigid, as Adeyemi’s impact extends beyond citation metrics. Her government advisory roles, healthcare innovations, and international recognition contribute to her real-world significance, meeting the threshold for inclusion under WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Deleting the article based on narrow academic criteria overlooks her broader contributions to public health and policy. Bliss Sunday (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF through policy influence, healthcare innovation, and international recognition. The subject has made significant contributions to Nigerian healthcare policy, including her role in launching the National Health Research Ethics Committee electronic proposal submission platform and advising key government ministries. Her work in cancer research, women's health, and ethical governance, combined with her recognition by Forbes Next 1000 and participation in major global health conferences, establishes her as a notable figure. Notability should reflect real-world impact beyond citation metrics. Given her policy influence and entrepreneurial initiatives, she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Bliss Sunday (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Noble (computer scientist)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Speedy Protect PROMO RACIST per nom. BLP1E. POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak keep. Citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a medium citation field, as backed up by Google Scholar [17]. I don't think that the editorship of the series Transactions on Pattern Languages [18] passes NPROF C8, but it may give some support. I take the Dahl-Nygaard prize somewhat more seriously for NPROF C2 [19]. I am skeptical of NPROF C3 -- the British Computer Society fellowship, per their description [20] does not seem to be the kind of fellowship that we're looking for. The Institute of IT Professional fellowship looks a little stronger [21], although I'm uncertain whether it is the kind of scholarly society that we are looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen D. Martin

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

Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Regarding his medical career, scopus shows 9 publications with an H-index of 9, with most of the citations coming from mid-authorship papers. For example, on his most highly-cited paper (Meltzer et al., 2003) he is one of 88 authors, and is listed only in the trialist, not in the main authors (checking the pdf). Visiting professorship at the University of Sunderland in the 90s doesn't meet the 'named chair' criterion. Other outputs seem typical for a typical academic in the humanities. LTLC flute is very impressive, but performance interpretation/outputs are supported only with self-citations. Klbrain (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, History, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I am having trouble checking his publications; Scopus is often too low. That said, at least two in the page look like comments or just abstracts, plus the claims in the page do not seem to merit consideration as notable.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that Scopus is lower than some counts because it has stricter quality standards for citing papers ... that makes it more reliable. Klbrain (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - verifiably false: lots of people have taught college courses across the curricula. I've taught over 20 different college-level courses, including paralegal studies, criminal justice, administrative, and AP Biology. My sister has taught everything from architecture to art history, at much more prestigious universities. This is balderdash. WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the sources. I believe he really did a second PhD. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Abul Kashem Mia

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

Passing mentions only, need evidence for WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory also, not every person deserves a article unless their contributions are detailed and in-depth sources, even 1, must be cited, not just name but also birth, birth place, education and position in work/jobs. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We keep university presidents, and vice-chancellor in a country that uses the British system of university administrator titles is equivalent to president. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criterion 6 of WP:PROF. No Wikipedia policy or guideline requires sources to state a subject's birth date, birth place, education, or position, although in this case [22] and [23] contain significant coverage, including his education and positions. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Yaqub

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

Subject does not appear to passWP:NPROF. The sources in the Arabic Wikipedia article aren’t any help. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and Lebanon. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPROF Criterion 6c "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Generally, appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor also is not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone." is specific. I see no evidence of any other criteria being passed. Fails NPROF and WP:BIO 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a pass of Wikipedia:NPROF or of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR at all. Qflib (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete this seems to be hard to evaluate due to lack of sources in English, but it seems that he has entry in this encyclopedia on Arabian linguists which indicates notability. I am not convinced that we can use google scholar to easily assess Arabic linguists as easily as scholars at a Western University. What makes me skeptical is that I could find almost no information about the Suleiman International University where he supposedly works (apparently its an online university). --hroest 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for notability is a bit higher than just having been listed in an encyclopedia, unless I'm missing something here, in which case please advise. Qflib (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on the encyclopedia, if its a scholarly work I would argue that this indicates notability per WP:NPROF. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Arabic sources to the article. The subject has clear notability in the Arabic academic community and is the author of significant linguistic dictionaries. -- Mohammed Qays (🗣) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple reviews of at least two of those? If so, subject might be notable under Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, but otherwise, just being an author isn't sufficient to establish notability here. Qflib (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mohammed Qays for non-arabic speakers, can you please elaborate a bit on the sources you added? Are they WP:RS, how are the dictionaries significant (what is their reception in the field? how is this documented with citations / reviews?). It is just really hard to make a judgement in a field and a language that I am not familiar with. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources added are 1. A link to the catalog the national library of Israel 2. An offline encyclopedia entry 3.a piece of local press coverage. None of this comes close to demonstrating a pass of Wikipedia:NPROF or of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Ouaissa

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

I don’t believe this subject passes any of the criteria of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Algeria, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that I can't see a pass of any of the NPROF criteria. A pass of WP:NAUTHOR would be more likely, but I was only able to find the one review already cited in the article, plus this review of one of their edited volumes. A German speaker might have better luck, but I couldn't find nearly enough for notability. MCE89 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I somehow feel that someone at his rank should have more visible, and maybe the language barrier is preventing us from finding it, but one review of a monograph and one review of an edited volume isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, and I also don't see enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have the necessary sources to demonstrate notability. Lacks WP:GNG, if more sources can be found to bolster notability, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I estimate his GS h-factor to be 8-10, which is low. However, when I look at those of his co-authors who have profiles, their h-factors are in the range 10-20. Hence I have to conclude that this is a very low citation field, so not as low as the raw numbers suggest. I have not checked if his books have had favorable reviews; I cannot find any awards to boost the case. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some comparative GS profiles are [24], [25], [26], [27], with a couple being in the mid-twenties. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monserrate Román

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

Retired mid-level program manager at NASA. Just as a university Dean is not automatically notable, I don't see how her prior position by itself passes notability. Google Scholar (MC Roman) yields only 1-3 cites for her publications, so she does not pass WP:NPROF#C1. All awards are internal, so I don't see them as proof. No WP:SIGCOV, just a few routine mentions. Page was a long unsourced essay, and current version (trimmed by nom) has little that is notable. While I am sure she played a role in developing the space station, I don't see enough. (I am willing to be proved wrong.) Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and Puerto Rico. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above reasoning. I also did a search and the best thing I could find was a 2003 article from Spacenews.com that wasn't even an original story, but a press release, as well as this brief mention from the ASBMB. Leonstojka (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources and several awards, so I am leaning keep. Andre🚐 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that her publications do not meet WP:PROF, but a 2021 book (Wonder Women of Science) includes 13 pages on Roman. She is also a recipient of NASA's Silver Snoopy Award which is given to 1% of people in aerospace. This information is now more clearly presented in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable. She helped ensure safe recycling of air and water in space. She later led NASA's Centennial Challenges Program.Tony the Marine (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to have enough publications size and has some some media appreances to be borderline notable at least. She already has small entry in List_of_Puerto_Rican_scientists_and_inventors#Microbiology in case some see redirecting option more viable. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musfiq Mannan Choudhury

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

Mostly passing mentions in sources and he isn't a highly-cited researcher ([28]). It does note he is a vice-chancellor of a university, but this institution doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or reputable (although perhaps someone who knows more about the regulation of higher ed. in Bangladesh can correct me) Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is daddy (Abdul Mannan Choudhury) who is the vice-chancellor. The article was created in good faith, but has subsequently attracted unwelcome editing from single purpose accounts that appear to have a close connection to him. If the article is kept, it will need watchers. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is not a highly-cited researcher, but after reading the article, it seems it passed GNG because he has coverage in Bangladeshi newspapers. Somajyoti ✉ 20:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look at the Bangladeshi coverage (Daily Star, Daily Sun etc) before making the nomination and it was generally routine announcements and brief mentions. However, there was a story published today where the article subject has a more significant role; whether this is enough to justify preserving the article, or if the info should instead be entered elsewhere, I'll leave for others to determine. I imagine this discussion will probably get relisted. Leonstojka (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehzeb Chowdhury

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

Other than the sheer obnoxiousness of this article (which is just one long advert about why the subject is the most awesome and interesting man in the world), I'm not totally convinced it meets the notability criteria. Reasons below:

Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [29]
As a researcher he has a low h-index [30]
An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do agree it needs some touch, and I'm willing to do them once able, but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims' – Sure, but if we're establishing general notability it is best to have more than passing mentions, because lots of people are sometimes contacted by the media to provide comment for stories. I also have concerns about the promotional nature of some of the Bangladeshi sources (e.g. this one), which read like adulatory press releases. Leonstojka (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has enough RS about the subject (Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost, The Times) to pass WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are more features that are not cited in the article as well, such as this from Ice Today. There's coverage in Bengali too, with TV appearances, features in reputed mags such as The Diplomat and Newsweek where he is introduced as an expert. Overall, why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage throughout the years from big pubs. X (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Xoak is right. Somajyoti ✉ 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is clear by the sources. Mifflefunt 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Striking !vote of blocked account who was here just to spam porn sites. MarioGom (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which sources establish notability under WP:GNG? Is it this one from Business Standard? what else? I see many articles written by the subject, but I don't see reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has refs from Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost and The Times, which are independent RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles in The Times and Wired use Chowdhury as a source (as in "Chowdhury says", "he believes", "he told", "according to him"). What he says is not independent of him. Similarly, Digital Trends is an interview with him, so not independent of him. If they consulted any other sources, they don't say so. HuffPost does not contain significant coverage of him. None of these four do anything to help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce, These 4 aren't the only sources. Many sources exist about this individual (see the aforementioned points). A non-notable person does not get recurrent media coverage throughout the years (it may well be interviews, passing mentions, anything; he does have sig in-depth cov as well for the record). X (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at making a source assessment table. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Ice Today https://icetoday.net/2024/03/building-blockbusters/	~ Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this.	700 words about subject	~ Partial
Business Standard https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946	~ Not sure how to rate independence: asked in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250516114100-PacificDepths-20250516083000	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/mehzeb-chowdhury-pioneer-criminology-savant-films-3147896	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Prothom Alo https://www.prothomalo.com/lifestyle/5uuxkcz9qu	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
The Diplomat https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/can-the-bangladesh-police-recover/	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ unknown	One sentence description of subject	✘ No
Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/body-farms-decomposing-bodies-forensic-science-murder-1798397	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK	one sentence description and quote	✘ No
Jamuna TV Plus Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8x8r90VZE4	Interview: Primary source	~		✘ No
Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crime-scene-technology/	Interview		Little information about the subject	✘ No
The Times: "Robots will create virtual crime scenes for juries"	Primary source		One sentence about the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@PacificDepths Simply discarding sources labeled as "interviews" is flawed. These are features that include quotations and interview segments, as features inherently contain such elements. You cannot broadly dismiss them by merely labeling them as interviews. Claiming they "feel promotional" is your subjective opinion (these features have proper bylines and are not promo pieces, if so, they'd have been designated as such from these reputed pubs). Overall, I strongly disagree with this source analysis table. Additionally, several Bengali news sources, TV appearances, and passing mentions in reputable publications recognize him as a notable person or expert. Collectively, these demonstrate his notability. GNG is fo shizzle met here. X (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, common sense should prevail. The newsweek and diplomat sources were mentioned to demonstrate a point that this person also gets called out for their expert opinion, assessing and labeling these 2 as "One sentence description of subject" is utterly asinine, like of course these are passing mentions. And as I stated earlier, not every source of an article need to be entirely about the subject or of depth. An article will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims. X (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-ordered the sources and edited some. I'm not sure how to judge Business Standard, Daily Star, ICE Today. I don't think The Times should demonstrate notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PacificDepths, and those who are unfamiliar, TBS, DS, Prothom Alo, Ice Today, these all are reputed and generally deemed reliable publications. X (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerically, there are more editors arguing to Keep this article I don't find their arguments compelling. We need more editors reviewing and commenting on the source analysis which is a strong argument for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kudos to PacificDepths for doing a source assessment. The set of sources cited has changed a little since then. Two thirds of the sources are written by Chowdhury or are passing mentions of him. For the remainder, I'll try to expand on PacificDepths' work and resolve some of the "maybe" entries. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Worldbruce
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Business Standard https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946	Interview, primary source. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 477#Business Standard Bangladesh tbsnews.net.		Entire article is about subject	✘ No
The Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/mehzeb-chowdhury-pioneer-criminology-savant-films-3147896	Interview, primary source		Entire article is about subject	✘ No
Prothom Alo https://www.prothomalo.com/lifestyle/5uuxkcz9qu	Interview, primary source		Entire article is about subject	✘ No
The Times https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/robots-will-create-virtual-crime-scenes-for-juries-636pmm986	Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he believes")		One sentence identification	✘ No
Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/body-farms-decomposing-bodies-forensic-science-murder-1798397	Quotations of Chowdhury, primary source	~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK	One sentence identification	✘ No
The Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/supplements/32nd-anniversary/where-showbiz-meets-the-internet/news/working-behind-the-scenes-hollywood-3247811	Interview, primary source			✘ No
Digital Trends https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/vr-crime-scene-robot/	Chowdhury talking about Chowdhury			✘ No
HuffPost https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/5-industries-virtual-reality_b_13338798				✘ No
Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crime-scene-technology/	Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he told", "according to him")		One sentence identification	✘ No
The Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/sports/football/news/chowdhury-appointed-advisory-group-newcastle-utd-3367306	Press release, identical wording in multiple Bangladeshi newspapers			✘ No
Dhaka Tribune https://archive.dhakatribune.com/showtime/2018/02/20/megalithic-unearth-the-unnamed-february-23	~ No byline, almost certainly a press release			~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete Despite the large number of sources, there are no sources that are both independent and that contain significant coverage of him. Every source of substance is Chowdhury talking about Chowdhury. The sources repeat what he says uncritically, and without bringing in any other views. Publishers evidently can't find anyone with anything to say about him other than him - no colleague who has read the chapter he wrote, no viewer of his 1-minute film, no listener to his album, etc. Self-promotion is not the route to notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to the article's other top ten (by edits or added text) non-bot registered editors, as concerned editors: (Bearcat—Caeciliusinhorto-public—David notMD—Diannaa—GoingBatty—HeyElliott—MrsSnoozyTurtle—R'n'B) --Worldbruce (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: I'm shocked that I'm in the top 10 for this article, but apparently adding categories and DEFAULTSORT plus tweaking references two years ago gets me there. While I have no desire to review the 34 references in the article, it would be nice if @X: would add the references they mentioned to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm apparently in the top 10 by virtue of having edited this article once (to fix an ambiguous link). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 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}}.

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further expanding on the GNG case. Later keep !votes made a better case for GNG. I am still not convinced -- I do not see independent coverage in reliable sources. The wharton piece is highly non-independent. The USA today opinion piece is authored, so not independent. I discount the Forbes listicle coverage, although I note that past discussion at AfD of similar listicles has gone in both directions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field

1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/

2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity

3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/

4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics

5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/

6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley

I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.

Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...

1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf

2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312

3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf

4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf

Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this meets the 7th criteria of WP:NACADEMIC due to his publications in the Journal of Financial Economics and his appearances/contributions to mainstream media sources and think tanks. He seems to have been frequently interviewed by prominent institutions, the Wharton School as an example. This also seems to be notable since he has been covered in various RSes such as The Globe and Mail, National Post, and more. Lastly, there are lots of professors who have fewer or a similar amount of RSes, content, and notability and remain on Wikipedia and are not being nominated for deletion. Examples include but are not limited to Herman Clarence Nixon, Daniel Nugent, Thomas Sakmar, Avery Craven, James L. Fitzgerald, Lawrence M. Friedman, H. Gregg Lewis, Guy A. Marco, and more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

expanding on this based on the comments regarding him passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I truly dont see WP:THREE independent reliable sources that have in-depth coverage about him (in fact I dont even see one, there is a piece from his alma mater, there are opinion pieces that he has writen himself but nothing about him from an independent source). --hroest 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article seems to have been deleted previously due to a lacking of sources that were acceptable by our standards at the time of its prior publication on Wikipedia. However, as of 2025 there seems to be more than enough reliable and independent sources covering the subject of the article. In the two plus years since the prior AfD, sources for the subject appear to be better and more relevant and independent. The subject is pretty clearly active and well established in academia. WP:SIGCOV easily passes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - winning a made up in one day Forbes award for an up and coming but run of the mill academic. WP:NOTFB. I'm willing to change my mind about this if evidence of full tenure or high citation numbers is added. Right now, he's a fellow at a think tank that has long ago become subject to donor pressure. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jon Hartley meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, and concerns about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTFB do not seem to be applicable in this case. His research appears to have been published in reliable journals such as the Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, and Economics Letters. A Google search reveals Hartley to have been featured in sources including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and National Post. The sources demonstrate significant coverage and in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. His recognition by Forbes in their 30 Under 30 list for Law & Policy in 2017 further demonstrates notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers is what every academic does - it definitely does not confer notability. Similarly, the articles in reliable sources are written by him, not about him and that is a crucial difference - the coverage is not about him. SmartSE (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Gerrysay (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The "lasting impact on his discipline" standard feels like an arbitrary threshold (e.g. to quantify "lasting" is inherently subjective). This guy seems impactful enough to clear the bar. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think he's quite reached the level of PROF, and don't see multiple independent GNG qualifying sources Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hoover_Institution#Members I do not think he has enough notability or source coverage for a stand alone article like this. He seems mostly known to be a Hoover Institute fellow. Considering that the previous AFD result was pretty much SNOW delete, this may be a decent alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Review of the references and presence based on Google search and author's profile, suggests that, in my opinion, there's sufficient independent coverage and notability through media coverages, interviews, and invited opinions as "analyst and economist." It's true that he might be up-and-coming, but that doesn't inhibit inclusion on WP at the moment with current information. WeWake (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To meet WP:GNG, I don't see any independent, reliable, secondary sources in the article and I couldn't find anything online. The Wharton article is not independent: the subject was a student there. Forbes 30 under 30 (2017) is two sentences. Mercatus, MacDonald-Laurier, Hoover are not independent. Where are the independent, reliable sources with significant coverage?

For WP:PROF#C1 (academic influence through paper reviews and citations), the subject has one highly cited paper "The local residential land use regulatory environment across U.S. housing markets: Evidence from a new Wharton index" but no others. More is needed. Some here have argued for WP:PROF#C7 (popular influence), but one interview in L'Express and a little-known podcast doesn't meet the standard to me. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 13:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised that this has generated so much discussion when it seems like a fairly clear-cut case to me. If we have determined that WP:PROF is not met, that makes things easier as WP:BIO is less subjective. I still don't see anything which demonstrates that BIO is met - Forbes is independent, but not substantial; Wharton is substantial, but not independent (they are writing about their student and these kinds of articles are inherently promotional and several keep !voters do not seem to acknowledge this). Those are the only non-primary sources where he is the subject, articles he has written are of no use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NPROF is a red herring here. According to NPROF, this guideline "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines."

I agree this seems like a "fairly clear-cut case". But I think the sources provide clear-cut case for keep given the sourcing which meets WP:GNG.

In particular:

1. WP:SIGCOV

2. Sources are sometimes not independent, but most are.

3. The "Presumed" aspect of GNG does not guarantee inclusion, but it looks to me like a standalone page here has more support than not.

4. I added several new RSes that I found, including some Spanish sources that discuss ex-Governor Jeb Bush and Hartley in the same sentence since they founded the Economic Club of Miami together. This economist is pretty obviously notable in my opinion. [31][32][33][34][35][36]

Lastly, @North8000 also has the right approach in saying, "Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation..." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is extremely on the line imo, but the subject seems not to meet WP:GNG. The only independent coverage that's even slightly in-depth is the Miami Herald article (pretty good imo) and the Forbes editor profile, which I quote here in full: Hartley cofounded Real Time Macroeconomics, an economic research organization creating new macroeconomic health indicators using internet based data such as job openings, layoff announcements, and self-reported wages. Hartley is a policy expert and contributor for Forbes and the Huffington Post. This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, as a smattering of expert quotes, non-independent profiles, and media interviews is the typical coverage for a person who is not yet but will become notable. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note: I wasn't able to access in full the L'Express and El Nuevo Herald articles. The first seemed like an interview and the latter seemed like passing mentions, but if they contain significant coverage it might be useful to quote here in full the paragraphs that discuss Hartley directly and in depth. Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wanted the full text quoted out, here it is for your convenience. As you indicated, the Miami Herald article goes into Hartley's founding of the Economic Club of Miami deeply and the purpose of the club and its conference. Specifically, in the article subsection entitled, "How the Economic Club of Miami Started," it goes extensively into Hartley's involvement:

"The Economic Club of Miami was started in 2021. Hartley had started coming down from New York to visit his parents in South Florida and felt like while finance professionals were moving to Miami, they did not have the same type of events or programs they had up North. Hartley reached out to Jeb Bush Jr. who he got to know working as economic advisor to Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign in 2016, and in January 2021, they put together a Google document to brainstorm about creating the group. Lourdes Castillo, a veteran public relations professional and executive, and Jeremy Schwarz, joined, too. All four are co-founders and Hartley serves as chairman."

Hartley is interviewed extensively throughout the article such as here:

"'Our goal is to build the signature emerging markets finance conference that brings financiers from around the world to talk about the trajectories of Latin American economies,' Hartley said in an interview with the Miami Herald. 'And both ways: outsiders investing in Latin America and Latin Americans investing elsewhere.' Recent growth and opportunities in South Florida will be a topic of discussion but without skipping over the emerging challenges, said Hartley, also an economics PhD candidate at Stanford University."

And here "'It won’t be just about investing,' Hartley said. 'We will discuss housing issues in many different respects including the supply of affordable housing.' Not attending but likely to be talked: new Argentine president Javier Milei. 'Milei is sort of a catalyst agent for economic liberalization in Argentina,' said Hartley, 34, the chairman of the Economic Club of Miami, and so, 'with that, you’ve seen a resurgence of interest in investing in Latin America.'"

Hartley is also the lead photo of the article and the subtext of the photo reads, "Jon Hartley giving the introduction at an Economic Club of Miami event on November 7, 2022 featuring Kenneth Griffin of Citadel and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. Held at Miami Dade College."

In respect to the other articles, this Nuevo Herald article says the following (translated to English for convenience), "Its other founders, businessman Jeb Bush Jr. and economist Jon Hartley, are also scheduled to speak at the private gathering of about 130 people." This prominently puts Jeb Bush and Jon Hartley in the same sentence, Bush is obviously a notable individual and it is listing Hartley and Bush as co-founders of this organization it is writing a piece on.

In this Nuevo Herald article, it reads: "Now it's Miami's turn, now ready to play in the major league. The city has earned a place at the 'same table' with executives from major companies, says Castillo, who serves on the board with Jeb Bush Jr., attorney Jeremy Schwartz, senior advisor to Mayor Suárez, and economist Jon Hartley, the club's president." Once again, the article, that is writing extensively about Hartley's organization, puts Bush and Hartley in the same sentence, demonstrating his notability and bolstering his case to be notable enough for inclusion in this article.

This Nuevo Herald article is a repost of the Miami Herald article (since this is the sister paper), which contributes to the fact that this meets WP:SIGCOV given that this information listed above about Hartley was widely distributed in various languages (which also includes the L'Express article, which is obviously in French).

Given that you mentioned the L'Express article, I will cover the most key points here. This is essentially an interview with this publication that covers Hartley's thoughts on the Trump Administration. Here are some key excerpts (translated to English for convenience, "In this profusion of analyses, Jon Hartley, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a think tank close to the Republican Party, and a doctoral candidate in economics at Stanford University, provides insight. To understand the protectionist shift in the United States, the researcher discusses the emergence, within both the left and the right, of a 'neo-populist' movement that challenges several foundations of the old neo-liberal consensus in Washington, including adherence to the principles of free trade." Now onto the interview, "L'Express: Do you share the fears of Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), regarding the consequences of the trade war between China and the United States on global growth? Jon Hartley: Regarding the potential long-term negative effects of the trade war on the global economy, I am more optimistic than most commentators. Chinese manufacturers depend in part on their ability to export to the United States, and American consumers are very happy to find cheap products from China. These factors are likely to eventually force the two countries to come to the negotiating table. It is also possible that some Chinese trade will be diverted to the United States via other countries, as has already been the case in Vietnam since the late 2010s." This demonstrates that Hartley has a notable opinion per WP:SIGCOV given that he is being interviewed in depth as a notable policy expert worthy of interviewing. The article also asks Hartley about Trump's trade policy, once again demonstrating above average notability, "'Does Donald Trump really have a trade strategy, or is he moving blindly? Donald Trump considered the asymmetry in trade barriers to be fundamentally unfair. And it's true that historically, most countries have imposed higher tariffs on the United States than the rates the United States imposed on them. Donald Trump's tariff increase in early April has opened negotiations with several countries. It's not impossible that, at the end of these negotiations, tariffs will eventually be lowered reciprocally, and in that case, this would be favorable to free trade. This is the most desirable scenario.'" I also plan on adding a couple more articles that bolster notability by showing that Hartley was Jeb Bush's 2016 economic policy adviser. I also found a Bloomberg article that discussed the Economic Club of Miami and quoted Hartley and mentioned Bush and him in the same sentence again. "Their arrival spurred last year the creation of the Economic Club of Miami, which hosted Monday’s event. 'We are trying to capture the zeitgeist of this Miami moment,' said Jon Hartley, chair of the club, which counts Jeb Bush’s son as one of its founders." I think this should do more than enough to bolster notability, not to mention all of other articles that were there before that I didn't even discuss here. Is this the information you were looking for or do you need anything else? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Gjb0zWxOb, this is helpful, thanks for quoting from the sources. These excerpts suggest to me that none of the other sources you quote from (excepting the Miami Herald piece) constitutes WP:SIGCOV, which continues to leave me ambivalent about keeping this article. (On that note, you might consider reviewing the language used in WP:SIGCOV: most of those articles are trivial mentions of Jon Hartley, and the interview is not a secondary source – see WP:INTERVIEWS. Notability in Wikipedia terms means receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not by being quoted alongside notable people or giving media quotes.) Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO few articles meet a stringent interpretation of GNG. IMO this one meets a typical community application of GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think most BLPs meet WP:GNG (edit: or some other SNG, like academics or authors) fairly strictly, hence my ambivalence, but I agree this is not far from GNG interpretations of frequently-cited media experts. A hard call here, I don't envy the closing admin. Suriname0 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Miami Herald article meets WP:GNG as it has extensive quotes from Hartley and showcases him speaking as the main picture of the article. His face is literally part of the article. Additionally, the event was not for a convention he was simply an attendee or speaker, but for the Economic Club of Miami, of which he was a founder. This event included other notable people from multiple industries and domains, such as Ken Griffin of Citadel financial, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, Anthony Scaramucci, and Jorge Quiroga, the former president of Bolivia. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Ravinder Gargesh (via WP:PROD on 23 May 2025)
Arup Majumder (via WP:PROD on 23 May 2025)
~~Aleksei Barannikov (linguist) (via WP:PROD on 23 May 2025)~~
~~Rafał Jaworski (via WP:PROD on 21 May 2025)~~

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

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

[1]