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

Marcus O. Shivers

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

He was president of the American Thyroid Association for 1 year (standard term) but I can't find any policy or discussion suggesting this would confer notability viaWP:NPROF. There doesn't seem to be much out there besides mentions confirming that he gave a presentation or went to a conference, and I can't find anything about notable publications / major contributions to the field / prestigious associations or the like. I don't think he meets WP:ANYBIO either - very sparse independent sourcing and he has no entry on the US national biographical directory. Zzz plant (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mississippi. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, Colorado, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niels ten Oever

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

I don't think subject passes WP:NPROF - he is asst. prof, h-index of 12 and no named chair or prestigious professional memberships I can locate. Although he is briefly quoted in a few news articles due to his association with digital rights group Article 19, I don't see anything that would qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO. He co-authored a book w/ over a dozen other people but I can only find one possibly independent review in a reliable source. WP:BEFORE was done in google news/books/scholar, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and PressReader (looking for Dutch and English sources). I don't see a clear merge/redirect target, and ultimately I think this might be WP:TOOSOON - as subject is still in relatively early days of his career (first publication was in 2017). Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Internet, and Netherlands. Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on WP:NPROF. But this might qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO ? The work he has done with Mallory Knodel on oppressive language in the IETF got coverage in the New York Times , and the work he has done internet sanctions got covered in different places . He also gets more widely cited about internet infrastructure governance issues, most notably outages in Wired and The Face , on internet history and Web3 in the New Scientist , and on history of e-mail in Vox . Seems to have more coverage in Dutch media. Detlevore (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reply from nom - my rationale was that in most of the coverage linked above he is just quoted (i.e. if you ctrl+f his (first/sur)name you find basically 1-2 results). As it doesn't really go in-depth about him specifically, I didn't consider it sigcov. It's very impressive to have your work mentioned in prestigious publications so early in career, I'm just not sure it confers notability. Zzz plant (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof Assistant professors are almost never notable for WP:Prof and this is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - It's too soon for this emerging academic. The low h-index score indicates that they are not notable per WP criteria WP:PROF nor do they meet WP:GNG at this time. Perhaps in a few years after there is more attention to his work and research. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that makes sense! Detlevore (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how he would be notable at present. gidonb (talk) 00:13, 10 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]

Albert Piette

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

The page is pretty much a list of the man's works with no other analysis of the subject matter. There's no section on his personal life, views, etc. Would be OK revoking this RFD if these concerns were addressed but with the article as is, I don't know if this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Religion. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to easily pass WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I disagree with the idea that "analysis of the subject matter" requires us to have sections on his personal life or views. For an article about an influential academic/author, a list of notable works and an explanation of their contribution to their field of scholarship is exactly what an article should contain. In terms of notability, I found at least two journal articles directly addressing his body of work: Albert Piette and lived (non-)religion: Conceptual and methodological considerations and The Minor Mode: Albert Piette and the Reshaping of Anthropology. I expect that there is much more to be found in French. An extremely cursory search also turned up a large number of reviews of his books [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], giving him a pass of NAUTHOR criteria 3. MCE89 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But that begs the question, why were those sources not added in the first place? Surely the person who created the article should have done their research and added them if they're as reliable as you say they are. Or perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 14:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the article was created in 2009. The standards for article quality and for notability were very different back then, and none of the sources I linked above had even been written yet at that point. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you say "perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there". Are you suggesting that I'm somehow misrepresenting the sources? MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not. And the sources not existing at the time is a good reason for them not to have been cited in the article, thanks for bringing that up! Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Book reviews in the comment above are enough to pass AUTHOR and likely scholarly/academic notability. This person is indexed in 8 national libraries, also hinting at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and to the nom, WP:SOFIXIT (or at least conduct a good WP:BEFORE) prior to attempting to delete an article that clearly plausibly asserts notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability as an academic is low, h-index is low [9]. Number of books doesn't qualify for being a monumental amount of work. Not widely cited by peers. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr.

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

Have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and unable to find any real evidence of notability. Almost exclusively WP:SPS or unreliable. The only source worth anything is Flynn (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief), but it's a very brief mention (about 40 words). Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Atheism, and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Radio, Television, Military, Internet, Alabama, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see notability yet for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't see enough notability either, and the article is too reliant on primary sources. Went up in 2004, and looks like one of those that escaped scrutiny in the days when the article creation/assessment process was less advanced. Leonstojka (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of web pages pro and con about his skeptic activity but I wasn't convinced by the reliability of any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Milligan-McClellan

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

Assistant professor (microbiology) with an h-factor of 10 (GScholar), 930 total citations and no awards. She has made a good start, but she is 5-10 years from reaching any of the criteria for academics. WP:TOOSOON by a long way. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she is ok. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Prof; not enough for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Biology, Alaska, Connecticut, Oregon, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of WP:TOO SOON, she fails WP:Prof. --hroest 13:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Off to a good start, and on track to meet WP:PROF, but I think not quite there yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 9 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 ([10]). 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]

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 [11]
As a researcher he has a low h-index [12]
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]
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]

Jaafar Jotheri

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

This looks like a case of TOO SOON to me. Contrary to the article, he is now a full professor, but doesn't hold a distinguished chair and h-factor looks too low right now. Also an absence of any major awards.

He was awarded a 'Mesopotamian Fellowship' by the American Society of Overseas Research, which may be an encouraging sign of future notability potential, but at this moment I'm not convinced he meets the threshold. Leonstojka (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree, this is WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF and doesnt pass #1 or any of the other criteria. 500 citations in total, h-index of 11 is a long way from notability. --hroest 18:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Atzori

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

Former scholar (he appears to now be working in private sector) with low research impact. Has never held a senior academic post, and his books were not widely reviewed either.

The article was created in 2010, before the subject had even earned his PhD, and was presumably made in order to promote his first book. Leonstojka (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR, I could only find 5 entries in JSTOR and no review of his book at all. I found no indication of notability. --hroest 15:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Italy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James A. D. W. Anderson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James A. D. W. Anderson (3rd nomination)

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

Mathematical crackpot with no meaningful impact on the field per WP:ACADEMIC, and no coverage in popular press since initial 2006 spotlight. Academic discourse on "transreal arithmetic" is mostly WP:SELFPUB, barring a couple of papers published in non-mathematical journals. Fishsicles (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, he does appear to be a crackpot. That might not be sufficient reason for deletion if he had a significant influence on mathematics, but as far as I can see he doesn't. Athel cb (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other fields, mathematics is much more tolerant of what would normally be labelled "crackpots" - rejecting an established axiom or theory usually means building a contrasting theory, which can be mathematically interesting in its own right. (WP:CRACKPOT's term for this would be "alternative theoretical formulation".) That said, "transreal arithmetic" has absolutely not developed into a theory of any interest to mathematicians, which means I'm more than comfortable applying the label.

I think a particularly useful point of contrast is inter-universal Teichmüller theory, which also makes dramatic claims that are (in the opinion of many number theorists) not properly substantiated, but remains of significant academic interest for its potential applications. "Transreal arithmetic" has attracted no such attention, and the only one to claim applications is Anderson himself. Fishsicles (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is indeed the third nomination of this article, but it is the first under this exact title: the article was first sent to AfD in 2006 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) (which closed with no consensus), and the second nomination in 2008 was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (computer scientist) (which closed as keep). (While James Anderson (mathematician) ended up getting deleted in 2006, that was at RfD after the article was renamed shortly after the first AfD.) No opinion on the current nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Mathematics, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not worth a page and it is more about Transreal arithmetic than anything else. It is a transreal page, in a sense. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Assender

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

The subject has no proven notability outside of bios JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. hroest 04:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep tenured professor at Oxford, with an h-index of 30 and 6 publications with 100+ citations, she is close to the bar for WP:NPROF#1 and with some good will passes that bar. --hroest 04:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete per hroest's evidence that she's close to the bar, and the article makes zero claims of notability but instead sounds like trying to pump up the standard sorts of things every prof everywhere does. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I feel like she does meet WP:GNG. I won't say that this article is firmly in notable territory, but I wouldn't say this fails GNG either. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof. Is the nominator aware of this SNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. I think someone at this level in the US would very likely be an ASME Fellow and also pass #C3 but I don't see anything like that for her. On the other hand, full professor in England and in particular at Oxford is somewhat stricter than at US universities, maybe not enough for #C5 but a step towards it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My first thought was that weak keep was the right choice, but her publication record is reasonable, and, perhaps more important, her publications are well cited, with many cited more than 50 times, several more than 100, and at least two more than 300. Athel cb (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per the other keep voters I agree that the article has questions when it comes to how necessary the article is but the sources provided does have the article pass gng Scooby453w (talk)
Keep, not only well-cited, but a full professorship in Oxford definitely meets #C5 (older UK universities have few explicitly-named professorships, and we never call ourselves distinguished, it just feels wrong...). Elemimele (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell she's actually an Associate Professor holding the title of Full Professor under the Recognition of Distinction exercise. But I see she was also joint Head of Department [13] so this is at least a Weak Keep and possibly better. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others say above, an h-factor of 30 is not high. This is definitely the case in Material Science where I look for > 45. As mentioned above Full Professor at Oxford is no longer notable by itself, it used to be; they were good with fund raising, but that is off topic. At Oxford it is the same as a US Full Professor and definitely does not meet #C5. If she had a senior named chair such as the Wolfson Chair that would pass #C5. I also disagree with the statement about ASME Fellow. (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lufkin

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

Does not appear to meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY the article just got accepted from afc a week and a half ago Scooby453w (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFC is not a notability guarantee. It means the accepter thinks the article has a 50% chance. Also that isn't what WP:HEY is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scooby453w, please explain how this would meet the Heyman Standard if there have not been any improvements to the article since it was nominated for deletion? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep where was the WP:BEFORE ? he is a full prof at a R1 University, he has a substantial number of high impact publications with 100+ citations (I count 21) which is usually passing the bar for a research-only professor, even more so for a physician-scientist. On top he has invented a useful tool (the needle). --hroest 01:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're all multi-author publications, no? And WP:NACADEMIC says distinguished professor, not every professor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he passes WP:NPROF#1 without much question, most contemporary research is multi-author and this is not exception. A subject only has to pass one of the 8 criteria, not all of them (are you referring to NPROF#5 with your comment?). --hroest 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1 saysAs demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Can you point to any? (and yes). PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: I have no particular opinion on Lufkin, but in the case of academics, publications in peer-reviewed journals are in themselves regarded as independent reliable sources because the peer reviewers are independent of the author. The citation count is an indicator that the research has made significant impact. Almost all scientific papers are multi-author, and Lufkin's place as last author on some of these indicates that he was the senior academic running the project (except in those disciplines that use alphabetical order, first and last authors are the priority spots, corresponding to the one who did the work, and the one who conceived, planned and scientifically-directed the work). Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning weak keep It does seem to be over the line of notability on the strength of his book e.g. [14], plus this [15], would seem to be >1 event, a pass on GNG even without considering in-depth the academic publications such as [16] and whether his standing is significant in his field. Assuming he is RB Lufkin, he has quite a lot of Google Scholar hits.Andre🚐 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can include the information in the second source because he is a BLP. The first one is an interview. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He would be a PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of his notability if we are saying he is a notable public intellectual and for purposes of his career. I agree the first one is an interview slash promotion for his book, but it's good enough for me when taken as a whole with everything else. There is an essay WP:INTERVIEW and I agree this one is a little on the fluffy side, but he has a bestselling book. I also did find at least one mention of the "Lufkin needle" he is credited with inventing. [17] Andre🚐 03:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, California, Rhode Island, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep : Some sources are reliable tho this article needs some clean up, improvement should be done Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed A. Alrodhan

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

Page which has had several problems including prior COI/UPE editor, and a PROD supported by two editors. Prior promo has been removed, with the argument "as the person is not significantly less notable compared to other Saudi academics whose pages exist without question". That is not a valid criterion. Page fails WP:NPROF with an h-factor of 7, plus nothing to prove WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Saudi Arabia. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations not enough for this very highly cited field (quite apart from the general issue raised here[18]). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesnt pass WP:NPROF by a long shot. --hroest 01:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF. Some academic works are there but not enough to meet criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H Elovitz

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. An article referenced entirely by Elovitz's own publications. Did reach associate professor level at Temple University; a long publication history, but Scopus shows limited impact (H-index=3), although that seems to be missing his pre-1996 work. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I could only find 2 academic reviews of a book that he co-edited: [19] [20] which is not enough for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. However, he was the founder and editor in chief of Clio's Psyche which could contribute to WP:NPROF#8 but I dont know how "well established" that journal is. --hroest 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Lobenthal

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

Non-notable art historian/author. WP:ROTM 'cultural' critic. No RS establish notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see evidence for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. per nomination, none of the sources indicates notability. --hroest 15:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford R. Kettemborough

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

It looks like the sources are WP:PRIMARY or passing mentions. WP:Whoswho isn't reliable and doesn't count towards notability. It doesn't seem like this page meets any of the WP:NPROF. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No Gbooks or Scholar hits, I don't think this person would pass academic notability. Sourcing now in the article is mostly primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Also h-index and i10-index extremely low. Some listed sources only mention him or are unreliable. Published papers were he's cited are not RS. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidence of non-notability: zero Scholar hits and only one Book hit, compared to 8 book hits for me, not including 2 book reviews, and I'm not a notable scholar (yet). Bearian (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - like the above users, I see no evidence of research impact or prominence in general. Leonstojka (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benedetta Bonichi

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

The artist does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST, as a teacher they do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The sources consist of blogs (Weird Fiction, and Trend Hunter), press releases or primary sources with a simple name check. None of these are reliable sources that provide significant coverage. An online BEFORE did not find anything of value, just social media posts and eBay. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Visual arts, Photography, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I dont see any indication of notability, the claim that her work is in multiple permanent exhibitions is not supported by the source attached. If it were, this would change the picture. --hroest 13:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's one good source, about a 2006 exhibition, but it's a primary source, and does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Moses

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article has requested deletion as was suggested at the previous AfD. Those editors with VRT access can reference ticket:2025041610018915. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Biology, and Medicine. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see two articles with 1000+ citations and dozens of articles with 100+ citations which means she passes WP:NPROF#1. Secondly she holds a named chair at Harvard University which is another indication of notability per NPROF#5 and she has multiple elected fellowships (NPROF#3). Furthermore she received a prestigious award which would be relevant under NPROF#2. According to our standards, I would argue she is highly notable (although not a public persona) but not at all a case that is somewhere in the gray area. --hroest 15:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Both the subject and the creator of the article have requested deletion. According to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE:Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests.. Note it doesn't say GNG or NPROF. The subject may be a clear pass of NPROF, but GNG is less clear. I don't know why deletion was requested (multiple times now), but I also don't see a problem with honoring it in this case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement here with Rhododendrites. We don't know why this person has requested deletion, and they are not obligated to tell us about any conflicting personal or professional issues are behind the request. Could be very private personal issues behind this request. Could be nothing, or could be reaction to the article is taking up a lot of their time. They don't owe us an explanation. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment we are here to provide information about publicly-relevant people, for the benefit of our readers, not for the subjects of our article. Just as we don't allow vanity-publishing of those who'd like more publicity than they get, we have to be careful of modesty-deletion of those who shun publicity but about whom the public still have legitimate interest. We also need to be cautious of the occasional "my way or no way" deletion request from someone who wants an article written on their own terms, and those shunning publicity because there's some scandal looming (I'm not implying that either of these is the case here). My interpretation of request-delete is that the subject's wishes tip the balance if the balance is delicate. In this case she looks like a pretty solid pass, not a delicate balance. Do we actually know why she wishes to have the article deleted? I'm not sure AfD works for cases like this: you can't ask the jury to decide something, but tell them they're not allowed to see the evidence or know why they're being asked. Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Elemimele, you just saved me having to say pretty much exactly the same. :)
I'd also add that given how self-evidently notable this person is, even if we delete this version, what's to stop someone next month recreating it? Or are we meant to salt the title (and if so, on what grounds?), or to go through AfD Groundhog Day on this subject ad infinitum? Then again, given that this is already the 2nd deletion-request-AfD, even if we don't delete this time, we may be stuck with AfD Groundhog Day... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moses seems happy to maintain a public profile on sites like the American Academy of Arts and Sciences [21] so there can be little question of privacy here, only of control. I think that's not an adequate reason for deletion for someone so prominent. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To put it another way: if the President of Harvard University asked us to delete their article, should we agree? The president of the US? We have none of the factors that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says we should take into consideration: problematic editing, real-world harm identified by the subject, nor a subject that is only minimally notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The subject is not the President of Harvard University, and the article had numerous inaccuracies at the time of the VRT request. Biographies of actual public figures receive a lot more attention from editors than those that cover relatively unknown people, such as this one. Having a Wikipedia biography is certainly a burden to many subjects that do not have marketing teams, assistants, or public relations professionals at their disposal. This is the reason that the page you reference only invites us to consider the general notability guideline, per Rhododendrites, which is a better measure of a subject's exposure to public life than NPROF. Finally, minimal notability is one of the additional factors that we are invited to consider, and this is obviously the case when apply GNG. Nothing of serious value is being lost here. Let's have some compassion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  We have here a fellow of major societies (especially the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) for whom we should aim for biographies of all members. Deleting this article would leave a permanent hole in our coverage. And it's difficult to have compassion for a bare request to delete when there is no information given on the cause for requesting deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Still as notable as they were last time at AfD, and there's several notable positions and fellowships listed. I suspect this is about not being able to control the information in the article, as being the reason for wanting it deleted. This person is a rather public figure with several profiles on public websites, the right to privacy seems to have been waived in this case. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and deleting this would only contribute to gender bias, which is a real issue on Wikipedia. We should be advocating for articles about notable females in STEM fields. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: inherently a professor is a public figure to a degree, usually part of their job is to lecture in front of students and colleagues at conferences as well as be available for journalist/government inquiries. This is doubly true at major R1 research universities. It is unreasonable to have an expectation of total privacy where their name is not mentioned anywhere in the press or on the internet. The potential for inaccuracies in the article is not a reason to delete, we can correct or remove inaccurate statements. --hroest 12:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although a clear pass of WP:Prof, delete at subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Del Thiessen

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. While the page has significant structural problems, a Fellow of American Psychological Association (see the orbit at the journal of the International Society for Comparative Psychology) passes WP:NPROF#C3 independent of whether his citations also pass C1 (Scopus h-factor 28). This was previously noted when the nominator's PROD was contested. No justification provided by nominator with the PROD, and nothing here beyond the statement "Lack of notability".

Comment the GScholar topic of comparative psychology is not a high citation area, so an h-factor of 28 might pass C1.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, California, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes NPROF C3. nf utvol (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes NPROF #1 and #3. --hroest 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have at least three reviews of his books Gene Organization and Behavior (Morris), The Evolution and Chemistry of Aggression (Eisenberg) (Sigg). The reviews would be only enough for a weak WP:AUTHOR keep for me but the obituary linked above and the case for WP:PROF#C1 through the fellowships push it up to a full keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moein Jalali

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT. Can't find any sources giving him significant coverage. The main claim I see is winning the 2A Continental Architectural Awards, though as far as I can tell, it was second place. Unfortunately I was unable search in Persian, so if sources are found, please ping me. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete the awards [22] may indicate notability since he / his team seems to have come in first but these awards only exist since 2016 so I doubt that they are relevant for WP:ARCHITECT. Also he is listed as one of multiple people on a design team for the award, so overall I dont think winning a non-notable award as part of a team can count towards notability. Also, the page reads like a CV and needs some WP:TNT. --hroest 13:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and recognition
Moein Jalali has received individual recognition in international architecture awards:
2A Continental Architectural Awards
- 2016 - Won for Parsin Dental Clinic
- 2018 - Won for Palemos Villa 2
Organizer listings confirm these were individual awards, not team achievements. Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 2A Asia Architectural Awards' significance:

The 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:

Françoise Fromonot, Nasrin Seraji, Wolfgang Tschapeller, Murat Tabanlıoğlu, Hiromi Hosoya

Also the 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:

Carme Pinós, Yoko Okuyama, Willy Müller, Ali Basbous.

Moein Jalali has been selected as a jury member for several prestigious international architecture awards, reflecting his standing in the architectural community:

Jury appointments

Inspireli Awards (2024) - Considered the world's largest student architecture competition
FRAME Awards (June 2024) - International interior design awards

Selection for such judging panels typically requires:

Recognized professional achievements
Specialized expertise
International perspective

Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete - Per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. 2A Magazine looks minor. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Sonin

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

Promotional page for non-notable engineer. I couldn't find any WP:RSs in the references that meet WP:N; and couldn't find any in Google. Subject appears WP:ROTM. Page seems created by suspicious (possibly paid), sole-purpose unregistered account. Cabrils (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I dont see any indication of notability per WP:GNG. --hroest 13:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - page background is suspicious enough, fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this through the academics deletion-sorting list but he also has no WP:PROF-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – From a detailed research I carried out, Dr. Maksim Sonin clearly satisfies the notability requirements under WP:NACADEMIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.

Under WP:NACADEMIC, Dr. Sonin is an elected Fellow (FEI) of the Energy Institute (UK)—a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society. This recognition is publicly listed on his official Stanford profile.

He is also a Sloan Fellow, and recipient of the 2024 High Flyers 50 Global Icon Award, a notable international honor—fulfilling another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC related to prestigious academic recognition.

A Google News search reveals significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable, non-promotional sources that demonstrate his real-world impact and scholarly influence. These include:

IBM Think – Quoted on AI and nuclear energy
USA Today – On disrupting industry status quos
Power Magazine – On coal plant operations in relation to AI demand
Business Insider Africa – Profiled for financial and career insight
Engineer Live – Discussed Kazakhstan’s GSU project

These independent, reliable sources offer substantial, non-trivial coverage, fulfilling the criteria under WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.

Moreover, Dr. Sonin has held executive roles and served on the boards of UCC, Silleno, and KMG Petrochem, among other organizations focused on global energy and humanitarian concerns. He has also worked in consortium ventures with Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil, which is documented in several of the above sources.

All these facts are clearly featured in reliable third-party publications, not self-published or promotional content.

Therefore, Dr. Maksim Sonin meets the demands of WP:NACADEMIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG, and this article should be retained.Maltuguom (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nurida Kurbanova

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

Life description has no credible claims to notability. Yousiphh (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesnt pass WP:GNG, only sources available dont have any WP:SIGCOV, no credible academic profile to be found. --hroest 13:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found for the body she founded and the awards she has received. PamD 22:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott A. Hoffinger

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

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC (no chair; insufficient reasearch contribution, with H-index of 11), nor WP:GNG - the 2009 reality series appearance seems fleeting (no sustained coverage). Klbrain (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, California, Connecticut, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klbrain/others:

Strongly, strongly disagree this article should be deleted. Based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (WP:PROF and WP:GNG), Hoffinger clearly meets the standards due to his significant and documented contributions to orthopedic medicine, particularly pediatric orthopedics, leg length inequality and other procedures, and his documented, extensive aid work in the middle east.

First, Hoffinger has significantly advanced orthopedic techniques, specifically developing magnet-powered telescoping internal rods for limb-lengthening. This method reduces complications seen with older external fixation methods and has been covered independently, including by the Stanford Medicine News Center. This clearly satisfies WP:PROF criterion 1 "significant scholarly impact". (There are many sources/ DOIs I can cite. See one here: https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/abstract/2000/07000/intramedullary_nailing_of_femoral_shaft_fractures.16.aspx)

Next, he has held key positions at respected institutions, including Stanford Children's Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and OrthoPediatrics. He also served as Director of Pediatric Orthopedics at Children’s Hospital Oakland. Additionally, he served as the Medical Staff President at Children's Hospital Oakland in 2006, effectively an academic chair position, directly addressing the criterion cited by Klbrain. These positions reflect substantial professional recognition and meet WP:PROF criterion 6 "holding distinguished positions".

Lastly, Hoffinger has participated actively in international medical outreach, notably being featured twice on television, including a documented medical mission to Iraq featured on "Little People, Big World." Such appearances indicate ongoing relevance and satisfy the WP:GNG criterion for media coverage. It wasn't a "fleeting" reality series appearance. He appeared three times, and went to the middle east with the Matt Roloff twice.

As an ancilary note, I feel that focusing solely on an H-index of 11 fails to appreciate the practical medical innovations he introduced, which have received recognition beyond citation counts. His research contributions are substantial, and many of his peer-reviewed articles can be found here: PubMed and Google scholar

Look- I understand that people make articles all the time here that aren't up to the Wiki standards. I genuinely feel this article should not be deleted. Happy to work closely with klbrain or others to edit it up to that standard, but no one can say this guy isn't notable. Hoffy600 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable doctor. Military news story [23] and a press release [24] are about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are clear indications that he is a good medical doctor, and has had useful administrative roles. However, those do not qualify him for a Wikipedia page, for that he needs large-scale national or internation recognition and/or positions or awards. Counting by hand his citations I get an h-factor of 12 which does not qualify for WP:NPROF. Almost all the various pages cited are all mini-CV of him at medical sites, not general pages of independent coverage. Sorry, but he falls far short of what we look for. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete GS finds 3 studies with 100+ citations which is not extraordinary in biomedicine especially over the course of 20+ years and does not rise to the bar of WP:NPROF. I agree that GS cannot capture the complexity of academic research and it is only a proxy we use, if there are other reputable sources that attest to his impact in the field (Festschrift or similar) we can take that into account. I dont see NPROF#6 as this usually relates to the president/dean of a whole major University, not a single department as in this case. --hroest 13:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete
Hi everyone: Some thoughts to counter what you've put here (more succinct this time, ha ha):
Klbrain:
No named chair, but served as Director of Orthopedics, Stanford Clinical Professor, and president of a national society—roles that meet the intent of WP:NPROF #6. I quote the standard as follows: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Children's Hospital Oakland is associated with UCSF Benioff, and therefore constitutes a highest level role when he was medical staff president.
He also is a member of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, a selective group. I quote the WP:ACADEMICS standard #3 "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." AAOS qualifies as such.
TV appearances were neither trivial nor fleeting—Hoffinger was a recurring expert and on-screen surgeon. By your logic, we'd have to remove Matt Roloff's page too.
Ldm1954:
Independent coverage exists in multiple forms: academic news (Stanford Medicine News), the DVIDs article you mentioned, trade media Becker's, and television (TLC). This is "independent coverage."
Serving as AACPDM president is national academic leadership. Combined with multiple other media appearances, this satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I quote the GNG standard as follows: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected".
Hroest:
Citation counts, while not astronomical, are strong for pediatric surgery. The medical field isn't uniform, and pediatric orthopedics is a field where citation count isn't valued as highly as other specialties. Three studies exceed 100 citations, which is significant in this field.
Society presidency and division leadership clearly qualify under WP:NPROF #6 as "top-tier" positions within a respected academic medical society and major hospital system. Hoffy600 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has 39k members drawn from just within orthopedic surgery. That's not highly selective. WP:NPROF #6 is for something like the National Academy of Medicine, which has fewer than 3k members despite drawing from all medical specialties and 10% foreign members. Jahaza (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ldm1954's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhav Bhattarai

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

Unexpanded after a decade and a half, likely due to lack of reliable sources. I have found nothing in depth. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Nepal. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This astrologer operates in a fringe area but has not made enough impact to be notable for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: At least in English, the subject is quoted in some articles like this one for the calculation of dates of religious observances. However, I couldn't find significant coverage of the subject. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source does not a notable Wikipedia article make. Definitely needs more RSes to support notability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. One RS doesn't establish its notability.Probably needs more reliable sources with significant coverage. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshdi Khalil

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

Potentially notable mathematician but there has been some discussion on whether he is notable on talk and that has not been resolved. Looking for a wider discussion. A note tag has been placed on the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to Google Scholar, and his work has been cited 6291 by others; he has an h-index of 23, and an i10-index of 46. He is a tenured Full Professor. I don't know enough about these scores in relation to his specific field of mathematics to be able to interpret them, but it seems he may be notable. Apparently he is also a poet. Netherzone (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I wrote on the article talk some time ago, "Heavy citations in mathematics, centered on dubious journals, can be less a sign of notability and more a sign that something suspicious is going on." See Science: Citation cartels help some mathematicians—and their universities—climb the rankings: Widespread citation manipulation has led entire field of math to be excluded from influential list of top researchers. The subject is exactly the sort of person this was targeted at: someone high on the lists of heavily cited mathematicians but whose name would be unfamiliar to most mainstream mathematicians. For this reason I think we need to base notability on something else other than WP:PROF#C1. I don't see any evidence of that something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the information that David Eppstein has shared. It's good to be aware of the fact that this sort of gaming of the system occurs in the mathematics field. A BEFORE search had revealed nothing else, and the awards are not notable, they are run-of-the-mill teaching awards. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the analysis above. However it does raise the question of how NPROF#1 should be assessed in mathematics going forward, probably going by awards and recognitions? --hroest 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably. Major mathematics societies have issued statements telling mathematicians not to rely solely on citation counts in evaluation: IMU (IMU summary), AMS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Glauser

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

An associate professor with a rather light career output (18 works on ORCID; 5 on Scopus); doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC and doesn't seem to have sufficient media engagement to meet WP:GNG. It also looks like an unacknowledged translation from the German article (also suggesting that we're not missing anything). Notability tagged for 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have 293 results on Swissdox, but many are false postivies for a master cheesemaker and head of the Käserei Zäziwil, whose promotion of Emmental cheese has gotten lots of coverage. On account of this cheesy interference, it will take me longer than usual to analyze the sources. Toadspike [Talk] 15:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete as he doesnt meet WP:NPROF, but seems to have some sort of public profile. However, I dont see many news articles about him (or at least dont have access in Canada) but lets see whether Toadspike can find anything more. --hroest 15:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

[25] A part-interview piece that has enough info about him to count towards the GNG. [26] [27] Plus two more with probably sigcov about him predicting the 2016 US election
It seems his doctoral thesis was edited down and published as a book, titled "Einfach blitzsauber: Die Geschichte des Staubsaugers". Yes, it is about the history of the vacuum cleaner. It was reviewed by: NZZ, 16 March 2002, "Der Staubsauger, das unbekannte Wesen" by Aiolfi S.; Berner Zeitung, later reprinted in the Neue Luzerner Zeitung, 27.10.2001, "Eine verstaubte Geschichte entstaubt", Franziska Egli; Tages-Anzeiger, "Staub als Thema", 16.10.2001, Walter Jäggi; Die Weltwoche, "Hauptsache, sauber", 11.10.2001, Benini Sandro; Le Temps, "Le grand nettoyage par le vide ou les cent ans de l'aspirateur", 29.08.2001, Isabelle Cerboneschi; and short reviews in the Solothurner Zeitung and Blick. This book is, apparently, notable.
Non-independent coverage of ArgYou [28] and a related interview [29], which has a bio of him too.
Glauser was quoted as an expert on brand image in an article in Le Temps titled "Les petits nouveaux et le storytelling", 17 June 2022, by Matthias Niklowitz – this article also appeared in the Handelszeitung in German, but I can't find either version online. Similar expert quotes of Glauser alongside sigcov of ArgYou here [30]. I've found quite a few other instances where he is quoted as an expert in a variety of papers, but I won't list them all here to save time and space.
ArgYou seems to be regularly cited as a source of data, with articles often mentioning Glauser's name as well. One example is this newswire piece from Keystone-SDA, reprinted in a bunch of papers [31].

Sorry for spamming all these links here. I haven't quite gone through all the newspaper database results (I got distracted by other stuff) but I think there's enough to keep here. Toadspike [Talk] 19:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain@Hannes Röst Would you like to take a look at the above? I think the first three sources, linked in the first bullet point, should be enough. Toadspike [Talk] 19:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look, and still not impressed, although understand if others disagree. That an internet marketing expert can get some fireside chats published in some blog-like website covered in adds doesn't seem sufficient to me for WP:GNG. The research claims made in those articles are likely to be factually true, but don't demonstrate that WP:NACADEMIC is reached. Klbrain (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which website you are referring to, but all of the sources I cited are reliable Swiss newspapers (except maybe Blick, which is a tabloid, but one with a decent reputation regardless). The level of advertising is not a measure of reliability, though if you like I can email you the print versions of nearly all of the sources I cited, which have far fewer ads. Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Alderete

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I found only one reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject to count towards WP:BIO [32], which I added to the article. The other two sources cited in the article are not independent. I checked WP:NPROF and I think the only criteria that might apply is #1, for citations. Her Google Scholar profile [33] gives an h-index of around 30, which I suggest is borderline; I do note that the article had explicitly been undraftified with this commentrespectable h-index, may meet WP:NPROF. I submit that it doesn't, and therefore than an article now is too soon. As an alternative to deletion, I would be happy for the article to be draftified again for future expansion and resubmisssion when notability is clearer. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Health and fitness, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would argue the one article the nom cites as potentially meeting WP:BIO is not in-depth enough count towards significance --- it's largely interview responses. From a public health perspective, the potential link between pollution and allergies/asthma/diabetes was established well before Aderelte's career began (e.g. [34]), so much of her research isn't groundbreaking in the field. I wouldn't even draftify this as academics usually take a while to become notable and it's likely to languish there for years. If Alderete becomes notable in the future someone can rewrite based on newer and better information. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz if she passes WP:NPROF then she does not need to pass WP:BIO as well. Based on her GS profile and similar cases in the past, she probably passes the bar for NPROF. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I admit I am also generally skeptical of WP:NPROF as setting too low a bar for notability among academics. I'm not a fan of h-index or other citation metrics for establishing notability since I think such metrics skew incentives for scientific investigation. Raw citation counts are also difficult to use since some fields can be much more citation-happy than others.

I took a brief look at three of Alderete's publications based on the weak keep votes, and I'm not impressed by the quality of the science in two so I am still sticking with my delete vote (the third was too specialized for me to understand well enough).

As an aside, the first paper I have concerns with are [35] which throws out measured infant masses in the methods section instead of using averages/standard deviations. I'd expect to get fired if I used such a method. Including standard deviations in mass would likely make the correlations appear much weaker than stated in the paper. The second is this one which does not include income as a potential confounding factor (incomes are generally lower near sources of pollution, and lower incomes mean healthier foods can be unaffordable, so could that be a more reasonable explanation for the observed correlation?). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree with you, I also feel this is a case just at the edge. However, the reason we are lenient for articles of professors / scientists is the Strickland case and the fact that its often fiendishly difficult for Wikipedians to judge academic research quality (and takes up a lot of time). Therefore peer assessment is what we go for and everything else borders on WP:OR. Personally, I am not familiar with the standard methodology for infant weight/length measurements, in some cases outlier removal is a valid method and treating outliers as if they come from a normally distributed set of values is also a mistake by itself. Maybe its just nontrivial to get a baby to hold still in a scale :-) ? I also agree that income could be a confounding factor for the other study, however they do mention they use parental education as a proxy for socioeconomic status so there is an attempt to control for it but there is no evidence to support this choice. Either way, it would be good if the discussion of the results would have included this limitation but it does not necessarily invalidate the whole study. --hroest 13:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep this person (just) passes WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 33 and 13 of her publications cited 100+ times. This indicates an impact in her academic field as per guidelines. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and repair. There were some very strange statements such as her currently being a postdoctoral scholar (at the same time as an associate professor), I removed that one as I don't believe it. Her h-index is borderline, as others have said, but her citation trend is very strongly increasing so I am OK to give her the benefit of the doubt. Someone badly needs to repair the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naseem Ameer Ali

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

Promo bio for a non-notable individual with no evidence of passing WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. His h-index of 5 (from the Scopus page linked in the footnotes) is what might be expected from a postdoc or graduate student, not an associate professor, and signals the opposite ofsignificantly impacted...academia, to quote the peacocking language used here. He meets none of the other NACADEMIC criteria. The sourcing (here and in a BEFORE search) does not support GNG either. It's limited to non-independent pages: his faculty profile, primary source bios ([36], [37], his own writings [38], [39] and a LinkedIn page. One source turns up a blank page and another is a random search box. The final tenuous claim of notability is an award as alifetime member of the NZ Institute of Quantity Surveying, but this is unlikely to be a notable award since NZIQS appears non-notable, and it fails WP:V, since the only source is the aforementioned WP:USERGENERATED LinkedIn page and search queries on the NZIQS website turn up no results for life/lifetime members or for Ali's name. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A long way from passing WP:Prof and, on the basis of the thorough nomination, I don't see enough for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF clearly, as seen in GS and there is no evidence that he "has significantly impacted both academia and the construction industry". --hroest 15:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a academic doing his job and took a chance at getting an article. scope_creep^Talk 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has very few RSes to speak of and it not notable. It seems like this person just wants to be able to use Wikipedia as an advertisement. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Siy

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

Sources do not indicate sufficient notability. References to the subject of the article are fairly minor, mostly press releases and the like. Noleander (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Won't contest this one. I just came across the article and expanded it as I happened to know his work to a degree, but even I would agree that there is a lack of sources that ascertains the subject as notable for WP. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 10 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]

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]
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]

Paul Alan Levy

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Internet, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS that discuss this person are used for sourcing. Source 15 is a RS but doesn't mention this person. I don't see any either, some primary sourcing only. The was at AfD over a decade ago, and still no RS have turned up. I don't think this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current article is in need of a clean-up and better sourcing, but I think some alternatives to deletion per Wikipedia:ATD are appropriate and I think this nomination is premature. This profile in the Washingtonian demonstrates, at least to me, there is a chance that the subject can meet WP:GNG based on a 40-year legal career at a large public advocacy group that includes arguing in front of SCOTUS. A search on Google Scholar indicates he is published in legal journals at least more than a regular attorney. Google Scholar is the floor, not the ceiling based on his writing in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. In addition, he is mentioned in a number of books at the Internet Archive including books independent of him and Public Citizen. I would also recommend, should we not keep, to !redirect to Public Citizen where the guy has worked for over 40 years. The preface of "weak" is that I am in a space of quantity vs quality at this point with Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. I am very open to the possibility he is not the subject in enough of these or that the work is not so atypical as to warrant an individual article as a non-attorney.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not coverage. That short article are the real thing that mention him in any detail. There is no other WP:SECONDARY coverage that I can find that is specifically about him. And its nothing like enough. scope_creep^Talk 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will go through the reference and look at them in detail in the next couple of days to see what is what. scope_creep^Talk 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have seen a few articles about him from reliable sources that prove notability. One of them in my quick look was the Washingtonian February 3 article "Paul Levy, the Web Bully’s Worst Enemy", which also made me laugh out loud. Collectively regular coverage in Reason and New York Times, it satisfies me. He sounds like an interesting man. He's also got my interest too. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inclined to say that he is on this side of GNG. Andre🚐 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence free !voting there I see. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references:

Ref 1 [40] That is self-written profile. Not independent.
Ref 2 [41] Secondary source.
Ref 3 [42] Not about him. Its a passing mention.
Ref 4 [43] CV. Not independent.
Ref 5 Non-rs
Ref 6 [44] That is a spam and will need to be removed.
Ref 7 [45] Another passing mention.
Ref 8 [46] Passing mention.
Ref 9 [47] Passing mention.
Ref 10 [48] Not independent.
Ref 11 404
Ref 12 [49] The docket. Non-rs
Ref 13 [50] Not independent.
Ref 14 [51] A short quote from him. Not independent.

The first two blocks of references, 2 non-rs, 5 not-independent, 4 passing mentions, a 404, a spam link and 1 secondary source that reads like a puff piece. This is a WP:BLP. Its states in that policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources The sources are atrocious. They are crap. There is no other way to desribe them. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the Justia RS? It is a primary source and I saw nothing on RSP about Justia being unreliable. Many of the sources corroborating this person's existence are court dockets. And what is wrong with Washingtonian being a secondary source? "Levy, an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group who has represented union dissidents" in the Michigan Law Review articles on JSTOR, "Paul Alan Levy , an attor ney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C." on the ABA Journal, his book was cited by the NLRB... Andre🚐 06:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Court dockets don't prove notability. They are records of mandatory attendance and that all you can say about them. They don't confer notability and notability is not inhereted off them. There is nothing wrong with the Washingtonian source as a secondary ref. But it needs more than source to prove a person is notable. This is a WP:BLP. Not a article about some song. WP:THREE is standard here per established consensus (summer before last). 3 secondary sources will do it. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His own work doesn't towards notability unless its been reviewed and published by external reviewers (not social media). So far I've not seen any evidence to contrary that any of his work is notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dockets (Justia) machine generated is non-rs generally. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lolade Dosunmu Adeyemi

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

Likely fails WP Academics and ANY BIO. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMICS or WP:GNG. Insufficient coverages found to establish notability of any sort. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Banks

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

Non-notable subject with one RS, couldn't find others during BEFORE. Previous AfD led to article being deleted (in 2008) and I don't believe he passes GNG now. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Psychology, New Jersey, and New York. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphan, not really a biography, little in the way of google scholar Czarking0 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further to this coverage cited in the article, the subject appears to have many hits on the newspaperarchive. See, for example, Box Elder Journal, 1963, and Daily Texan, 1953, and Chester Times, 1954. ResonantDis_tortion 22:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many sources found as per WP:RS or WP:GNG page is notable.Sigma World (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Muyia Nafukho

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

Requested by individual Maomulma (talk) 06:18, 18 April 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 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not sure what the reason for deletion is? Is it the person the article that this article is about saw it, and now wants it deleted? Is it a bot that made this deletion request? I've never seen a nomination like this on Wikipedia. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, Kenya, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to whom? I see nothing on this article's talk page. I see nothing on the nom's talk page or the creator's talk page. Short of the subject dropping a verified UTRS request (or a substantive challenge to the subject's notability), there are no grounds to sustain a deletion, and the nom has failed to make one. Ravenswing 21:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I presume that the subject himself wants the article deleted? Is there evidence of this? However, I see a substantial GS profile with an h-index of 49 which easily clear WP:NPROF but the article does have some issues and needs cleanup, but I do not see a reason for deletion. --hroest 20:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - without clear and convincing evidence of the subject's wishes, it's merely speculation. If this were a child or an associate professor, then I would go along with deletion. He's fairly notable. We're an encyclopedia, not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Takis Sakellariou

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

Fails WP:GNG - clearly falls into WP:LUGSTUBS. Ré union! 03:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Olympedia gives him a decent-size bio strongly indicates that he was notable. What we need to do is search Greek sources. Has that been done? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering that Olympedia is owned by the IOC, that isn't a independent source. Let'srun (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content was written before IOC ownership and was previously hosted by Sports Reference; only after the rename to Olympedia did the IOC buy it (i.e. its independent). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a date on the bio. How are you sure it was written before IOC ownership? Let'srun (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to try to look through Wayback Machine archives for this particular one, but based on other ones I've checked in the past, the biographies were originally on SR, then imported to Olympedia when SR's Olympics site split. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Die Olympischen Kunstwettbewerbe 1912-1948 (The Olympic Art Competitions 1912-1948) covers the olympic artwork, but with little beyond. [52] He also gets multiple mentions in A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War [53], although these are not biographical of him. That's all I found so far. That is not a GNG pass yet, but may indicate there is more to be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is not a typical Lugstub at all. Has anyone searched in Wikilibrary sources? Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of people with the name Takis Sakellariou. There's also no Greek article on him, unfortunately, so it's not like we can just expand it with the corresponding article in Greek. If someone native in the language looked, maybe we'd get a more definitive answer if there's any articles that do pass GNG on him. Ré union! 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will certainly be namesakes, but what is the basis for saying there are a lot of them? Sakellariou is not unusual but neither is it a particularly common Greek surname, and the same could be said for the forename, Takis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, this one [54] is clearly more notable and accounts for most of what I am turning up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Greek there is an extensive reference to Sakelariou here which comes from a book on the subject - I think it's a reliable source. Apart from that, however, I have not found anything else worthwhile. Delete Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics or consider Grigoris Lambrakis, although mention at the page would be required. I have searched but unable to find any SIGCOV secondary sources for this subject. There is a more notable namesake in entertainment (actor and producer) and most sources refer to that one. However the sources I found above are confirmed to be this page subject. The problem is that these are just not enough. The history of the Olympic art competitions confirms his entry, but doesn't have anything to tell us about the man. Likewise Gkotzaridis (2016), that is, A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War, which I have now obtained a library copy of, only actually has three mentions of the page subject, the other mentions of Sakellariou in the work referring to one of five others with that surname: Alexandros, Aristeidis, Epameinondas, Petros and Vassileos. The most substantial of the references to the page subject reads:As for Takis Sakellariou, he was properly bedazzled and stirred - like so many others back at home - by the spectacle of Germans rooting for Greek athletes in Greek and some even succeeding in intoning the first verses of the Greek national anthem! and this is referenced to one of his works:

- Takis Sakellariou, "The Foustanela-dressed of the Gymnastics Academy and the Greek Champions: Mantikas, Syllas and Papadimas," Athlitismos, August 10, 1936.

That source, of course, is primary. The book also confirms his involvement in training, withAs soon as he met Grigorios, the coach, Takis Sakellariou, sensed at once that he had in front of him a rare instance of an athlete, with remarkable jumping capabilities. He started to train him, believing firmly that he would grow into a wonderful jumper. The other mention also briefly mentions training. And that is it. We have no secondary sources covering the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the one good source below, striking my redirect for now, as focus on the subject as a sports science pioneer may be more fruitful than as an Olympian. At the very least we should allow time for further searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting my redirect !vote back. The source below is excerpted from a local history book published by the Piraeus association. The website is similarly supported by the association. The claims about him being a pioneer are, it seems, overhyped, as there is no other evidence of this. He is of local interest, but it is a single source by an association promoting Piraeus. This is not enough for GNG and nothing else is coming to light. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Svartner and Sirfurboy: A search brought up that he literally had an in-depth story written on him this year, see this, which is 1,600 words on him by some Greek historical writer, titled "the pioneer of scientific gymnastics". In addition to it being SIGCOV, the fact that he still gets in-depth coverage today and that recent Greek writers were able to find so much on him strongly indicates that there would be further, offline coverage, as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this one meets SIGCOV in a secondary source, and is an excerpt from a book that appears to be reliable, and independent. Who are the Thematic Office of Culture? Almost certainly this gives us one good source. We need multiple to meet GNG, so one more will do it (given that we have the brief mentions too). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The website you found deals exclusively with Piraeus issues - it records the local history of the city. There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. – How do you know? Have you checked old Greek archives? What about 1930s newspapers? Not everything is on the internet... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources that are inaccessible to us - it is as if they do not exist since they cannot be documented. The newspapers of the time are considered primary sources since they cannot prove notability. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccessible to you does not equate to non-existent. If you have not checked any Greek archives, then you have no right to claim that they do not exist. Neither are all newspaper sources primary and unusable like you claim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a Russell's teapot argument. It is for the people asserting that these things exist to demonstrate that they do. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its also utterly ridiculous to claim a clearly prominent figure who still gets covered by historians today has "no further coverage" when no one has looked where the coverage is most likely to be! The chances that he would not have been covered significantly in his day is very, very, very slim given that he's still being covered today. No one has checked any Greek archives. People get covered most when they are active; that he gets covered significantly decades after his death is a very strong indication that there was significant coverage of him in the past. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. We have one source with clear sigcov and some other sources that mention him. For a topic so inaccessible, this is enough to convince me that WP:NEXIST applies. Toadspike [Talk] 10:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I have struck my !vote after seeing FOARP point out below that the one source with sigcov seems to be a blog created with the "sole purpose" of promoting Piraeus. The author's other credentials are not, in my opinion, enough to qualify him as so much of a subject-matter expert that it can overcome the obvious declared bias. Toadspike [Talk] 21:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The website is hosting content from a book the author wrote on Pireaus history. Plenty of reliable writers/media outlets focus on specific regions. What sort of credentials are you looking for for a subject-matter expert? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Olympedia is an unreliable source, as we saw with the Frank English AFD (wrong death-date, wrong name) and others. Moreover the operators corrected Olympedia directly in response to our Frank English AFD so it appears that they are using Wiki as a source. This unreliability is part and parcel of the other reason that Olympedia does not indicate notability: it has wide-sweeping inclusion criteria. A lot of their data appears to come from family members, so it is not independent even ignoring the fact that it is owned by the IOC.

I was tempted to vote keep based on the Pireorama, but looking at the about page it appears to just be a blog set up to promote Pireus, and as such is a self-published source. The article is an excerpt from what appears to be a self-published book (Milesis is a prominent member of the Pireus Association). The article also references an encyclopaedia listing for Sakellariou but crucially it also tells you that Sakellariou authored that encyclopaedia - as such, that encyclopaedia is not an independent source.

It just doesn't look like there's any there there, which is the problem with so many of these LUGSTUB articles. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you consider Pireorama a self-published source, the author Stefanos Milesis (Στέφανος Μίλεσης) is clearly a subject-matter expert, given that he's a historian, newspaper columnist, lecturer, television host and the author of nearly two dozen history books, many of which are non-self-published. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP - Every site has some errors. It happens. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics : Subject lacks the required WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I too share the concerns with using Olympedia and I can't find anything better to support notability here. Let'srun (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And what's wrong with Milesis's article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's a blog post, an excerpt from a book published by the association of which Milesis is a member, about that association (and so self-published). FOARP (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  But Sakellariou wasn't a member of that organization, was he? Self-published sources can still be reliable if the author is a subject matter expert. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It says he's a member on his Linkedin profile: ("He is a member of the National Society of Greek Writers, the Piraeus Association and the Maritime Museum of Greece."). FOARP (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I mean Sakellariou. If Sakellariou has no connection to the Piraeus Association, then someone in the Piraeus Association who is a subject matter expert writing SIGCOV about Sakellariou is SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The passage in the book certainly is SIGCOV. But that is not enough. To count towards GNG, you need significant coverage (SIGCOV) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. A self published source is not a reliable source. But, in any case, you can argue the toss on this one - we still don't have multiple sources. And sources like this are exactly why we need multiple sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. Note that per WP:SPORTCRIT, having one piece of SIGCOVindicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Also note that, per WP:NSPORT,The sports-specific notability guidelines are ... meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. One piece of SIGCOV is sufficient to satisfy NSPORT, and thus it should be acceptable to allow for more time instead of demanding "GNG now!" He's got SIGCOV, a second piece of arguably borderline coverage (Olympedia), and thus it should be acceptable to keep this on that basis for now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Nah, it's not. SPORTCRIT starts off (emphasis mine)A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The bit you quote specifically says one sourcedoes not indicate notability but is a minimum requirement for any article that meets the following shortcut criteria for a presumption of notability. And no one has argued that this article meets any of those. But again, SPORTCRIT is the same as GNG here. Multiple sources are required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  There is no other way to interpret that having SIGCOV, like here,indicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article, and meeting it ismeant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... [and] Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not how it works Beannie: Self-published works are self-published works regardless of what they are writing about. The Pireus association is obviously interested in promoting their city. WP:SPS also warns against using self-published works, particularly for biographies ("if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". WP:SPS also requires the "expert" to have expertise"in the relevant field", which is questionable here - as far as I can see Milesis's background is in business administration and his career is broadcasting, he is at best an amateur historian. FOARP (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Per above,A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. You think its "questionable"? He's a newspaper columnist, a television/radio host discussing the area history, a lecturer on the area history, and has written numerous published history books on area history. He's clearly acceptable for area history like this.if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources – yeah, the thing is that no one has looked in any of the archives where that coverage would be. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Which sound exactly like millions of other amateur historians. FOARP (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, you can say that, but all that matters is thatSelf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Being published in newspapers, on radio / television shows and having books published by independent houses meets that, whether you think its like "millions of others" or not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  In addition to what Sirfurboy has ably discussed above, I’d throw in self-published sources being a poor indicator of notability even accepting for the sake of argument the author being an expert of some kind. “Self published by an expert” might be reliable because the person writing about it knows the subject area, but the fact that they couldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them and had to do it themselves makes notability dubious. FOARP (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Self-published doesn't automatically mean that the authorcouldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them... If written by an expert, the piece is reliable per our policy on self-published sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Reliable" does not automatically mean "notable". People talking about themselves is an example of a source that is reliable, but does not show that the subject is notable. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Reliable" + "independent" + "in-depth" = SIGCOV. This is not a subject talking about themselves. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  No WP:SIGCOV just means significant coverage. That is, it is in-depth, addressing the subject. For a subject to be notable, it must meet the general notability guidelines (GNG), for which there must be multiple sources with SIGCOV, where each must be reliable, and independent. And also these must be secondary sources. Furthermore, the article must not be excluded under what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). See WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And? Pireaus is both reliable, independent, and in-depth. NOT has no application here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. This WP:SPS has been discussed above against that standard. We do not agree that it is reliable. Even if it were, we still need multiple sources. We especially need multiple sources if the only source we have is a local self published source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ugh, I've demonstrated that the source is clearly a subject-matter expert, which means that even if SPS, it is reliable. Olympedia can be counted as the second source; it is over 100 words on him. I contacted Millesis and he said that Sakellariou was covered numerous times in his day, so I've asked if he could share the extent of some of the sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request as this is soon due for closure, could we get a relist? (see above comment) Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the comment directly above the request. Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has someone looked into Greek newspapers, as newspapers can be good quality reliable secondary sources? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a number through archive.org, yes. The expectation, of course, is that news reporting will usually be primary, not secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a newspaper article is reporting about a current event it's a primary source, in most other cases it's a secondary article. If we are able to find a newspaper article writing about the works of Sakellariou, it's likely to be a secondary source article. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archive.org is not the best place to search for offline-newspaper articles. Is there an online website where you can search into old Greek newspapers? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Greek newspapers did you look in? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I managed to find this piece of significant coverage on him from 1958 following his death that's more or less 300 words. [55] Additionally, we now know when and why he passed away, the when being on the 17th of September 1958 (which can also be confirmed here) and the why being from a cerebral haemorrhage following a stroke. Using Google Translate, he is described as a "teacher", he was the deputy director of the "Maternal Education" and a sports editor (including for Vradyni for 10 years) who wrote "many articles in newspapers and magazines". He also "dealt with studies on sports in antiquity and published a dozen of notable books that were translated into foreign languages". In addition, he was also a professor at the "Gymnastics Academy" and a swimming coach for the national team and for Panathinaikos A.O. who "highlighted a number of excellent swimmers." Whilst the other pieces of coverage that I've found didn't contain significant coverage of him, they could help in expanding the article. This piece talks about the establishment of prizes in his honour; this piece describes him (using Google Translate) as a "great teacher"; and even though this doesn't contribute to notability, I also managed to find an article written by him. [56] I think based on this, we can safely assume that there's more coverage on him in offline sources than what is currently available to us. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Reiji Nagakawa (via WP:PROD on 7 May 2025)
Anna Erat (via WP:BLP-PROD on 6 May 2025)
Kevin Kruse (surgeon) (via WP:PROD on 5 May 2025)
Igor Ivitskiy (via WP:PROD on 5 May 2025)
Waleed A. Alrodhan (via WP:PROD on 3 May 2025)