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

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]

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]
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? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 6 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]

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 [1] 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]

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]

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]

Hiroshi Takase

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

Content is completely unsourced and looks made up.

The only Hiroshi Takase born in 1955 that died in 2006 was a cinematographer, not a calligrapher. Laura240406 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article lacks sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Likely Hoax, the initial citation used in the article from the history page [2], appears to be for a current professor, with a citation factor of 2. This is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no sources, no japanese wiki article. Sounds suspicious, doesnt pass our guidelines. Is it possible that this is the same person as [3] with the same name and birth/death dates? --hroest 13:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: likely hoax similar to other articles by the creator. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. The only relevant-looking hit I could find was accidental: someone's PhD thesis cited Hiroshi Senju: Sacred works at Koyasan by Yukiko Takase and accidentally formed the name of the subject article in the concatenation of the author name and title of the cited work. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 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 [4] and a press release [5] 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]

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]

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]

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 [6], 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 [7] 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. [8]), 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 [9] 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 ([10], [11], his own writings [12], [13] 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]

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]

Venugopal Reddy. I

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

Not notable pediatrician who claims to be a researcher and author, with an h-factor of 2 so claims are unverified. No indication of any significant coverage in reputable sources, no major peer awards and those in the article look highly dubious. After draftification an editor removed comments and moved it back to main, hence time for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Fails wp:GNG and wp:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recreation of previously deleted Venugopal Reddy Iragamreddy. Which was created by a blocked user in violation of a block. Zuck28 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of of NPROF, I didn't find reviews for NAUTHOR (albeit in a somewhat cursory search), no other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a non-notable profile, also previously deleted.--Almandavi (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --hroest 15:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuki Fujitaka

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

No indication that the article subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Sexuality and gender, and Japan. Astaire (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Default Keep on basis of inadequate nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Please justify your comment by referring to WP:NACADEMIC, or this should be discarded per WP:NOREASON. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are four single authored books here, which, if they're reviewed, may make a case for WP:AUTHOR. But it's difficult for me to search for reviews in Japanese. The book with the title translated as "Feminism is Trouble" is reviewed here[14]. Jahaza (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did find that review during WP:BEFORE, but could not find independent reviews for any other of the author's books. Thanks. Astaire (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are four additional academic reviews of their publications (two of which do not appear to be available online).https://doi.org/10.51086/sfjp.24.0_300, https://www2.igs.ocha.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/0678fafd17549d594983f4ab989329fc.pdf, https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1520584642166304640, https://mainichi.jp/articles/20240803/ddm/015/070/022000c QJmisaki (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add them to the article? --hroest 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is true that Fujitaka is not well known in the English-speaking world, but they is a well-known scholar of queer theory in Japan. While this is supported indirectly by English-language sources, Kawasaka and Würrer’s article cites their books Judith Butler and Feminism as “Trouble” as “important contributions” to queer theory in Japan. In addition, Fujitaka has been actively engaged in critiquing transphobia in Japan, which suggests that their public engagement beyond academia should also be taken into account. Although English-language information on this is limited, Yamada’s article may serve as a useful reference. I believe the article would be better improved by incorporating such information rather than deleted.--QJmisaki (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kawasaka and Würrer’s article cites their books Judith Butler and Feminism as “Trouble” as “important contributions” to queer theory in Japan Well, if they were really "important contributions" worthy of a Wikipedia article, I think there would be more to say than a single vague mention. This is the entire quote you are referring to:
Fujitaka has been actively engaged in critiquing transphobia in Japan Has this received coverage in reliable sources, Japanese or otherwise? Foreign language sources are allowed here. See WP:NONENG. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One online article states that “among the essential Japanese-language works for studying intersectionality are writings by Risa Kumamoto, Kazuki Fujitaka, and Akiko Shimizu,” and it includes an explanation of Fujitaka’s research. The essay by Fujitaka cited in the article is included in Feminism as a Trouble. The author of the web article is a sociologist who conducts research on racism in Japan and is also a translator of academic texts on intersectionality.
As for the social reception of Fujitaka’s writings on transgender discrimination, I have not yet found reliable sources, but I will continue looking into it. QJmisaki (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I'm Neutral about this, I strongly suggest doing a WP:JAPANBEFORE about the subject with the JP name above per WP:NONENG. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep seems to pass WP:NAUTHOR with several (at least two, sounds like four) academic reviews on his different books. Still seems a little early for a full article on a junior researcher, but to me it seems they pass the bar. --hroest 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuu Matsuura

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

Article gives no indication that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. According to Google Scholar, the subject has a total of 18 citations [15]. Astaire (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Social science, and Japan. Astaire (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They have published this book "Guide to Aro/Ace" (in japanese) but I don't have any details on it being a significant book. The article appears to be mostly translated from the Japanese article of the same name but without attribution so that should be fixed as well. Moritoriko (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the translator of this article. I translated it from the Japanese Wikipedia, and I apologize for omitting attribution to the original sources in the translation. I decided to translate the article because the subject has published a sole-authored academic book, received an award from Japan’s largest sociological association, had their research translated and introduced in other languages, and appears to be active outside academia as well. For these reasons, I believed the article was worth translating. While I acknowledge that some parts may currently lack sufficient information, I believe it would be more constructive to improve the article by adding reliable sources rather than deleting it.--QJmisaki (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the subject has published a sole-authored academic book This is not relevant to NACADEMIC #1, unless the book has had a "significant impact".
received an award from Japan’s largest sociological association Receiving the 23rd Japan Sociological Society Encouraging Award (Article Category) - basically an emerging scholar award - seems like a respectable achievement, but not "highly prestigious" as required by NACADEMIC #2.
had their research translated and introduced in other languages Having research translated is not by itself evidence of significant impact.
appears to be active outside academia as well You are welcome to produce sources to help meet WP:GNG, because I still don't see the case for NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s true that, based on the information available online, there may not be sufficient evidence that the subject meets the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. However, as I understand it, not meeting WP:NACADEMIC does not automatically require deletion. In particular, it is important to consider that minority groups in non-Western contexts are often underrepresented on Wikipedia (WP:GLOBALIZE). Even if the article does not fully meet WP:NACADEMIC, the information presented may still suggest a certain level of notability. QJmisaki (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, An Introduction to Asexuality and Aromanticism is the first academic book on the topic in Japanese. Additionally, many Japanese academic publications, particularly books, are not indexed by Google Scholar, so citation counts there may not accurately reflect the significance of Japanese-language sources.--QJmisaki (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An Introduction to Asexuality and Aromanticism is the first academic book on the topic in Japanese Do you have a secondary source that says this? Being the first academic book on X in language Y is not by itself evidence of significant impact in a field. Has the book been widely reviewed by academics and the media, has it been cited and interpreted by other scholars, etc.? Since it just came out this year - I'm guessing no. Astaire (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I was able to find online, there is one review of the book written by an academic, which appears to be a reprint of a review originally published in a journal. However, it does not state that this is the first academic book in Japanese on Aro/Ace topics. While I do not have detailed information, it seems the book was also featured on two radio programs (https://www.joqr.co.jp/qr/article/150765/ and https://www.tbsradio.jp/articles/93833/), both broadcast by legally licensed stations in Japan. Additionally, I found that the book is listed as a reference in a university syllabus, this is just for reference. QJmisaki (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I'm neutral about this, try searching the Japanese name into google using above. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. The vast majority of sources appear to be retroactive to the subject itself, lacking third-party sources. Svartner (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt pass WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF and I dont see any evidence of passing WP:GNG. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, this person just finished their PhD in 2024. I dont see any reviews of their book, at least not in JSTOR in English, the one academic review in Japanese does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 15:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similar to above. With a 2024 PhD it appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I do not see any indications of sufficient citations, with the caveat that there are others with the same initials.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Afzal Tariq

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

Disputed draftificaiton (as evident by the cut-paste move) but I believe this to be wholly the work of AI based not just on the erroneous formatting but the sourcing as well. The sources don't lead to real pages, just what an AI might believe a URL might look like. Authored by what appears to be the subject's son, who plays no small role in the biography. Draftification rules would allow the draftification given the obvious COI but there's no need here; the subject is not notable. Delete. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Pakistan. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find anything indicating notability, or really anything at all. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per mention above cannot find any references towards notability. Behappyyar (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yes there appears to be undisclosed COI. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, not memorial, and of course AI generated nonsense. Bearian (talk) 08:23, 5 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]

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]

Carlos Gustavo Rosado Muñoz

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

Doesn't seem notable, very weak sourcing with only one source. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was able to verify that he received a licenciate in actuarial mathematics from UNAM in 1964 [16]. Searching Google Scholar did not find anything by the subject. But it did find [17], apparently a 2007 government notice to other government agencies and states informing them that they must not do business with him (or someone with the same name). I could not find anything in the article to explain this, but it seems like the sort of thing that should be reflected somehow in our article, with better sourcing. However, neither of these finds directly contributes to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, if it turns out that we cannot find sourcing for what this is about, it might be a reason to delete the article: there is information that is inadequately sourced for WP:BLP to allow us to mention, but for which not mentioning is problematic with respect to WP:N, and therefore deleting is the best resolution of this contradiction. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since he died in 2013, BLP would no longer apply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Orphaned article without any source. Subject of the article is not notable. WP:NOT is not met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzcuauhtli11 (talk • contribs)

Miloš Ćorlomanović

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

Previously deleted by WP:PROD and recreated. I do not see a pass of WP:NPROF here -- there are two moderately highly cited items in the Google Scholar profile, but they appear to be combining separate articles or items. I am noting that the prod message ("This person is a crackpot pseudoscientist who is abusing Wikipedia in multiple languages to simulate credibility. I have detailed my objections to the Serbian wiki page of this man here sr:Википедија:Трг/Архива/") expressed concerns about possible deceptive patterns, and the Google Scholar profile seems to be evincing this. I am skeptical of GNG notability, although it is plausible. I am concerned about unsourced and unlikely puffery in the article such as "It seems that he was the first who introduced terms such as quantum information and quantum-information technology to physics," although if he is notable then of course this can be cleaned up. Bringing to the community's attention for a consensus. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Serbia. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:PROF. Clicking on the asterisk on the cited items in the Google Scholar profile shows that they are actually unrelated publications by other people. Actually searching Google Scholar finds nothing under either the Roman or Cyrillic versions of his name. The claim to have invented quantum information is blatantly false (it was in use in the 1960s by Ingarden and Stratonovich, long before the subject was born). This work appears cranky enough that, per WP:FRINGE and WP:N, we need mainstream sources evaluating it and we have none. Spot-checking the ref-bombed article found no sources that would even pass WP:GNG let alone passing this stricter neutrality requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, China, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I say again that I have inserted new sources and that this should not be ignored. The sources that are important are the report by the Chinese Times and RTS (Radio Television of Serbia), which was officially published with international credibility. Then the reference that leads to the archive of Dubna University in Russia (Dubna is a university center and the largest institute for atomic and nuclear physics in the world) and Google Scholar. If Google Scholar is not an authoritative source either, because sources are inserted manually and did not exist until a few years ago, Dubna is without a doubt an institute where few scientists can appear just like that. Then there is the report by the Chinese Times from 2017, where Dr. Miloš Ćorlomanović appears at an international conference in Beijing, and the picture in the newspaper shows that he is on a board with scientists Dr. Irena Ćosić from Australia, Dr. Ljuba Ristovski from Serbia and Dr. Boris Petrović from Brazil. In addition, I think I also see Dr. White from New Zealand. These are all scientists who have their own works and international cooperation. Then there is the RTS report from September 25, 2019, where at a conference on famous and deserving Serbs in the world, academician Dr. Miloš Ćorlomanović was presented as one of the 20 most deserving Serbs in the field of natural sciences. The conference was organized by the Association of American Serbs. These things cannot be faked. The thing is that most of the referenced articles actually came from the source of Portal 013 from 2018, which was officially the newspaper of the South Banat District, one of the 7 districts in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in the Republic of Serbia. That newspaper had an interview with Dr. Miloš Ćorlomanović when he transferred his work to the Institute of General and Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Belgrade. The thing is that the article about Dr. Miloš Čorlomanović was here for 7 years and was removed after so long without any valid reasons. If the biography criteria have changed, I can understand that, but not that an article that is referenced better than articles about some other scientists is deleted just like that. For example, the article about the Serbian-British scientist physicist Dr. Vlatko Vedral is referenced only by his biography from his personal website, so only a personal page. There are many such examples. As for the Serbian Wikipedia, that article was deleted for political reasons and someone's personal vandalism, without paying attention to the sources I sent them, and then a bot was put in place to prevent the article from being posted at all, where literally after a couple of minutes it puts a page for deletion. If the criteria for living individuals have changed, I can be told about it via messages and given time to obtain additional sources, but I must be told what and specifically. I know the person in question personally and he is my fellow citizen and I can do an interview with him if necessary. It is also possible to do an interview in his laboratory at the institute at the University of Belgrade. The thing is that he is a military scientist in China and cannot always publish everything. As for the story about the inaccuracy of so-called quantum information, which someone is referring to here, it is not about qubits from the field of computer science and computing, but about the quantification of some physical quantity, as the person in question once explained it to me. Similar to quantum space and quantum time. But if you think that is not correct, you are free to delete it, as well as everything else that you consider to be incomplete. Crnizmaj (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the above screed my advice to delete this much-declined BLP is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - all of the sources appear to be unreliable, including four citations of Wikimedia Commons, a link to Google Search, and a Serbian search engine that shows zero results for "Miloš Ćorlomanović". --Iiii I I I (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others above. Many of the sources are irrelevant or don't exist, and his h-factor is 2. Not close to WP:NPROF, with highly dubious claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I don't understand those factors. My observation was related to articles about other scientists, where I do not notice significantly different sources, on the contrary, they are often just personal biographies, mostly on personal websites. I even explained in detail the origin of the source, i.e. that the official local newspaper conducted an interview with the person in question and that other newspapers reported, then there is the Chinese Times, references of some works on Google Scholar and to the library of the University of Dubna, as well as some visits to institutions in Serbia. This certainly proves that it is a real person and that it is nothing imaginary. The only knowledge I have about the person in question, which is not related to the larger story, is that the person in question is a military scientist in China, which quite possibly accounts for the non-standard sources about him, so that creates confusion. However, it cannot be disputed that the Association of American Serbs, at the conference on famous Serbs held in Chicago on September 25, 2019, declared him one of the 20 most deserving Serbs in the field of natural sciences. You have attached a link about it. It's true that his profile doesn't exist on Serbian Wikipedia, but that doesn't prove anything, because there someone anonymous ignored the sources in the midst of vandalism. His profile has existed on the Dutch Wikipedia for many years. Crnizmaj (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NPROF without question, only notability could arise per WP:GNG if there is enough press coverage about him. However, the only coverage I see is WP:BLP1E regarding the "discovery" of Water memory (something people have claimed several times in the past). There was relatively limited actually coverage regarding this and not enough in WP:RS, for example rts.rs only mentions him once him passing and kuris is mostly an interview with some quotes. --hroest 14:54, 5 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]

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]

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]
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]

Dale Ahlquist

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

Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.

Additionally, article was created by User:AmChestertonSoc, likely undisclosed paid editing; article overall is written like a WP:RESUME or WP:PROMOTION, and relies on primary sourcing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Minnesota. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is going to pass WP:Author. There's also some extensive (negative) writing about him[18] Jahaza (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on that article - I'm not sure why that didn't pop up in my Google News search. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried my hand at cleaning up some of the promotional writing (could still do some more probably). And I would like clarification on how he meets WP:AUTHOR Moritoriko (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's fewer book reviews than I expected to find. Jahaza (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lyza

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

Fairly unremarkable other than a few published papers on a largely niche topic (tornadoes/severe weather). By this stretch, every meteorologist (especially many professors in academia) who author papers should have Wikipedia articles, which isn't the case. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Hate to say it but I agree that they just don't meet the bar of notability. I think instead of making new articles on meteorologists we should, as a project, work on improving the quality of existing articles; see the dreadful state of Ted Fujita, for instance. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say that the USA Today source doesn't mean anything for notability in my eyes. Lyza was brought on as an expert to explain the individual study about the same topic covered at EF5 drought. This is, in my eyes, as routine as coverage gets - especially his qualifications being described by USA Today as simply lead author on the new study about the EF5 tornado drought. It would be different if the article was specifically about Lyza, or if Lyza was described as being top of his field or otherwise academically vital. Departure– (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - enough sources to justify notability.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Several secondary reliable sources besides academic papers reference or interview/quote Anthony Lyza and his works, including the New York Times and many other articles: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Clearly passes the bare minimum of WP:PROF and WP:BIO, especially since the US government even posted he is a tornado “expert”. WP:PROF says if a person passes any of the listed items, then they are notable. The first point of WP:PROF is “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” That seems clear, given the tons of sources discussing Lyza and his work. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Alabama, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
?. The subject has a very small number of citations in GS. What is the reason for this? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Small? This indicates he has 13 publications from 2017-2024, +1 not listed published in January 2025. So, he has at least 14 different publications that would be on GS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - The USA Today reference is the make-or-break for me here, as it does indeed show him being mentioned in major news outlets. — E_F⁵ 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS gives 167 cites. Normally 1000+ cites is required for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Oh! That is what you meant by not many GS citations. Most meteorologists use respective country-based academic publication societies, rather than GS to find sources. For example, in US is the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Just by looking at the AMS-website metrics alone for the 2025 paper that Mr. Lyza was lead author on ([27]) show 7281 full text views. AMS does not keep track directly of who cited the paper, only records of downloads and views. That paper has over 7,000 views just since January 2025 (it was released January 23, 2025). Hopefully that helps. AMS contains probably 80% of the meteorologically published papers that are often cited in textbooks or by other meteorologists. This is one of those fields of science where GS is actually not the most used/useful measurement tool. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after reading the above discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are evenly divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable enough so it's not improper to include him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:ACADEMIC. He has a PhD, and you don't need a job at a university to be an academic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a PhD is not mentioned anywhere as a criteria for notability. Departure– (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source assessment table:

Per my analysis, the sources presented in this discussion do not contain significant coverage of the person in question, hence he does meet WP:GNG which states thatA topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NACADEMIC states that an academic is notable ifThe person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Additionally, he does not meet the rest of the criteria as set forth at WP:NACADEMIC. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: I disagree entirely with your claim that "There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Numerous of the articles above are related to the EF5 drought study led by Mr. Lyza. In fact, Wikipedia has an entire section just about Mr. Lyza's study: EF5 drought#January 2025 study. Regarding the EF5 study led by Lyza, I can find [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. All of those sources are specifically in regards to the study produced by Lyza. Could you go into more detail and explain why ypu believe the EF5 study discussed by all of these RS do not provide such evidence? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What changed after they published their study? What "significant impacts" were there after they published their study? It's nice and all that the sources covered the study, but they don't provide evidence that it had a "significant impact" in "their scholarly discipline". For example, if there is evidence that this study led to a reform of the Enhanced Fujita scale in regards to rating tornadoes, or maybe something changed within the field of tornadoes, meteorology... that would fulfil the first criterion. But as of yet, it's probably too early to tell and it seems that most of the coverage is on the study than the authors themselves. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the EF5 drought is just a small trend in the greater subject of tornado climatology, so one study analyzing this subject in-depth wouldn't equate to "significant impact" across meteorology. Not yet, anyway. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, while it is relatively benign with general meteorology (the NWS is likely choosing to ignore it), the general public and public media have definitely picked up on it. But yes, the Lyza drought study isn't super significant in the field, mainly outlining the reasoning, which is already well-known (survey ignorance). — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic, the shift focuses from academic notability to public interest and we run back into GNG arguments again. While the EF5 drought is notable and Lyza's study of it helps demonstrate that, it doesn't itself make Lyza himself notable. Departure– (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not pass WP:NPROF nor WP:GNG (see table above). --hroest 20:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - our usual rules for citations works about as well for meteorological purposes as the EF-5 standard, which is to say, not very well. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the general rules of WP:NPROF should apply here just as well, for example "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." should apply to meteorology as to any other discipline. Maybe your argument is that the independent reliable sources here should not be Google Scholar but something else? --hroest 15:29, 5 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. [36] He also gets multiple mentions in A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War [37], 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 [38] 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. [39] 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. [40] 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

Waleed A. Alrodhan (via WP:PROD on 3 May 2025)
Kiyohiko Ikeda (via WP:PROD on 28 April 2025)
~~Nick Salafsky (via WP:PROD on 26 April 2025)~~
~~Nada Martinović (via WP:PROD on 22 April 2025)~~