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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators.

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.

Purge page cache

watch

Jarolím Antal[edit]

Jarolím Antal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

nonnotable "expert on social etiquette, state and diplomatic protocol", neglected and unused article. - Altenmann >talk 03:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Sorin Biris[edit]

Alexandru Sorin Biris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is a GoogleScholar profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with h-index 66 and i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced. Turgidson (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Baker-Hytch[edit]

Max Baker-Hytch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics): (1) research does not have a significant impact (1 book recently published, no commentary on his work, less than 100 citations. (2) zero awards. (3) Not a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. (4) Nothing to indicate that anyone is discussing this person's work, let alone "academic work has made a significant impact"! (5) Not a distinguished professor, a postdoc and a tutor. (6) did not hold a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post. (7) mentioned once BBC Dorset for playing in a band, which he does not have a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (8) Not the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Checking the basic criteria, the article is compiled from his work (WP:Primary + the section about "Ideas" is pure original research, e.g., "Baker-Hytch contends that mutual epistemic dependence is an essential mechanism for human acquisition of knowledge with no citation. A few sentences later, there is a citation to a book that discusses the topic but not the person or the person's ideas. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article satisfies the criteria for notability (academics). (1) His research has the significant impact. He has published numerous papers in various academic journals. In addition, he has the high rate of citations (more than 100 considering the rate of citations of all his papers). You may use Google Scholar carefully. (2) He received the British national award from the Research Councils UK. (3) He is a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly institute. He is a fellow of the University of Oxford and member of the relevent associations at Oxford. (4) Many academic papers discuss his ideas. For example, DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION, Divine hiddenness, the demographics of theism, and mutual epistemic dependence: a response to Max Baker-Hytch etc. Again, you may use Google Scholar carefully. If you find it difficult to have the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. (5) He is a distinguished research fellow at the University of Notre Dame and University of Oxford. (6) He is a senior fellow at the University of Oxford. (7) He has a substantial impact outside academia such as popular debates. (8) He reviewed and edited numerous academic journals such as Erkenntnis, Philosophical Papers, Religious Studies etc. Therefore, it is indispensable to keep this article. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you really missing the point here and provided more reasons for the article to be deleted as participating in debates, having citations around few hundreds, and being a postdoctoral research fellowships or a college tutor (that is his own words) is not a reason for article to be included here. see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for details about what the word "substantial" entail FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you read carefully the criteria, you will find that academics meeting any one of the criteria, are notable. There is no need to meet all criteria. One is enough. Max Baker-Hytch already satisfies the first criterion and others. Therefore, he meets the notability requirements.

  By the way, welcome to debate at Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section regarding mutual epistemic dependence is NOT a pure original research. If you read it carefully, you will find that J. L. Schellenberg's discussion on Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence Divine hiddenness: Part 2 (recent enlargements of the discussion) is cited. If you find yourself unable to get the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. Also, Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence is discussed by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Christianity, England, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Double-digit citation counts on Google Scholar fall below the bar for WP:PROF#C1. Being a Fellow at Oxford is just a teaching job, not the kind of honorary level of membership in a selective society (such as FRS) that would pass #C3. Reviewing for journals and occasionally getting cited in journals are things all academics do; our standards for notability are significantly above that level. Nothing else in the article even resembles a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Max Baker-Hytch is not only a fellow but a reputable academic and researcher at Oxford. His work is characterised by its depth and relevance, evidenced by its considerable, significant impact within the academic sphere. In addition, his research consistently maintains a high rate of citations, further solidifying the claim to keep his article. As a result, he obviously meets WP:PROF#C1 and the established criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have struck out your comment as you are only allowed a single keep or delete opinion in a deletion discussion. This is not a vote; more keeps and more repetition of the same claims will not help. It is a discussion to clarify how Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to this case and build concensus on whether Baker-Hytch does or does not meet those guidelines. You might also find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful advice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking out my comment is unacceptable and outrageous as it goes against a fair discussion on Wikipedia and the First Amendment.

  If I mistakenly make more than one KEEP, please delete the redundant KEEP but leave my comment intact. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Max Baker-Hytch has written numerous academic papers, resulting in a total citation rate (of all papers) higher than 100. This impressive achievement reflects the impact and significance of his contributions to the academic sphere. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This promotional glurge reads like something an AI would write. [Comment referred to Special:Diff/1221275435 before it was edited to change what I replied to.] —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am a human and not an AI, but I speak in a calm, formal manner. I am elaborating on my argument. Could you stop irrelevant distractions or personal attacks? We should focus on our clarification instead. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  100 citations isn't a high bar for a real academic in most fields. I have 88 at the moment, and I've never held a non-clinical faculty appointment. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But you are not from Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you read carefully, you will find that I said his TOTAL citation rate is higher than 100, not only 100 but significantly higher than that. The total citation rate and discussions on all his papers are obviously above one thousand. You may use Google Scholar to search all his papers and relevance discussions. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2014 PhD. Citations are far short of WP:NPROF, even in a low citation field. I don't see reviews of the one book for WP:NAUTHOR, and it would likely be a WP:BLP1E anyway. Little sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears to me that you have only considered his DPhil thesis and have neglected many papers written by him. The total citation rate and discussions of all his papers are higher than hundreds or thousands (see Google Scholar). Therefore, there is no doubt that he meets the WP notability criteria. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I specifically address the citation record above. I have examined the publication and citation record, and see nothing that is not WP:MILL. There is one paper with a good number of citations relative to career stage, and not much else. As I say, WP:TOOSOON (at best). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Pesclinomenosomlos has apparently been canvassing this AfD to multiple user talk pages [1] [2] [3] and has been blocked as a result. Pesclinomenosomlos, once your block expires: do not do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TOOSOON is too generous. I see no evidence of coverage, let alone significant coverage. — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (if I'm allowed to !vote in these circumstances), there seems no reason to keep this article. I've no idea why I might have been canvassed to help keep the article, as I've not come across either editor or article subject; but since Pesclinomenosomlos has been indeffed, the matter is purely, er, philosophical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Max Baker-Hytch has the extensive Authority Control Databases. He is likely to have the potential to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
• I noticed that Max Baker-Hytch is being discussed by many high profile academic journals, encyclopaedias and websites. For instance, IEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press and Research by the University of Birmingham.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk) struck comments of IP, now blocked for block evasion

  The Cambridge and Birmingham papers are the same paper. Are there any other sources? IEP and SEP mentions are good but quite brief. Shapeyness (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence that the subject stands out from the field. The IEP and SEP mentions, for example, are entirely unremarkable; a couple brief statements to the effect that an academic wrote a thing are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. The text is heavily promotional, with boastful claims unsupported by the sources (e.g., His thesis [...] is considered a phenomenal contribution to the field). The ending line of the intro, saying that He also proactively defends Christianity [...] on social media, is either a truly pathetic angling for significance or damnation by faint praise. To delete will be a kindness. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inclusion in IEP and SEP articles is not nothing as those pages often detail only the more important contributions in a specific debate, but they are brief mentions and in a very niche subject matter. The same mostly goes for this Philosophy Compass article here doi:10.1111/phc3.12413. It seems the subject of the article is making some important contributions to a niche area of phil of religion but not really enough substantive analysis in RSes to support an article - WP:TOOSOON. Shapeyness (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:Too soon as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Paul Melo e Castro[edit]

Paul Melo e Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Orphan article with no evidence of notability. Lecturer does not meet WP:PROF and an h-Index of 4 means the research output had little impact. Tried to find book reviews to see if the subject could meet WP:NAUTHOR but I was only able to find this one and I don't think it's enough to qualify for notability. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV as well. Contributor892z (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors. Contributor892z (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Bartlett[edit]

Steven James Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, appears to be a vanity page Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, France, Germany, Mexico, California, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  how so? Psychastes (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However BLP is bloated and needs pruning to 20% of current. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Weak delete unless someone provides more RSes - the existence of Steven Bartlett (businessman) makes searching for sources quite annoying, but I managed to find a few. Here is an extended discussion of his book The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil but I'm not sure about the journal or if the reviewer is an independent source. Other sources I found are briefer mentions, e.g. [4][5], or I don't have access (also unsure about the journal here) [6]. Shapeyness (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Evans[edit]

Marion Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, United Kingdom, and Wales. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Archibald[edit]

Todd Archibald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article recreated by WP:SPA following deletion a year and a half ago. I am bringing this to the community's attention. I am personally a weak delete: somewhat accomplished person, but I think it falls a little short of our notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This still isn't properly sourced as getting him over WP:GNG — nine of the 13 footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the four hits that come from real media aren't about him, but just glance off his existence in the process of being about people or organizations that had cases come to his courtroom, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG if he isn't actually their subject. Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alamgir Hashmi[edit]

Alamgir Hashmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This BLP reads like a CV. None of the listed works or awards strike me as noteworthy or notable, indicating a failure to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, which means the subject also fails basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, United Kingdom, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Appears in The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English (1 ed.) (available through Wikimedia Library, excerpted here):

  Hashmi, Alamgir (1951– ), was born in Lahore, educated in Pakistan and the United States, and has worked as a professor of English, editor, and broadcaster. His early work ... is characterized by a terse, witty, imagistic style, and reveals a recurring preoccupation with language, time, and place. The poet's peripatetic career in America, Europe, and Pakistan is reflected in the concerns of his subsequent collections, .... As Hashmi has developed, there has been a broadening of human sympathies and an emerging political awareness which have modified the virtuosity and self-absorption of some of his earliest writing. His most recent publications are ....

I would vote Keep by WP:GNG if a similar source was found. FYI, I removed the author bio paragraph that was completely uncited and appears to have been included verbatim from the author's personal website. This may be a copyright concern. Suriname0 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that there is some coverage available. However, the concern lies in the insufficient extent of coverage to meet the WP:SIGCOV. The subject is listed on Oxford Reference, just because some of their work must have been hosted by Oxford University Press but I'm sure that won't make him WP:IHN. -—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unusually for a poet, there is plenty of in-depth coverage of him and his work to be found [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article needs work, there are tons of citations out there proving this poet meets notability guidelines, including in-depth analysis of the poet's works in various literary journals accessible through the Wikipedia Library.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror[edit]

Ami Dror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politics, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from WP:CITEKILL. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel Hila Livne (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. A known activist and the article has enough references. Danny-w (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zero^talk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zero^talk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.

• Ref 1 [14] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
• Ref 2 [15] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
• Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
• Ref 4 [16] This is another interview. Not independent.
• Ref 5 [17] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
• Ref 6 [18] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
• Ref 7 [19] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
• Ref 8 [20] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
• Ref 9 [21] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
• Ref 10 [22] Another press-release Non-RS.
• Ref 11 [23] An interview. Not independent.
• Ref 12 [24] Business interview. It is not independent.
• Ref 13 [25] Another interview. Not independent.
• Ref 14 404
• Ref 15 [26] A radio interview. Not independent.
• Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:

• Ref 32 [27] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
• Ref 33 [28] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
• Ref 30 [29] - in Israel21c

Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.

• Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
• Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
• Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

• Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.

• Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
• Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
• Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

• Ref 17 [30] Another interview. Its not independent.
• Ref 18 [31] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
• Ref 19 Non-rs
• Ref 20 Non-rs
• Ref 21 Unable to view it
• Ref 22 [32] Its a passing mention.
• Ref 23 Non-rs
• Ref 24 [33] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
• Ref 25 [34] Essentially a passing mention.
• Ref 27 [35] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
• Ref 28 [36] Doesn't mention him.
• Ref 29 [37] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
• Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
• Ref 31 [38] A small profile. Not significant.
• Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
• Ref 34 Non-rs
• Ref 35 [39] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 36 [40] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creep^Talk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodahl[edit]

Michael Lodahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Essentially an unsourced biography of a living person for nearly twenty years. WorldCat is not useful for establishing notability, yet it is the only source for the entire article. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Christianity. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Idaho, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary, independent coverage in either news outlets or the literature. Fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF through a dearth of third-party coverage and lack of overall recognition within their field (no honours, chair, or nat. biog entry, significant contribution, etc). ——Serial Number 54129 19:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I see that his book Shekhinah/Spirit attracted some attention though I couldn't say how influential it eventually proved. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Being held in a library isn't notable, but could point towards notability. Unfortunately, I've tried and been unable to find "Shekhinah/spirit : divine presence in Jewish and Christian religion" book reviews. A zillion hits on where to buy the book, no proof of scholarly notice. I don't see AUTHOR being met. Gscholar and Jstor came up blank. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. Noorullah (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Amarasinghe[edit]

Saman Amarasinghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Questionable for sustained notability with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sourcing I find is primary from his school (MIT) and some Army folks that set a world record for something unrelated. I don't see coverage that we'd use for PROF. Just a working educator, nothing notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, probably Speedy Keep. Strong publication record with an h-factor of 74 and four pubs with over 1000 cites. Two professional fellowships, so he qualifies under #C1 with the addition of #C3 to prove that peer recognition is not fake. The page does need better citing, but not delete.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep WP:PROF category 3 -- fellowship in a highly prestigeous honorary society. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I concur that he appears to pass WP:NPROF on multiple criteria. Article needs work, but deletion is not clean-up. Curbon7 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is probably going to be kept on the basis of what I consider technicalities. Association for Computing Machinery may be prestigious, and a fellowship in it may be relevant per NPROF #3, but we wouldn't be able to tell it from the article; there's a link, but it announces that there's 58 new fellows--so how special is it? H-factor is of course always problematic, as are publications and cites. Let's not forget that we're writing an encyclopedia here, and if there's nothing to write because everything is based on organizational websites announcing "fellowship" or databases showing a ranking, what are we doing? That's right, resume writing, where all the content is derives from faculty pages or from the subject's own publications. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ACM Fellow is an unambiguous pass of WP:PROF#C3 (potential COI: I am one too) and he has very strong citations, passing WP:PROF#C1. These are not technicalities. One doesn't become a full professor in a tech field at MIT without significant accomplishments, and these indicators show that he has them. The article needs cleanup but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3, as argued above. Deletion is not cleanup, and the first pass at cleaning up was very easy. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. This person fails to meet the notability criteria. The citation rate of this person's work is not high enough. This person does not even have any significant achievement or affiliation. It is only right to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.158.179.229 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This IP is not acting in good-faith, they are just WP:HOUNDING David. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Okulov[edit]

Alexey Okulov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable Russian physicist. The article was created by its subject (Okulov99 (talk · contribs)), contains no references or sources confirming the subject's notability (expect of the publication list of the subject). It is basically a promotional page. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citation counts [41] too low to pass WP:PROF#C1. Membership in scientific societies, and working for the Russian academy of sciences, are not the sort of honorary memberships needed to pass WP:PROF#C3. The references appear to alternate between Okulov's own publications, and academic publications about background material that do not mention or cite Okulov; a rare exception is reference [2], which actually does cite a paper by Okulov, in passing. None of these references contribute to notability nor provide the material to properly source an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above. No indication that he is close to any of the notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee[edit]

Robert McGee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Martial arts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Interesting human interest story and I'm amazed he hasn't been featured in NPR or something... I don't see anything we'd use, no news coverage, nothing, for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Other than mentions of his degrees and being a professor, I cannot find anything to convince GNG.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Independent sigcov appears in the Fayetteville Observer (more, book review) and Miami Herald (cont., later). His Google Scholar may suggest an NPROF pass too but I don't know the field well enough. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I think the multiple sources with SIGCOV provided by Hameltion are enough for a GNG pass. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Marques (architect)[edit]

Bruno Marques (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent sources given that show notability. Of the links provided one is to his staff biography and the other doesn't mention him at all. All I found were items that show he exists but don't show notability. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed the name of the articles author, Brunomarkes. A variant of the subjects name. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not eligible for speedy deletion due to the article probably being written by the same guy, serving as a promotion, and not going through AfC but instead being created by a page move? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping an editor from moving a draft to main space. I didn't feel that any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applied. So easier to go with AfD and then if it is re-posted it can be G4. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, Germany, Portugal, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:ARCHITECT. Self-written bio, reads like self-promotion. No details of individual accomplishments. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barth[edit]

Stephen Barth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable lawyer/keynote speaker. Lack WP:GNG-style direct and in-depth coverage. DepreciateAppreciate (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (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/2024 April 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I lean toward delete; but I'm wondering if his textbook "has made a significant impact in the area of higher education" per WP:NACADEMIC #4 (although the discussion under that bullet point suggest that meeting notability through that path requires "several books that are widely used as textbooks"). This is an area of academic law not within my experience, so I will refrain from an actual !vote. TJRC (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We are thankful to the kamikaze account who created and posted up this text, just as we're thankful to Mr Barth himself for supplying his photographic portrait. If only the text could be worthy of inclusion! It is not, due to our subject's notable lack of independent notability. We check the article and we search for sources but, alas, nothing of substance do we manage to scare up. All we catch are routine listings in trade media, such as this; online brochures, such as this; a bunch of expired links, e.g. here, here, here; and a few advertorials. And WP:NACADEMIC is spectacularly failed. -The Gnome (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Henriques[edit]

Gregg Henriques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Given that most external links go to either gregghenriques.com or unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org and not to very many well-known independent sources that would significantly cover him, I have a suspicion that this article might not survive the AfD test in its current state. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Psychology, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- the article is a mess, but the subject has a credible claim at notability as a full professor of psychiatry at a well-known university, with a pretty good citation trail. The impact does, however, look a little bit low for the field; if someone with more domain-specific knowledge could weigh it I'd appreciate it.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistiing due to low participation. Please remember to sign all comments made in a deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of presidents of Southern University (via WP:PROD on 16 April 2024)