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

William John Veale

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

Non-notable teacher/secondary school administrator. Both sources in-article are affiliated with the subject's school. Having an MBE, the lowest and most common class within the Order, is not considered a WP:ANYBIO #1 pass on its own. No additional qualifying sources for WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NACADEMIC come up in WP:BEFORE search. (I would have draftified this page, but since it was created 11 months ago as the page creator's sandbox but only moved to mainspace today, it's not eligible for draftification and AfD it is.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no notability criteria are met. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthy contributor to his society but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Joan Catoni Conlon

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of her work making a significant impact. Mentioned in only in a journal or two being interviewed and isn't cited much. OzzyOlly (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Colorado, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Hamilton (behavioral specialist)

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

Entirely promo Amigao (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Behavioural science, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotional autobiography. I blocked the creator for promotional username and promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite so, thank you Cullen328. Axad12 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. The article is a promotional bio of a non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a different person than Diane Hamilton, a business professor at Rowan University and the author of some reasonably well-cited works that otherwise look like they might fit the subject of this AfD ("A decision model for integration across the business curriculum in the 21st century", "Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction", and "Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model"). The better-cited Diane Hamilton from Rowan was educated at Rowan, Drexel, and Temple [1] which doesn't match the education part of the nominated article. I also found several reviews of folklore music by our non-disambiguated Diane Hamilton. As for the Diane Hamilton whose article we are discussing, her books appear to be essentially self-published and I found no reviews. We do not have the citation record or other criteria needed for WP:PROF, none of the sources in the article are sufficiently reliable and independent to contribute to WP:GNG, and as discussed above the article is heavily promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Margaret Keesing

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marie Margaret Keesing

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

Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Reasons given for notability are co-authoring books with husband. I understand it is difficult to know who is responsible for the written work in these circumstances, but I think co-authoring books that do not have their own article is a difficult justification for an article- I would suggest a merge with her Husband's article maybe (her husband is clearly notable as president of a learned body). I feel very bad about doing this, however, as obviously I do not want to underplay women's accomplishments in scientific fields. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's mentioned quite a bit in Gscholar [2] for example, but I suspect it was due to the era in which she lived and gender bias that "minimized" her contributions for lack of a better term. The 50s and 60s was still early for female scientists to be taken as equals to males. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This paper from 2015 seems to give her a proper discussion [3]. I think she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathise with the proposer's dilemma. Although in Wikipedia terms "president of a learned body" gives us an easy basis for declaring someone notable, the lasting impact of this couple, and the real reason they're notable, is the anthropology they did, and their written output, not the husband's post. We cannot tease apart who contributed how much. Given that we don't know their relative contributions, deciding to put her contribution in an article with his name just feels too old-fashioned and patriarchal, as well as very arbitrary. Also, from a practical perspective, if we were to merge, her life prior to her marriage wouldn't fit well in her husband's article, giving too much weight to things that aren't directly about him; we'd have to consider moving the new merged article to "Felix Maxwell Keeling and Marie Margaret Keeling" or something like that, but then we'd need redirects anyway, so what's the point? "Keep" has the benefit of being a simple outcome to an inseparable duo. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Social science, England, New Zealand, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the co-author of Elite Communication in Samoa and Taming Philippine Headhunters, both of which seem to be significant books (I'm seeing lots of published scholarly reviews online, despite the fact they were published a long time pre-internet), she surely meets WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should have followed your initial hunch: "I feel very bad about doing this". Back then, it was absolutely normal that a woman would publish together with her husband. Even if she was the major contributor, it would go out with the appearance that it was mainly the man's work. We should not be perpetuating this custom and either way, it's clear that they were both notable for their work in anthropology, even if it appears that he is the major author. Schwede 66 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Schwede66 and Josh Milburn and other arguments. Additionally the Pan-Pacific Women's Association was a redlink in the article due to a typo but is a significant organization. Major evidence comes from the article Oaktree found, "Applied Anthropology and Interwar Internationalism: Felix and Marie Keesing and the (White) Future of the ʻNativeʼ Pan-Pacific" -- when researchers are being the subject of others' academic articles, it's a very strong sign of WP:PROF passing. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Antsiferov

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources in the article are not great in establishing notability and BEFORE does not prove otherwise. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I am the author of the article, so my voice doesn't count here, but since I was mentioned in the comments, I would like to share my thoughts. Firstly, Antsiferov is mentioned in several articles (for example, in relation to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him), both of which are quite high-profile and have been covered by many reputable media outlets. Secondly, he is the author of well-known textbooks in Russia, which are used by students at elite Russian universities (MGIMO, MSU). Madrugador88 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Madrugador88 Oh your voice does count please, that's not how it works. The relationship to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him did not provide sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the textbooks to help towards Wikipedia:AUTHOR, they would need to be the subject of multiple independently published book reviews. For them to lead us to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we'd need to see that they are being used by a large number of colleges and universities, with evidence for that (for example, if the publisher has put up a list of textbook adoptions). Qflib (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Southern University

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

Completely unsourced list of presidents, if content is with keeping it could easily be accommodated at the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Lists of people, and Louisiana. AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Southern University. Southern University is obviously notable, but I don't think the list of presidents warrants its own article. Best to merge it into the university's article. Adding sources shouldn't be too hard; I've already found 2 independent sources talking about presidents of the university just from a quick Google.
2601:246:5C80:65F0:8AE3:9A61:23A4:FB45 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It doesn't have the independent coverage as a general topic to convince me of WP:NLIST, and it's only a dozen lines of tabular content; it could easily be merged into the main article without causing significant balance issues. An alternative possibility might be to split off History of Southern University as a separate article and include the presidency there, but currently the sourcing of the history section of the main article is so poor that I don't think it can support a separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best way to deal with this, for other schools this is the best way forward. I understand why someone would make this but still it's not really notable on it's own. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doesn't have stand alone notability as a list. Pinguinn 🐧 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mong-Lan

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

This article looks like an autobiography, with all references from her website. Not sure if this person meets WP:GNG. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Poetry, and Vietnam. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, Dance, Arizona, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at first glance she appears notable, but I will look deeper into the sources, as well as potential sources in a BEFORE search within the next few days before iVoting. It appears there are several SPA's who have worked on the article, however, that may or may not mean it's an autobio, which while strongly frowned upon, is not forbidden - if the person is notable. It may have influenced the neutrality of the article, so if it turns out that they meet notability criteria and the article is kept, it may need to be cleaned up. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was my "last article before bed" AfD so I don't want to go down the complete rabbit hole it would take to make a definitive statement, but just from being adjacent to the poetry and translation world for a few years, the Pushcart prize is a big deal. It's not at the MacArthur/Oscar/Pulitzer level of presumed notability/speedy keep, but it's not a run-of-a-mill everyone pretty good has one at all. There are parts of the bio that probably don't help notability (the musical compositions have no publishers that would contribute to GNG or a music note), but the poetry looks more like it does -- Best American Poetry and the Pushcart anthology are quite heavy hitters. (If for some reason I don't get time to return to this, my gut is Keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vedprakash Dongaonkar

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

Fails WP:NPROF, WP:WRITER or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:PROF as in a non-notable position. Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage sources were found, and WP:AUTHOR as the books are non-notable. In my view, it does not meet any notability criteria. GrabUp - Talk 16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, as there isn't even a single reliable reference to support his significance. Dcotos (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO. Subject has not made a significant achievement nationally or internationally worthy of notice to have a page warranted on. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant achievement, thus fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.TheSlumPanda (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Lee Tu

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

This person does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Her master's thesis garnered a major burst of one-off media coverage, but that does not satisfy notability requirements per WP:BLP1E. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Griffiths

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

Mathematician who self-publishes by the looks of it. Fails WP:SIGCOV. UPE. Fails WP:BIO. Its likely him. scope_creep^Talk 14:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, Mathematics, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, that's a lot of Lulu.com books. It's conceivable in principle that a self-published book could be article-worthy in its own right or contribute to the article-worthiness of the author if it were well-reviewed, but so far I haven't found any indications of that happening here. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harvey and the Wallbangers, the band he belonged to, which might be notable. I can find no notability for his mathematics teaching or publications (such as reviews of his self-published books). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Giansiracusa

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

Subject fails WP:NACADEMIC and references could not prove WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Just as Ldm1954 stated on the talk page, this is indeed WP:TOOSOON. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utterly unremarkable minor academic, fails NPROF and the GNG going away. Ravenswing 06:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record not strong enough to carry the article in the absence of anything else that contributes to notability. I didn't find any reviews of his one book, and even if I did one book isn't generally enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. His citation record is not as yet strong enough to qualify. He is doing some interesting things with opinion pieces etc, and these are beyond routine. However, I don't see enough as yet for notability. I think it is too soon, but he is on an interesting path and may well qualify in 2-3 years. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Faulkner (physicist)

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

Associate professor with an h-factor of 33 and no major awards. Page was created in 2014 when he was an assistant professor -- in 2024 that would (should) not be done of course. The page was tagged for academic notability in 2020, and no improvements have been made and he seems to have slipped through the cracks. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find any relevant recent improvements, deletion seems proper. TheHalalanator (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not pass WP:NPROF. Citations not enough for C1 and associate professor is of course not enough for C5. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. In this area of physics, authors are mostly alphabetical so we can't conclude much from author ordering. And although it is a high-citation field, I think numerically his citation counts look ok. I think if there were literally anything else that I could point to as contributing to notability, it might be enough to push me into a weak keep, but I didn't find anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He’s doing interesting work, but I have no opinion about his notability. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Lashkari

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

Assistant professor who does not come close to meeting WP:NPROF, one of two created recently directly to main space by an editor with only a few edits. Not enough publications, no major awards. Article was draftified on WP:NPP with notability tags, but tag was removed and it was immediately moved back to main space with the claim "meets Wikipedia standards". I think an easy case of Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think age or institutional title should decide the eligibility for a Wikipedia page. Consult for example the Wikipedia page for Thomas Faulkner (physicist) who has had a Wikipedia page since 2014 when he joined UIUC as an assistant professor. Considering this example there is no reason to delete the page for Nima Lashkari. This is not a clear "easy case of Delete". Shoy.ouseph (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guide in WP:NPROF. There is a broad community consensus on the criteria for notability of an academic. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to other articles is not generally a very good way to tell whether an article should be deleted or not. Sometimes, those other articles only exist because nobody has noticed them and bothered to put them up for deletion yet. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Canada, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On a promising career track but the field he is in is very high-citation, so his citation record, strong as it is, is not enough to convince for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. No prejudice against returning to this after five or ten years when the dust should have settled enough for us to judge this better. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPROF, they could be notable down the road but as of now they are not. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Almheiri

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

Assistant professor who does not come close to meeting WP:NPROF, one of two created recently directly to main space by an editor with only a few edits. Not enough publications, no major awards. Article was draftified on WP:NPP and tagged for notability, but tag was removed and it was immediately moved back to main space with the claim "meets Wikipedia standards". I think an easy case of Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He has made a good start, and the joint awarding (with three others) of the Breakthrough prize in 2021 is a plus; please note that this was awarded to three groups that year, a total of nine people. I am sure that if his career continues to move forward he will qualify under WP:NPROF in a few years, but currently it is WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Almheiri has received the New Horizons Breakthrough Prize in Physics and the Pride of Emirates medal which are quite notable achievements. He also has an individual paper with more than 1500 citations and has contributed significantly to his field just in the last decade. Age and institutional title should not be the measuring stick for eligibility of having a wikipedia page. Consider for example the Wikipedia page of Netta Engelhardt who received the Breakthrough Prize alongside Ahmed Almheiri. This shows that the article deserves to live in Wikipedia and in no way is an "easy case of Delete". Shoy.ouseph (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, California, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Breakthrough Prize is very high-profile, I think enough for WP:PROF#C2. It's hard to judge his citation record for #C1 because this is a high-citation field but he does have high citations as well. Assistant professors are generally not notable unless we have evidence that they are already recognized as a star in their field (not just a promising new researcher) but I think the Breakthrough Prize is that recognition that we're looking for. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bluelinked prize (Breakthrough) and we can presume notability right there. Other than that, he just about squeaks WP:GNG on media coverage alone. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Crosby

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage for this person exists. Wired [4], The Register [5], eWeek [6], Computerwoche [7], InfoWorld [8], CRN [9], TechTarget [10], Csoonline.com [11] Frost 16:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, South Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost everyone of these references are interviews of one sort or another and can't be used to prove notability. Gbooks is probably the best bet for establishing it. There is a couple of profiles there that are no good either. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, these sources don't establish GNG notability, and subject is nowhere near WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto G. Carbone

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

Article about a person that doesn't meet WP:GNG. The first source is a database result as well as unverifiable. The second sources was like that too. The third one, embt.org, is solely a tribute to another man called "Alberto", and has nothing to do with this article. Source 5 is undoubtedly unreliable, and source 6 is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (because it's written by him, I would call it a WP:SELFPUB. ORCID isn't needful especially when citing as a biographical information. I don't know much about it, but it does appear like a user generated site. I was thinking how we can structure a person's research as academics always write many publications. On this aspect, there are many primary sources; books written by him, and thy are from source 9 to 11. Primary sources may be useful and good, but at the same time doesn't tell us how notable was that research. WA it reviewed by critics, did it appear on TV sites, e.t.c.

The subject's co-authored work, and his first book according to the article, doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. This is applicable to the third (there was no mention of the second book). A Fellow of the American College of CHEST Physicians isn't notable per WP:NACADEMIC as the membership including non elected paid position is shown here. Same as the American Heart Association. Additionally, a letter of recommendation on someone doesn't show his notable that person is, and it isn't an award per WP:ANYBIO. This was accepted via AFC by me, for the sale of this AFD. The creator is likely a COI editor who has moved this page twice, and it has been draftified twice too. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Literature, Education, Science, and Italy. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low GS citations in a very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment ORCID's mean nothing with regards to notability. I have one, you can register for one, for free. We were encouraged at one point to register for one with our Wikipedia credentials... Not sure how useful it is, but it doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree with the explanation above, doesn't seem to have gained recognition in the field yet due to the low citation index. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the changes I have reported and the previous scientific material collected, I completely disagree with your opinion that the Roberto G. Carbone page is not worthy of being published on Wikipedia English.

By reading your criticisms and opinions, you are asked to evaluate the page according to the scientific criteria already adopted with other biographical pages of more or less famous scientists that I have taken as a comparison to evaluate the validity of the page and the sources cited by me.

Please remember that there are many sources from English scientific societies that cannot be considered unreliable. I would also like to point out that many of the secondary sources cannot be cited as they do not exist on the web but only physically in paper format (for example scientific magazines, local newspapers, independent information). I therefore ask you to let me know how I can possibly insert this additional data.

It is recommended to use international scientific criteria to evaluate the quality and scientific impact of the research carried out by Dr. Roberto G. Carbone with those who have the appropriate scientific requirements.

Last revision:

The English Wikipedia version is much more accurate than the Italian one. In detail, in the introduction I have added more accurate information regarding the scientific studies and the collaboration of Roberto G. Carbone's closest colleagues.

I added in the "Research" section the close collaboration with the Nobel Prize winner Prof. Renato Dulbecco in the physiology of lung cancer.

I added a quote with the photograph of the current president of the Royal Society Medicine who recommended that I write as a courtesy that Roberto G. Carbone is honored to be a member of the Royal Society Medicine.

Finally I added the appointment of Roberto G. Carbone to the editorial board of the scientific journal The Lancet by the Editor. Rolando8891 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobel laureate is going to be notable, but collaborating with a Nobel laureate doesn't automatically make one notable too. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per discussion above by Rolando8891. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Citation record does not look like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Editorial board membership is WP:MILL, and does not contribute to notability. The fellowships in the Royal College and in CHEST appear to be based in large part on ability to pay, to be open to early career researchers, and in general not to be the kind of thing discussed by NPROF C3. Fellowship in American Heart Association failed WP:V. Little sign of GNG notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Russ Woodroofe's evaluation just above. In addition, the bit about the libraries that hold his 2009 book is just odd. So what if it's held "at MIT in Boston [sic]"? The MIT library system contains millions of books. That whole paragraph reads like trying to hype up a person without actually knowing what a successful academic career looks like. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelo Strano

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

I'm not finding this professor and art critic notable per WP:Nacademic nor WP:NAUTHOR. The current sourcing consists of two press releases and a listing that is a simple name check. Part of a group of articles created to promote the "Empathic Movement". Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Philosophy, and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Axad12 (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS citations are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Collins

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

This is a low-profile individual who is not notable. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from her famous boyfriend. "de facto first lady of NYC" is not a factoid that confers notability. The NYT piece cited is a brief mention of her, and the WP:NYPOST source is unreliable for U.S. politics. WP:BEFORE produced only this in addition. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and New York. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or merge to Eric_Adams#Personal_life, these souces do not justify a separate article since she does not have even an informal public role. Reywas92^Talk 17:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a NY Post article with her as the main focus as well as a People article and a few others. Sure, this page is going to be brief but it's still notable enough to keep. Nweil (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on those. They do not establish notability. Have you seen WP:NYPOST? There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department. A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage; see below. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not positive the subject of Tracey Collins falls under "politics". You said yourself she is a low-profile individual. I get that this is all tangentially related to politics but the tone of that article does not seem slanted or biased in a political way. I think the RfC does not apply here. Nweil (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Neither the NY Post nor People would have published those if not for her relationship to Eric Adams, hence NOTINHERITED and the connection to NYC politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You’re Crystal Balling with that claim. An alternate timeline is unknowable. The point is that they were written. Nweil (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Written in relation to Adams. It's not crystal balling to say she'd remain low profile without the relationship. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Adams. An article about a person is an article about a person, even if the motivation for writing the article was the person's relationship. NOTINHERITED isn't about discrediting sourcing about that person, but discrediting the idea that someone is automatically notable for their relationship. That said, there's just not enough sources about Collins directly to support WP:BIO at this point. Add to that the ongoing legal issues around Adams will likely mean this bio will run into WP:BLPCRIME issues, and I think it makes sense to just redirect here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete “per nom or merge to Eric_Adams#Personal_life … since she does not have even an informal public role,” per Reywas92. The New York Post is a tabloid notorious for its headlines and isn’t a reliable source for such purposes: “ There is consensus that the New York Post … are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons.” I also want to remind you all of a longtime precedent that we almost always delete articles about education administrators. If we keep this, we either need a crispy clear change of consensus, or we need to address the issues that would be raised. Please don’t go there. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every article about her is directly tied to her relationship with Adams. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mayor of New York City is the most prominent mayoral position in the United States. The spouse/partner of the mayor is treated like that of a state's governor. Have there been discussions about the notability of a governor's significant other? I would apply them to the First Lady of NYC if so. Thriley (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The significant others of Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg were not treated akin to first ladies of a state. De Blasio's wife, Chirlane McCray, has independent sourcing directly about her, not her husband. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The New York press has historically covered the First Lady of New York with the same interest as if she were the wife of the governor of New York State. Thriley (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, we don't see evidence of that with RS going into Collins as a person, just passing mentions in articles about Adams. McCray served in the role, Collins has avoided it, it would seem. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to guess, she has been deliberately low profile during his administration due to the concerns raised during the campaign. Thriley (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Adams, as suggested by Rhododendrites. Qflib (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ujifusa

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

Tried draftfying this, and it was more or less immediately put back in mainspace. Tried find independent, and I couldn't find any. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is not written in correct format, and the author is clearly the subject (check username).

TheMotto (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic but can I request some eyes on this article [12] which the same author created 18 minutes before creating his own article. Google suggests some connection between author and subject. Axad12 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Axad12 (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added 17 reviews of his three books to the article, many of them reliably published in a mix of major newspapers and academic journals. There's easily enough for WP:AUTHOR here, even if we don't count the more-routine Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews. I don't know what the nominator tried but finding several of these took only plugging his name into Google News. As for formatting, see WP:DINC, but User:XOR'easter seems to have already done much of the necessary cleanup soon after the deletion nomination was made. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per found sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to !vote to avoid encouraging anybody from using this platform as a free web host to draft an autobiography. He might be notable, but this creates a terrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we should not allow indiscriminate creation of autobiographies, we should not distort our content by letting the bad creation of an article on a notable subject prevent us from having an article on that subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Santos Rios

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

Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The Senate Resolution and the House Resolution indicate that while very accomplished, this individual would receive run of the mill coverage of a typical mayor in the United States. Mpen320 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mayors in a smaller territory like the CMNI have a greater influence on its politics than a similar municipality in Texas for example. As mayor of Saipan, its capital, Santos Rios represented the majority of the population of the Northern Mariana Islands. Anyone elected to this particular elected office is as influential within the CMNI as other "territorial-wide" elected politicians, and Santos is no exception. Scanlan (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Can you explain how he meets WP:GNG then? Similar mayors of cities in the continental United States do not necessarily qualify on basis of their influential position alone, but some like Wilmot Collins of Helena, Montana do.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The islands are tiny and don't have many media outlets, so coverage is sparse to begin with. [13] and [14] are coverage about the nomination and award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability has not been demonstrated. Deb (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Keith J. Roberts (via WP:PROD on 1 October 2024)
Shuang-ren Zhao (via WP:PROD on 1 October 2024)
Stefano Pantaleoni (via WP:PROD on 28 September 2024)
Antonello Pelliccia (via WP:PROD on 28 September 2024)
Francesco Abbate (via WP:PROD on 28 September 2024)
Mauro Afro Borella (via WP:PROD on 28 September 2024)
L. Wesley Underwood (via WP:PROD on 26 September 2024)