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.

  • WP:DSPROF
  • WP:AFD/PROF

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


Academics and educators

Peter Law (actor)

Peter Law (actor) (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 proposed this article for deletion but it was contested due to the sole source in the article having significant coverage. However, my point still stands that the source is about his son and daughter, Jude Law and Natasha Law, more than him, if not then it's just one source. A Google search gives no sources that prove notability to this person, many are about his son. Thus, this article fails WP:SIGCOV. I doubt that the information already in the article needs a separate one, it can be merged to the Natasha Law and Jude Law articles. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan Effendy

Marwan Effendy (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 person appears to be notable only for one event WP:1E, in which he is a suspect of a crime. See WP:PERPETRATOR. On both counts I propose to delete this article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Other than the alleged bribery, I don't see what he did that was unusual for his day. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article could be expanded using the corresponding article in Indonesian (which includes 10 references) at id:Marwan Effendy. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaila Salami Olasunkanmi

Ismaila Salami Olasunkanmi (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 simply fails WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Nothing from BEFORE to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His best claim appears to be that he's dean of his college, which per criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC isn't enough.— Moriwen (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Dias

Fabio Dias (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 claim that means WP:GNG. Lecturer status doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; a search doesn't reveal coverage in reliable sources; Google Scholar shows at H-factor of 3, suggesting that there is little output (so far in his academic career) and/or that it has had little impact. Being a partner in a hedge manager with AUM of circa £1 million seems insufficient. Klbrain (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Computing, England, and Brazil. WCQuidditch 10:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that he does not satisfy the notability requirements. He satisfies point 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. How many academics out there have become managing partners of hedge funds and stayed as academics leading their universities towards industry specific training with distinguished institutions such as Bloomberg L.P.? Giving industry talks at international professional summits while teaching their students simultaneously? As an example, Nick Anstead is also “only” a lecturer and yet there is a page for him because of contributions that he made to the outside world. Similarly Ashley Hickson-Lovence, Sanjay Jain, Paul Melo e Castro and Jeremy Munday. I see Dr Dias even more notable than these given the reach and influence of the hedge fund industry.

We need to value our teachers that spend more time transferring knowledge and less time making publications just because they are doing more practical things for the students. He has contributed significantly outside of academia (academia meaning publications, which is what the H index is about) in his academic capacity, which is what the notability requirement is about. The H index is just one of many different ways of reaching notability.

I disclose that I do not have a personal relationship with Dr Dias, but I was his student last year. We don’t have any professional or personal relationship since. I consulted with other students and we agreed that a Wikipedia page was warranted in his case. Several parents wanted to know more about Dr Fabio Dias during university talks and the right place for them to find this information is exactly an encyclopedia. Contributor892z 12:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Assistant professors (or equivalently in the UK, lecturers) usually do not pass WP:PROF and he seems no exception. Weak citation record [1] definitely fails WP:PROF#C1. No evidence of WP:GNG-based notability. PROF#C7, as argued above, is only for people so famous as being academic experts in some specialty that they are frequently sought after by the media for quotes on stories relating to that specialty, for which we also lack evidence. Keeping one foot in academia and the other in finance is not a notability criterion. Giving talks as an academic is routine and expected, not a notability criterion. The rest of contributor's arguments above reduce to WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t want to leave the impression that I have a conflict of interest on this particular article being published; you can see in my history that I have made other articles too about other academics. Having said that, looks like the only issue with WP:PROF#C7 is that I haven’t presented evidence of him being sought after by national UK media for quotes and opinion as an expert, but I am aware that these exist. I believe WP:ATD-I and WP:DRAFTIFY apply as the article is still quite new and I may have rushed moving this article to the main space. With enough time, I can find between 5-10 independent and significant examples of national media coverage about the subject, and then send the article back for review. Contributor892z (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If as you claimed earlier you were his student, then you are a student at the same institution and you have an institutional COI, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not anymore, I graduated already. I gain nothing promoting the place I graduated from and, frankly, they don’t need me for that. Contributor892z (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. For certain he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and the current article does not prove other notability -- please not the word prove. We cannot bend the rules for him as this would open floodgates, notability has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in many respects it is Guilty until proven innocent in WP:BLP. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He satisfies points 5 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. In UK-based systems, that have no tenure-track, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is totally different than what it means in US-based systems. Responsabilities matter more titles.Econbrazil (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Econbrazil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
    In UK-based systems, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is an entry-level academic position, roughly equivalent to "assistant professor" in US-based systems. It is very far from #C5, which is supposed to mean a step beyond ordinary full professors. The UK has full professors. Lecturers are two or three steps below them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on C#5 but that may have just been a career choice. But I am sure that there is material out there that proves C#7 or GNG, I just need time to search. As I said, I don’t gain anything with getting this article published, but I want to have the chance to set things right by moving this article to draft and adding extra evidence when I have time to find it. Contributor892z (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Common_claims_of_significance_or_importance#ACADEMIC states that a non-professor teacher at an institute of higher learning with a reputation in excellence is enough argument to keep the page as those institutions are not known for employing sub-par academics. University of Surrey is a top 90 university in the world for business and economics, higher rank than [[Pennsylvania State University]], in the US. A top 90 world university don’t hire bad academics. So I call here the WP:PTEST. I saw in the article history that Sanjay Jain was proposed for deletion and kept because he was a non-professor at a top university. Same rules should apply here.Econbrazil (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Liem

David S. Liem (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)

There is no notability claim in the article other than a those related to postdoctoral work on hepatology and that the a frog (Taudactylus liemi)) was named after him. WP:NACADEMIC isn't met (unsurprising given that most of his career is outside of academia), and there are no other claims. I haven't been able to find other material supporting notability for this David Liem. Klbrain (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, while I acknowledge the current scarcity of sources provided for David Liem's Wikipedia article, it's important to consider the context in which the article was created. At the time of its creation, my primary focus was on promptly documenting Liem's contributions, particularly his discovery of the Rheobatrachus silus species. This urgency made me reach the realization that including Liem's page would complete and improve the species' article. Sources probably exist out there and we shouldn’t just delete it per WP:NPOSSIBLE. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I must address the procedural concerns surrounding the deletion request. The unilateral decision to move the article to a different page (Eungella tinker frog) without prior consultation or discussion is concerning and goes against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Subsequently proposing the deletion of the article without engaging in constructive dialogue further exacerbates this issue as the person that nominated the article for deletion seems to have done it spontaneously. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this is all a bit blunt V.B.Sepanza, and thanks for your contributions to the project. The move was part of the new page patrol protocol which doesn't include or expect consultation prior to moves; I marked the move as bold, and don't mind being reversed. The next step, having been reversed, is to seek wider views here given that if the merge isn't a suitable alternative to deletion, then deletion seems the way forward. Thanks for adding your views as the page creator. Klbrain (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain: Your deletion nomination brings 0 benefits to the community, Wikipedians seem to only care about known stuff while advocating for the contrary. The page is a direct translation of the German page that originates from the French page (created in 2009). V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, Indonesia, Australia, Illinois, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch 01:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GS cites inadequate in a high-cited field and the frog is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think taxonomy is a high-citation field; the nomination seems to confuse hepatology (a high-citation medical specialty) with herpetology (the study of reptiles and amphibians, his actual work area). Regardless, he doesn't have enough citations even in a low-citation field to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the typo! Klbrain (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Brennan

John O'Brennan (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 have doubts about notability, as there are quite few independent sources in the article, most of the refs are his own university's website. --HPfan4 (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C5 at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. As mentioned above, passes WP:PROF parts 5, and by the look of stuff like this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) from both Irish national news outlets and EuroNews, he passes part 7 (note part "a" of that) too. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NPROF does appear to be met. That said, the article needs significant cleanup. In its current state it is a (frankly embarrassing) puff-piece in which the supposed "references" do not support the text, and it was clearly written by someone (apparently an SPA and/or COI contributor) who was more interested in promoting the subject than in creating neutral content based on reliable and verifiable sources (to discuss rather than to promote the topic/subject). Guliolopez (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My thoughts are the same as Guliolopez: While the article itself is in terrible shape, the subject of the article is above the threshold of notability. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until the article can be re-written properly. It's in pretty bad shape. Problem with WP:NPROF is that it's difficult to find good references to un-puff an article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the usual approach is just to strip it down rather than trying to bolster the puffery that is already there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Riffee

William H. Riffee (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)

Delete: as non-notable in any regard. Vanity creation. Nirva20 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tankeshwar Kumar

Tankeshwar Kumar (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)

Academic who does not have a publication record or awards that would pass WP:NPROF, plus at least one of the sources does not validate claim in article. The page was declined via AfD, then moved by editor to main and a contested draftify. Deletion seems appropriate as there is no evidence of an attempt to satisfy notability requirements. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Haryana. WCQuidditch 00:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Our article claims that he has been head of two new-ish regional universities in India, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology and Central University of Haryana. (In India, vice chancellor is head of a university; chancellor is a ceremonial post.) Perhaps the nominator could address whether this passes WP:PROF#C6? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did think about this, particularly in the context of the recent discussions at WT:NPROF#Deans, vice-presidents, vice-chancellors, etc. As discussed there in most cases notability is established independent of the position. I was influenced by the (very) spotty history of how this page evolved, plus that reference [6] does not validate him being a NAS member, the official site reference is needed. This may be a case for a further community discussion on WP:PROF#C6 which I feel is warranted. (While some months ago I accepted it as an OK criteria, I am now dubious.) Let's see what others think, I don't have to always be right. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why you don't think that reference verifies his membership in NASI (not the US NAS); it's a newspaper story that says exactly that. I replaced it though with another from another newspaper that specifically talks about his election to NASI [2]. Anyway that should also be enough for WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His citation record is good [3] but in a high-citation field, so I would prefer not to rely on WP:PROF#C1. And I have no idea whether UGC Professor at Punjab University (his title prior to becoming VC) is the sort of thing that would count for #C5. Instead let's go with #C3 and #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for strongly disagreeing with you, but he definitely does not qualify for WP:PROF#C1 in Materials Science and Engineering (MSE), the US term for his field. He has 4 decently cited reviews on popular topics in reasonable journals, but not those with the highest impact factors and he is not one of the big names in those topics. He has several ~50 cited papers in decent impact journals (e.g. JPCC), but again nothing original in a high impact journals. (Nowadays even to get hired as Asst Prof you need articles in the top journals.) His publication record would just about get him tenure in the US, but not promotion to full professor at a major university. In his area 50 is notablable, 250 puts your name into the nobel pot. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I did not word my comment carefully enough to be understood. I am neither claiming that he passes #C1 nor basing my keep opinion on #C1. I am using different criteria.
    As for impact factors: please no. Judging someone by whether a few of other people's papers in the same journals happen to have sudden early citation spikes? It's meaningless numerology. If you're going to judge by whether the work is well-cited, judge by whether it is well-cited, not by whether it is well-cited-adjacent. If you're trying to avoid citation counting for something more meaningful, then avoid citation counting, don't just keep doing it but more indirectly. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked not just at the citations of his papers, but also the topics and the journals -- it was not "just counting". For instance his reviews/work on nanotubes is not even slightly close to that of Sumio Iijima or Pulickel Ajayan.
    In terms of journal impact factors, sorry but again I strongly disagree with your comments. It really does take a lot more to publish in Science (journal) than J. Phys. Chem. C. Not too far from the difference between a GA and a Start-Class article. Academics, even PhD students and some undergrad look at impact factors, as do Chairs, Deans and funders. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The individual the VC (highest functionary) heading a Central (Federal) public university. Appointed by the President of India after open-applications, search and selection by the Ministry of Education. Similarly, has held VC position at a State public university. I do not agree with the nominator's view to cross-check everything academic from citations, and journal publications as also nominated here, given the flaws and MLM type model of this now discussed far more openly than ever, it is time that we keep academia free and open without any gate-keeping. Non-relevant: There have been many people who have contributed much without joining the feudal/elite academic circles. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As David Eppstein pointed out, subject at a minimum meets #C3 and #C6 of WP:NPROF - and might meet #C5. A subject need only meet one of these criteria to justify notability; this one meets at least two. Qflib (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Iqrar Haroon

Agha Iqrar Haroon (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 to meet WP:GNG as well WP:N - delete because its a resume, written by subject himself Special:Contributions/Agha_iqrar_haroon or someone close to them Special:Contributions/Aghaasadharoon.

Also see Dispatch News Desk. Saqib (talk · contribs) 10:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk · contribs) 10:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Journalism. WCQuidditch 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Don't see why this subject is listed under academics and educators. Does not satisty WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine the listing is because the article asserts that the subject's accomplishments include research and teaching. Searching Google Scholar did find a small number of publications under author:ai-haroon, but nothing that would pass WP:PROF. I think we are going to have to look for notability other than through academic accomplishments; I agree he does not pass PROF. That said, I have not yet formulated an opinion on the subject's overall notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Williams (academic)

Julia Williams (academic) (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 academic, misses the bar for WP:NACADEMIC #8 as was never editor-in-chief, not much I can find in books or google. BrigadierG (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hoberman

Steve Hoberman (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)

The man has a job--but that job does not guarantee notability, and there is no secondary sourcing to provide notability via the GNG. He had an award, but that award does not confer notability. There was a spammy list of books (look in the history) but without secondary sources (reviews etc.), and Technics Publication seems like a fishy publishing outfit. Much of the remaining sourcing is on websites, resume-style material. The editor who denied the PROD mentioned WP:THREE but I don't even see ONE significant independent secondary source. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Some book seller listings, mostly PR items I find. I don't see notability with the sources given either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, Engineering, Technology, Computing, and New York. WCQuidditch 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lecturers, at US universities, are unlikely to be notable through WP:PROF, because it is a title used for people hired to teach classes but not expected to have signicant scholarly achievements. (In UK-based systems, the meaning of the title is totally different, more like assistant professor in US terms.) Anyway, I didn't find evidence for academic notability or WP:AUTHOR based notability for the subject. I don't think the DAMA award is enough for WP:PROF#C2 and its award citation page doesn't provide enough depth to count as one of the multiple sources needed for WP:NBIO. I note that the article history includes accusations of undeclared paid editing but I don't know what the evidence for that might be; if it can be provided it might strengthen the case for deletion, but I think that case is clear enough already. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really a case for WP:Prof here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete undisclosed paid-for spam. I PRODed this earlier but it was contested by another editor. There is no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:PROF. GSS💬 04:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF. Qflib (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I contested the PROD earlier here [5] with some reasons of excluding the primary sources and not sure whether the job, Data modelling instructor (or related) is notable or ever be. I can see it's not inclusive and not encyclopedic. Maybe WP:NPOV problem and SIGCOV. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as undisclosed paid spam per GSS. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you or GSS respond to requests that you provide evidence of being undisclosed paid editing rather than just throwing around evidence-free accusations, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: they are solid and have already been shared with the functionaries. GSS💬 05:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So "delete because I have secret evidence that I'm not going to tell you"? I can understand the reasons for not publicizing the methods by which you might have discovered such behavior, but the price for not publicizing it is that it cannot be used as evidence in an open and evidence-based procedure such as AfD. See also The Trial. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, delete because there is no evidence satisfying notability criteria, as I mentioned in my !vote above. The reason for not publicly posting the details is that it contains personal information that could violate WP:OUTING. GSS💬 06:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you provided a guideline-based deletion reason. Lepricavark didn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A ping would have helped. The editor who created this article is currently pursuing the deletion of an article about a company created by Gurbaksh Chahal, an individual with an extensive history of using undisclosed paid editors to try to whitewash his own biography. There are numerous suspicious editors who have turned up at that AfD to support deletion, all of whom are parroting the same types of arguments that I recognize from prior involvement with Chahal's article. Based on all of this, I believe that the creator of this article is an undisclosed paid editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find anything that suggests he is notable Devokewater 21:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louise A Jackson

Louise A Jackson (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)

Seveal of the references in the existing article are to the wrong Louise Jackson (a senior member of staff at the University of Edinburgh) and I cannot find anything notable about the author online. Happy for others to argue for retention - but the references would need to be fixed. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Meyer

Bruce Meyer (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)

Not a notable individual. Fails WP:GNG. Possible autobiography. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Canada. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch 04:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a distinguished and recognized Canadian Poet. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    That doesn't appear in sourcing. Canadian poet, yes, "distinguished and recognized", unclear. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : I don't see much for him as a poet, there is a person with the same name who worked for the player's union in Major League Baseball, but I don't know if it's the same guy. The only connection I see here is a lifetime pass to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, which is almost mentioned in passing, and is in no way notable... Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a poet, not a footballer or an economist. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Baseball guy, not a football guy (soccer or Super bowl). Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article has improvement opportunities. I haven't found news sources but found him as a several award winning reputed author from Canada. Here are some of the websites I found him.

opportunities

  1. https://www.springpulsepoetryfestival.com/winners-2019.html
  2. https://www.nunum.ca/blog/brucemeyer#:~:text=Bruce%20Meyer%20is%20author%20or,He%20lives%20in%20Barrie%2C%20Ontario.
  3. https://www.thewoolf.org/competitions/
  4. https://www.montrealpoetryprize.com/2015-competition
  5. https://www.thewoolf.org/2018/12/01/meet-the-poets-2018-poetry-competition-shortlisters/
  6. https://www.blakejones.southshorereview.ca/news/contest-results/
  7. https://southshorereview.ca/interviews/an-interview-with-bruce-meyer/
  8. https://www.georgiancollege.ca/blog/newsroom/spotlight-on-prof-bruce-meyer-for-national-poetry-month/
  9. https://edmontonpoetryfestival.com/headliners/bruce-meyer/
  10. https://www.comares.com/media/comares/files/toc-113708.pdf
  11. https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/meyer-bruce-1957

There are more available. Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, keep based on unreliable sources about non-notable prizes? This isn't wikipolicy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, poetry festivals, his employer (Georgian College)'s blog, an interview and prize wins, aren't notable. I'm not seeing any of these as helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see a listing in the Canadian Encyclopedia [6], pretty much a go-to source here for obscure Canadian biographies. I don't think this person is important enough at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He published books in the 1980s and 1990s, into the early 2000s, so I had to dig to get references. Here's a book review from 2001 [7], a review from 1985 on an anthology [8], a brief one here (scroll down to the bottom) [9], and a partial discussion in the Atlantic from 2000 [10]. And briefly mentioned in a 2018 article about "good books to read" about an anthology [11]. These are the type of sources we need for published authors, not those given above. Oaktree b (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Beyond what Oaktree lists above, I found that a Spanish literature professor, Juan de Dios Torralbo Caballero, has written an entire book on Meyer, The Poetry of Bruce Meyer: The inaugural poet laureate of the city of Barrie, and that book in turn has at least two published reviews doi:10.24310/Entreculturasertci.vi7-8.11506 and hdl:10396/14118. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lei Han

Lei Han (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)

Cannot find any contemproray references online - although there may be some in untranslated chinese. He does not appear in a search of the English language website of the Chingqing medical hospital. I appreciate that his page may need to stay in Wikipedia because of his academic reputation - but I cannot find any sources to justify the statements about his reputation made in the article. Newhaven lad (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and China. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not found yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)/[reply]
  • Comment: Lei Han was the president of Chongqing Medical University. Does Lei Han meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria #6, which says, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society"?

    This book published by Springer Nature notes: "The Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CHCMU), located in the central area of Chongqing, is recognized as one of the top three pediatric hospitals in China (CHCMU 2015). Many professors worked in this hospital hold leading positions in the field of pediatric research in China."

    This book published by Frontiers Media notes, "We performed a retrospective cohort study in the Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. The hospital is a 2480-bed tertiary teaching hospital in Chongqing, China and ranks among the top three domestic children's hospitals (rank list: http://top100.imicams.ac.cn/home)." http://top100.imicams.ac.cn/home is the website of China's Institute of Medical Information & Library (zh:中国医学科学院医学信息研究所).

    Cunard (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would agree that #C6 of WP:NPROF is met by having served as the president of Chongqing Medical University, which is a research-grade institution. Qflib (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Lijun (economist)

Zhang Lijun (economist) (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)

Highly promotional and no establishment of notability with independent WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Some of the sources were promotional, so I've trimmed those. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable, since he has appointments at Stanford University and APEC, among others. Rextheides (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Comment I don't see that this subject passes WP:NPROF. Just having an appointment at a major research institution is not in itself sufficient to satisfy the criterion. Qflib (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 2 is green per Source Highlighter, but is simply a short profile, nothing a length about the person. Source 9 is also green (a RS), but I don't think it's enough for notability. Rest of the sources used aren't identified by the Highlighter tool so I can't comment on them. I don't find anything other than a press release of the person's appointment. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. "09中国互联网大会嘉宾:第一视频总裁张力军" [09 China Internet Conference Guest: Zhang Lijun, President of VODone] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2009-08-20. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.

      The article notes: "张力军,男,1963年出生,中国共产党党员,南开大学经济学博士、兼职教授。现任第一视频集团董事局主席(香港主板上市公司www.vodone.com)、中国APEC发展理事会理事长。 ... 在亚太经合组织工商咨询理事会中国代表工作期间,曾任亚太经合组织工商咨询理事会贸易投资委员会副主席,科技委员会副主席等职务。 ... 1985.7-1995.8 历任国家外经贸部所属中国五矿进出口总公司、国际实业公司总经理助理、副总经理、综合贸易部副总经理。"

      From Google Translate: "Zhang Lijun, male, born in 1963, is a member of the Communist Party of China, holds a PhD in Economics from Nankai University and is a part-time professor. He is currently the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Video One Group (a company listed on the Hong Kong Main Board www.vodone.com) and Chairman of the China APEC Development Council. ... While working as the Chinese representative of the APEC Business Advisory Council, he served as Vice Chairman of the Trade and Investment Committee and Vice Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee of the APEC Business Advisory Council. ... From 1985.7 to 1995.8, he successively served as assistant to the general manager, deputy general manager and deputy general manager of the comprehensive trade department of China Minmetals Import and Export Corporation and International Industrial Company under the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation."

    2. Liu, Yang 刘洋 (2007-08-05). Xu, Huiling 徐会玲 (ed.). "第一视频公司百日神话 张力军身家大翻两倍半" [VODone's 100-day myth: Zhang Zhangjun's net worth triples and a half]. 财经时报 [Financial Times] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Phoenix Television.

      The article notes: "44岁的张力军博士毕业于天津南开大学。除第一视频董事局主席、执行董事之外,张力军也是中国亚太经合组织发展委员会主席、中国亚太经合组织企业大会成员及国际通讯部的主席。 在此之前,张力军曾身兼中益国际经济集团(始创于1993年的国有企业)董事会主席,以及中天通信产业集团(主要从事电信运营及增值服务)主席。而现在的张力军摇身一变,成为第一视频的党委书记。"

      From Google Translate: "Dr. Zhang Lijun, 44, graduated from Tianjin Nankai University. In addition to the chairman of the board of directors and executive director of VODone, Zhang Lijun is also the chairman of the China APEC Development Committee, a member of the China APEC Enterprise Conference and the chairman of the International Communications Department. Prior to this, Zhang Zhangjun served as chairman of the board of directors of Zhongyi International Economic Group (a state-owned enterprise founded in 1993) and chairman of Zhongtian Communications Industry Group (mainly engaged in telecommunications operations and value-added services). And now Zhang Lijun has suddenly become the party secretary of VODone."

    3. Wu, Fei 吴飞, ed. (2015-12-30). "宝贝格子挂牌仪式在京举行 新三板母婴跨境电商第一股" [The listing ceremony of Baby Grid was held in Beijing, the first maternal and infant cross-border e-commerce stock on the New OTC Market] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.

      The article notes: "最后,张力军博士也对公司同仁、中介结构等嘉宾及在场的各位母亲表达了感谢。张力军先生是南开大学经济学博士,香港主板上市公司第一视频集团(股票代码:00082)董事局主席,美国纳斯达克上市公司中国手游集团(股票代码: CMGE)董事局主席。宝贝格子成功登陆新三板,也使张力军先生成为国内担任过美国、香港、中国三地上市公司董事长的第一人。"

      From Google Translate: "Mr. Zhang Lijun holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Nankai University. He is the chairman of the board of directors of Video Group (stock code: 00082), a company listed on the Hong Kong main board, and the chairman of the board of directors of China Mobile Games Group (stock code: CMGE), a NASDAQ-listed company in the United States. Baby Grid's successful listing on the New Third Board also made Mr. Zhang Lijun the first person in China to serve as the chairman of a company listed in the United States, Hong Kong and China."

    4. Zhao, Lei 赵雷 (2016-11-18). Hua, Zheng 华政 (ed.). "张力军 新经济体下将诞生出多家新BAT" [Zhang Zhangjun: Many new BATs will be born under the new economy]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Xinhua News Agency.

      The article notes: "张力军,第一视频集团董事局主席、迪拜中阿卫视董事局主席。2005年,张力军创立第一视频,并于2006年在香港上市,成为中国第一家上市的视频企业。2012年,第一视频集团旗下中国手游娱乐集团在纳斯达克上市,张力军被称为“中国介绍上市第一人”。"

      From Google Translate: "Zhang Lijun, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Video One Group and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Dubai China Arab Satellite TV. In 2005, Zhang Lijun founded First Video and listed it in Hong Kong in 2006, becoming China's first listed video company. In 2012, China Mobile Games and Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of Video One Group, was listed on Nasdaq, and Zhang Lijun was known as "the first person to introduce listings in China.""

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhang Lijun (simplified Chinese: 张力军; traditional Chinese: 張力軍) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still reading all of this but it seems you are saying that the the subject's notability would be in business, and not in the academic field of economics, correct? Qflib (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib: I don't really understand what you're getting at. If the subject is notable under the basic criteria for people and under GNG as Cunard says, is it necessary to say they're notable as X but not as Y? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking. The page describes subject as a "economist" (it's literally in the title). As an economist, subject does not seem notable. But he may be able to meet GNG, as you say. Qflib (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria through significant coverage about his being a businessman rather than his being an academic. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe the page could be edited to reflect that? Qflib (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Mies

Miguel Mies (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)

Sources used are all primary: either interviews quoting him, his profiles on university websites, or even his research articles. His personal website lists multiple media appearances, but they are all either interviews or articles by his university, so no independent secondary sources here. The best sources could be this one which repeatedly quotes Mies on his research and even has a paragraph quoting a researcher critical of Mies' work, and this one which discusses his team's research in detail and briefly quotes him. However, neither seems to rise to the level of a full secondary source significantly covering him.
The only other things found in a quick WP:BEFORE are, comparatively, not very interesting: a mention as contributor in a book in Google Books, more databases [12] [13] [14] [15], a team presentation and his research articles on Google Scholar. Nothing close to establishing notability. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Biology, and Brazil. WCQuidditch 02:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A recent (2019) PhD whose citation counts [16] have not yet built to the level needed for WP:PROF#C1, with no evidence of any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lokotim (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NPROF#7a which says Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. He is widely cited in Brazilian media as an academic expert in a niche area: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Weitkemp (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter when he did his PhD. He meets 7a. More refs: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Weitkemp (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot of coverage if someone searches in local archives: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] Weitkemp (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's a good point. I forgot that specific subcriterion, but it should work for the SNG. Guess it's keep time then. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's helpful to share sources that can help establish notability but it is unrealistic to list 34 as if participants have the time to check each one. User:Weitkemp can you narrow that down to 3 or 4 that best illustrate your argument to Keep this article? And while it doesn't really matter when an article subject received their PhD, it is more likely that an academic would have receive sufficient coverage when they have progressed further in their career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nowhere near a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. Meets WP:PROF as it stands - I think deletionists should get a consensus to deprecate Point #7 of WP:NPROF. Otherwise, academics like Mies are notable if they are widely cited in the mainstream media as an expert. Academics from Brazil are just as notable as those from the U.S. Also, RE to Liz, WP:GNG is not mandatory for academics. 89.23.224.133 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear where this discussion stands now that the nominator is arguing to Keep this article but hasn't withdrawn their nomination. With some editors advocating Delete, it wouldn't lead to a Speedy Keep here but it might make a difference in how editors are viewing the nom's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Davies (headmaster)

Alan Davies (headmaster) (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)

Not convinced of notability here. I don't think that everyone who has been stripped of their knighthood is notable enough. BangJan1999 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to this school, I say we keep this.
It's important to have this so, this doesn't happen again. (Stealing from children's education) 2A00:23C7:D00A:E601:EC8B:7A5F:E4C:B65D (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. You may want to read this. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep More work needed. If he was awarded a Knight, which is one of the highest British honours, then there is notability. My concern is about the teacher stuff. However, if the award was because of his service to teaching and a case of one event for fraud (on teaching noting) with took significant amount of coverage. Without prior doubts, vote keep. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. Reluctant as he is far from being an admirable individual, but keep as he is clearly notable, whatever one might prefer. Athel cb (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per past outcomes. The consensus has been since at least 2007 that principals, headmasters, and school district superintendents are not notable - even if they get in the news for allegations of fraud or aiding and abetting a bombing - absent ongoing and significant coverage in reliable sources. If the consensus has changed, we need at least a few dozen experienced voices to chime in. This discussion needs to be re-listed, or many articles need to be re-created, for that reason. Keeping this article opens Pandora's box. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Vinga

Susana Vinga (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)

Associate prof, some early career awards, decent number of citations but perhaps not especially high. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. Might be WP:TOOSOON or WP:MILL. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Portugal. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Associate professor doing what professors do... I don't find notability, or much of any sourcing we can use. Primary sources are used for the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed Delete and WP:TOOSOON. I'd like to see lots and lots of researchers in Wikipedia, but the vast majority will never reach the bar of general notability, unfortunately. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Computing. WCQuidditch 00:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is mainly "local" (national prizes in Mathematics and from the University of Lisbon, as mentioned).
Main achievements in alignment-free sequence analysis and comparison (link to page), and internationally in 2% of highly-cited researchers (2021 and career) by "Stanford University has released its global list that represents the top 2% of Scientists in various disciplines, on 10-10-2022" - DOI: 10.17632/btchxktzyw.4) (not yet on the page). 193.136.100.230 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that citation. Thanks. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some looking into this data. Vinga is listed in the main sub-category of "bioinformatics". Based on her full career publication and citation record, the Stanford data places her at rank 91 out of 7,142 in this broad subfield; I believe this is a figure that supports her notability ... but need additional measures. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think her citation record [52] is strong enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks - reviewing this ... -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    item G. in this Guideline states "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is not based on the number of works the subject has authored. It is based on the number of times those works were cited. Six publications with triple-digit citation counts (one with almost quadruple digits) is a good record, one that indicates that her works are having a substantial impact on other researchers in the area. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an h-index of 29 alone (rather low in a highly cited field such as biology) does not denote "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline [...] as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." as the "independent reliable sources" part is missing. No major award either, so I do not see any WP:NACADEMIC criteria being fulfilled. Broc (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "independent reliable sources" are the 4282 academic publications that cite hers. That's what that phrase in that criterion means: many publications that cite the works of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per David Eppstein. The h-index argument is convincing. I'd like to see some kind of support for Broc's claim that h-indices run high in Biology. Central and Adams (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a well known fact, but here's an article [53] where it is stated "For Biology [...] very highly cited scientists have h ≈ 150". So in my opinion an academic with h-index of 29 in biology is not at all "highly cited", hence doesn't meet C1. Broc (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Broc, I don't even look at those things. If we cannot cite a specific instance of someone citing the work and proving its importance, what are we doing? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies I fully agree. Not one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on her field of study has been brought up in this AfD. The only "keep" !votes entirely rely on the argument "she has many citations so she must be notable" and I wanted to show how this argument is faulty, as she is not a highly cited author in her field. Your argument still stand, and I agree with it: we do not want to host resumes of WP:MILL academics on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason we have NPROF#C1 is that there may not be one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on [their] field. Academic work can be quite significant before authors of the secondary lit catch on and this notability criterion is meant to account for that. Central and Adams (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Central and Adams, I am not at all convinced that that is the reason we have it. I think we have it because it's a thing that counts in some parts of academia at some points--in tenure and promotion. I had a look through the talk page archives of PROF, and what is obvious to me is (I'm summarizing from a few comments by editors like DGG and Randykitty--I cannot claim to have done a comprehensive survey) that any index is a rough guide (and that's still in PROF, at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics), and that writing an article based on those metrics is, ahem, difficult. Plus, your argument is kind of contradictory. If a scholar is cited, then one should expect the citation to say something meaningful about the research or the scholar that was cited, unless, unless! we're just refbombing, like we do in certain disciplines (not mine). Having read quite a few sociology articles recently I'm even less infatuated with indices, and on top of that are the problems noted in various talk page discussions with Google Scholar. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • In the sciences authors are cited in research articles to acknowledge their original results, not to discuss the results or explain their meaning or impact. Those things are the province of expository writing rather than research. Scientists can have astonishing impacts on their field without being discussed in expository or other kinds of secondary writing. In the social sciences and humanities it's necessary to discuss these things in actual research because there's no epistemological consensus, but this doesn't happen in the sciences. No question that indicies are a rough guide, but I guess that's why we're having this discussion! Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think you have a slightly optimistic view of the academic publishing industry. And I'm sorry, but about differing epistemologies leading to different kinds of consensus, I think you are wrong. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see an h-index argument--I see a citation, not an argument. I do see a counter argument to that claim. What I see is a resume without any secondary sources; primary/company links and Wikipedia articles don't count. As a BLP, it's so poorly verified that it should be sent back to draft space, and I do not see how this passes PROF, let alone the GNG. This shouldn't have been moved into mainspace. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. (Coming here after Drmies' ping). I currently don't have the time to look into this in great detail, just marking a few points. The citation record, as observed by David Epstein is more than solid. On the other hand, that seems to be most of what we have for an article, as I find the awards less than impressive. Looks like an "up-and-coming" scientist, but associate profs are not very often found notable yet. If some independent sources would come up on which an article can be based, I'd !vote "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha Randykitty, I figured you would say something along those lines--a position between your professional hard data and the requirements of secondary sourcing in the liberal arts way. Thanks for stopping by! Drmies (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Very, very strong h-index metric, which strongly indicates her importance to her field—WP:PROF#C1. Anwegmann (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete. Sorry, but the claims very strong h-index are not verifiable. I did the standard test of looking at the top people cited in the areas she lists in her Google Scholar page. The lowest cited area is "System bioinformatics" where she is competitive and 10th on the list. However, in her other areas she is not close to competitive. Her awards are all minor or junior (we really should say not to include them and the Stanford/Elsevier lists). Without significant acknowledgement of her by the wider community it is wP:TOOSOON. A strong start, but not enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm trying one more relist even though the pool of editors wanting to comment on articles on academics in AFD is limited. But I don't see a reconcilation or consensus here, either they meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1 or they don't.

Just as an aside, are articles for academics ever redirected to their institution in case they develop a more substantial profile in years to come? I haven't seen that proposed but thought I'd throw that out as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because if the article on the institution includes a list of its professors, it would only be a list of the bluelinked professors. So if we redirected, the article wouldn't mention the redirect target at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per David Eppstein, especially "Six publications with triple-digit citation counts" a substantial count that is enough to pass NPROF criteria in her field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep. Passes #C1 of WP:NPROF to my eyes. I don't usually recommend keeping associate professors (which is the "weak" part) but the sheer number of citations of her work alone is impressive, as is the number of citations that her most-cited papers have received. As I keep saying, passing one criterion is enough to meet the standard. Qflib (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators&oldid=1215947019"