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

Shirley Ho

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMICS Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMICS.

Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:

Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Wikipedia page
Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Wikipedia page itself lacks secondary sources)
Impact on Higher education: no evidence
Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
Administrative post: no evidence
Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Wikipedia page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize [1], (state-level) Carnegie Science award [2], Blavatnik finalist [3], and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation [4]. I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
- Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA [5]) generally do not seem to have Wikipedia pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
- The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
- It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
- Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation [6] comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases

It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.

Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.

Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: [7], [8] [9], [10] [11] Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hodara

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Israel. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Humphreys

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF among others. All sources seem to be to those non-compliant with WP:FRIND. Moreover, quite a few of them are to the subject himself. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Science, and Astronomy. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only case for notability appears to be as a fringe theorist. But per WP:FRINGE and WP:V, we need reliable sources in mainstream sources to provide a neutral mainstream view on these theories, and I found none. If we had enough reliable (mainstream) reviews of his book we could retarget this as an article about the book with a redirect from his name, but I didn't find any of those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment YEC isn't "fringe" in any meaningful sense, and Young Earth creationism doesn't label it as such; it's a religious perspective, and WP:FRINGE directly addresses this: For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus, comments on his scientific ideas by theologians would be addressing the topic directly and potentially count towards notability, and the search can't stop with scientists. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Being at odds with pretty much all sciences it touches" is a meaningful sense of "fringe". So, yes, YEC is very much fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism... all are at odds with pretty much all the sciences they touch. But they're not fringe because fringe is science absent religion, rather than religious perspectives on scientific topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE is not science absent religion. I promise you. If you disagree, go ask around and see if there is consensus for your position. jps (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ fringe? The parting of the Red Sea? The direct divine revelation of the Quran or the Book of Mormon? If you think any of them might be, that's an intellectually honest but encyclopedically useless answer in that it would require religious topics be described as if they were not. If none of them are, then how do you articulate an intellectually consistent differentiation between FRINGE and unproven (and arguably unprovable) religious claims? Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: YEC, presented as a scientific theory in the 21st century, is unquestionably fringe. There is nothing in the article in question presenting the subject as a theologian or a fantasy novelist or as any other type of person for whom this might plausibly considered as non-fringe; the article frames his work purely as science, and as such it is fringe. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that as if repeating it will make it true. It's a theological stance, derived from a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, trying to present itself as science. It's not; it's religion. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where in our article do you find any hint that this is religious in nature? And in what sense does having a "theological stance" but "trying to present itself as science" make it anything other than fringe? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Why except for a literal reading of Genesis would anyone look at the world and say "Man, this looks like six days of divine creation six thousand-ish years ago"? Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Jones

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

WP:notability, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Fails notability criteria, WP:notability and Notability for academics criteria Wikipedia:Notability (academics) She was never a professor and the number of citations arising from her PhD is small. Anubus13 (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is the evidence that she was not notable? static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. Her "Evidence for prehistoric origins of Egyptian mummification in late Neolithic burials" (first of five authors) has 107 citations on Google Scholar, which may be high for Egyptology (I'm not sure), and appears to be the basis for all the mainstream-media coverage in our article. I don't think we can base WP:PROF#C1 on a single work, and the rest of her publications are not as well cited. I cannot even verify the basic biographical milestones listed in our article (degrees, employment as a research fellow, and date of death). There's a more colorful biography than ours at [7] but equally unverifiable and I think not really usable as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book on Helwan excavations of which she is co-author is also cited 44 times. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 21:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Zuilhof

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

Article does not pass WP:BLP for multiple reasons: almost all of it seems to be unverifiable original research, it contains no reliable secondary sources, is written in a semi-promotional tone, and the quasi-entirety of its content comes from one single user (including article creation and portrait photo, described as their "own work", strongly hinting at an undisclosed conflict of interest. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. That alone satisfies WP:NPROF. If the page is too promotional then it needs editing, but the subject is clearly notable. If there's a COI by its author, that need to be clarified. Qflib (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently for FRSC one needs only five years of professional experience and a credit card [8]. That doesn't sound like the level of highly selective and honorary membership that WP:PROF#C3 is intended for. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea, thanks for the correction. I withdraw my recommendation. Qflib (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do have a more selective list of honorary fellows [9] but Zuilhof is not listed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. An author with non notable literary works. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, Jordan, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger D. Nelson

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

I'm having trouble finding secondary sources independent of this subject. WP:FRINGE is also a concern here. 0xchase (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might pass AUTHOR with book reviews [10], [11], but I wonder if those are about the same person; wiki article is about a parapsychologist, this seems to be about a more mainstream psychologist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The first review you list is in Journal of Scientific Exploration, which (searching WP:FRINGEN archives) appears not to be considered reliable. The second is from the Society for Psychical Research, also of dubious reliability. Per WP:FRINGE, we need mainstream coverage of this material, not affirmations from other believers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AUTHOR is just passing book reviews, no matter how good or bad they are. I suppose they aren't RS? Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they're positive or negative is not so important, but whether they're reliable is important. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this and improve it. It is the way of the future; the Global Consciousness Project is now in it second phase and is set to be a vital source of information about the interaction of consciousness with the material world. Those who cling to materialism are a dying breed. 197.88.230.219 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, for articles on fringe subjects, we must base them on reliably-published mainstream sources, we have no independent sources at all in our article, I don't think the two reviews listed above are mainstream, and I could not find better in my searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Stamper

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

She fails WP:BIO , WP:JOURNALIST and definitely WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Television, and England. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did not find enough coverage in WP:RS, and does not meet any specific guidelines. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goki Eda

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

Notability issue. Xegma(talk) 09:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Japan, Singapore, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am concerned that this editor (Bulklana is just copying and pasting uncritically from university websites, on this and other articles.) In this specific case, I don't believe the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and heavily-cited research publications. This needs cleanup to remove or better source the promotional description of his research and make the rest look less like a resume, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. I know the article is not perfect, but I am sure it deserves to be on wikipedia Bulklana (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this editor is currently blocked for undisclosed paid editing/COI. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Normally an Associate Professor is not considered as notable, but he clearly is an exception because of his very high citation record.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - those citing WP:PROF - which of the specific eight criteria do you believe covers this associate professor? David Eppstein mentions WP:PROF#C1 but that subheading/link doesn't exist. Genuine question. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your browser must be broken. It works for me. Criterion 1. The one that applies to someone who has "heavily-cited research publications". As I said in my !vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anjalika Wijesinghe

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Both cited sources are predominately based on primary sources, which lack any independent editorial oversight. Dan arndt (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is based on two sources: an article in a newspaper: Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka) and an article on a magazine called Lanka Woman, which is published by Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. No evidence has been produced for the claim that the newspaper and magazine "lack any independent editorial oversight". Presumably more sources could be found in native-language publications in Ceylon.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article in Lanka Woman, is entirely based on an interview with Wijesinghe (which is a primary source). There is no indication that the interviewer or the publisher has undertaken any fact checking to ascertain whether Wijesinghe's statements are correct. Dan arndt (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of GNG. Sources are not adequate. BLP reads like LinkedIn blather ("force to be reckoned with"). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Once the blather is removed, there's nothing left. Fails WP:GNG and is nowhere on the same planet as WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability in the article. The two sources smell more like paid publicity / churnalism than reliable journalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Chaptal de Chanteloup

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

LinkedIn-style resume of a successful career teacher and organisation leader but nothing here passes WP:NPROF or any other notability criteria. Apparently an autobiography. Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and France. Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found. Almost nobody has cited their publications. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a prolific author but I didn't find the book reviews that could help him pass WP:AUTHOR. No evidence of any WP:PROF notability criterion. And if there exist in-depth sources about him that might contribute to WP:GNG, they are obscured by the many sources in the article and elsewhere that are by him not about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Aydo h8^[contribs] 00:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolaji Aluko

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

Not seeing any evidence this person passes WP:PROF Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked. He seems to have been a professor of no special distinction or dishonor, and is now a Nigerian "technocrat" as he describes it in a YouTube video. Nicmart (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deletion is not cleanup. This entity passes the notability criteria for academics#6 as the head of a Federal University and also the notability criteria for politicians for being the a state commissioner in Ekiti State. Best, Reading Beans 10:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say he is a head of the university? --50.46.167.81 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50.46.167.81: The vice-chancellor is the actual head of institutions in Nigeria and being a commissioner is also a state-wide office and are a member of the state cabinet. Like I said earlier, this person is notable per NPROF and NPOL. Best, Reading Beans 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or draftify: Of the 6 sources on the page right now, 2 are from LinkedIn and Facebook, one is a press release listing 9 vice-chancellor appointments (and the person is just one of them), one’s an interview, and another is a short article about him leaving his position in 2016. A few interesting facts:
His dissertation dates back to 1984 but that's all I found in the academic sources about his publications:

https://www.proquest.com/openview/a124e89dd02157547fa02f712770d8d4/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y#page=435

A definition of vice-chancellor in the United States: a vice chancellor (typically spelled without a hyphen) is an assistant to a chancellor, who is generally the (actual, not merely ceremonial) head of one campus of a large university which has several campuses. Does it make a person notable per se? I doubt it. Even assuming "vice-chancellor" in a Nigerian university means "vice of the university's head," it's still not enough.
Finally, the editor who created the page back in 2009 has the username "Alukome." This raises a bit of a COI concern since the first 5 letters of that 7-letter username match the name of the page's subject. Either it's a divine coincidence, or there's something more going on here. I calculated it for other editors to verify: The probability of each letter in "Aluko" appearing in "Alukome" by random chance is 1/26. Since there are 5 letters, and they must appear in the exact sequence, the probability for the whole sequence "Aluko" is: 1/26*1/26*1/26*1/26*1/26 = 11,881,376. I'd say, it is pretty fair to assume a divine coincidence here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolaji_Aluko&action=history&dir=prev

curprev 02:29, 18 October 2009‎ Alukome talk contribs‎ 1,497 bytes +1,497‎ ←Created page with 'Dr. Mobolaji E. Aluko (b. 2nd April, 1955; in Lagos, Nigeria; home) is a professor of Chemical Engineering at Howard University, Washington, DC, and was Chair of i...' Tag: large unwikified new article

50.46.167.81 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I updated my comment to suggest "merging" the page instead of deleting it, with the idea of incorporating it into the Federal University, Otuoke page. His role as vice-chancellor could be mentioned in the "Staff" section along with others who have held the position.50.46.167.81 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50.46.167.81: In UK-based academic systems, which Nigeria and many other Commonwealth nations follow, "vice chancellor" is the actual head of the university. "Chancellor" is a ceremonial role. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, thank you for clarifying. Does becoming the actual head of a university anywhere automatically grant a person notability in an encyclopedia? -- 50.46.167.81 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of a major university, yes. See WP:PROF#C6, already linked above by Reading Beans. I think a national university with 11k students is good enough to count for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the number of students alone qualifies a university as "major." It might be better to first figure out which universities in Nigeria are actually considered major and what criteria—beyond student numbers—are used. Nigeria is a very populous country (over 230 million residents) with hundreds if not thousands of regional educational institutions. Can we call of them "major"? While it's clearer when it comes to separate Wikipedia pages for institutions, it's less obvious when it comes to the people running them. I think it's fair to be skeptical about labeling an institution as "major" unless there are some solid facts I might be missing. Either way, improving the sources would be a good move, since they're not exactly up to par with Wikipedia's guidelines right now. -- 50.46.167.81 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C6 -- highest (non-ceremonial) position at a significant institution of higher education. Full professor at Howard University as well is substantially above average professor test. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just being a full professor at an American university does not place an academic as substantially above the average as a professor. It's important to note that in certain other countries, being named a full professor at certain universities (like Cambridge) conveys the same status as a named professorship does in the US. But that's not the case here - this person did not hold a named chair at Howard. Qflib (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a hard time finding any citable publications by Aluke or even figuring out his h-index, which are usually good indicators of "academic notability." There are so many professors out there, and only a small fraction of them have a Wikipedia page. I just don’t see how "being a full time professor" alone should get someone their own page on Wikipedia. As for being the "vice chancellor of a major institution," I've already mentioned my doubts about that. I’ve shared all my concerns, and I don't really want to comment any further on this page and leave it to the other editors. -- 50.46.167.81 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reading Beans; there is a pass of WP:NACADEMIC criterion 6. In the Nigerian higher ed system (as with other commonwealth systems), "vice chancellor" is the top executive official of a university, equivalent to a U.S. university president. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The administrative head of a Nigerian university is the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor is responsible for the overall administration, management, and leadership of the university, including academic, financial, and operational matters. The Chancellor is the ceremonial head of the institution. Unlike the Vice-Chancellor, who is involved in the day-to-day administration and management of the university. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ali-Nakyea Abdallah

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

Fail WP: Academics Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator; meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMICS. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, the subject is a leading expert in the tax law of Ghana, but the current article has few sources about him. Can anyone find more significant sources about him? Bearian (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Huffaker

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

Per article, Director of UX Research for Google, but no further claims of notability. Two sources are linked from the article, the first appears to be a small interview in a highly specialized publication, the second is a personal blog of one of Huffaker's colleagues. His Google scholar profile indicates one paper with 1,000+ citations and a handful around 500, not sure I would classify this as highly influential. Can't find many other sources while doing WP:BEFORE. Doesn't seem to be notable by WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, or WP:GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Computing. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This person's publications seem to be in the realm of sociology, and I'm thinking this is not a high citation field - would like to hear other's views on that. The article is a stub that does not really focus on their academic impact - it needs fleshing out in that regard if it's to stay. Qflib (talk)
Keep. His research (at least that done before working at Google) is highly cited. It would take digging through the citing works to understand the impact. That's a big job. For the biographical information, the difficulty is that I found only one short and undated bio paragraph attached to a talk he gave - which can't be considered independent. So I think Keep based on his publications, but the bio information will remain very, very thin for now. Lamona (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: interesting. A scholar with over a thousand cites should be notable, but there are only two cites in the stub. Not sure what to do. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and of those sources one is a blog and the other is an interview with the subject, not about him but about some of his perspectives on data science. I really don't think we have an RS about the subject himself. Bestagon ⬡ 15:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True that there aren't good independent sources about him. I believe that is often the case with academics and researchers. For those I see links to their page at the university they work for, and maybe a CV. I did see references to him speaking at conferences. I'll see what I can add. Lamona (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review article I added quite a bit. It still may strike folks as a bit thin, but I think it meets NACADEMIC at this point. Lamona (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the additions provided by Lamona, we see among other things that this subject's work has had substantial impact outside academia (Google Maps and busyness). I believe he meets C7 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Saleem Bhatti (via WP:PROD on 12 August 2024)
Anjalika Wijesinghe (via WP:PROD on 12 August 2024)
Nahum Hofree (via WP:BLP-PROD on 11 August 2024)