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.

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators[edit]

Richard N. Holzapfel[edit]

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

Based on Talk:Richard N. Holzapfel#WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, it appears that the subject of the article is requesting deletion of the article. It doesn't appear from the current article text that he qualifies as a public figure so WP:BIODELETE could apply. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Latter Day Saints, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honor Request to Delete -- I think that the article could survive AfD, but the subject is not such a sufficient public figure to preserve against stated wishes. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has had public roles over the course of his life and written “over 45 books”. Doesn’t seem like a request for deletion should be honored here. Thriley (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Sauthoff[edit]

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

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible impact yet on scholarly community. A misguided creation of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor with one book. I did not find any reviews of it. For this sort of field we are going to need multiple reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Hong Kong, Bihar, Canada, Colorado, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on the right track, but Xxanthippe and David Eppstein assessed the current notability properly. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Potter[edit]

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Try https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/27/ > his name in Maryland newspapers. The Frederick News-Post seems to carry the most coverage, with hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- based on his position as a county executive, I expected to give a delete opinion as that's the normal outcome for such roles. But a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post suggests he was considered notable beyond the typical holder of such a position. The other details (Plaza named for him) wouldn't generally be enough on their own, but together with the obit pushes above the bar for GNG keep. (would not pass WP:PROF on its own). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Bucci[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is apparently some sort of public school teacher/pianist. I could not find any indication of notability. BLP has had no non-circular references since 2006. The result of the previous AfD in 2007 was no consensus. I am unable to apply BLPPROD due to external links. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing came up on Google. Found two archived references from his Italian article, which are questionable per "WP:TEACHER" RolandSimon (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Italy. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Music, Education, and Italy. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- most claims to notability here are of the "inherited" kind. Otherwise normal career of a working musician. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Narayan Reddy[edit]

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

No sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search, so it fails WP:GNG. I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF. However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to contributors and prior WP:PROD participants: @Kazamzam, Necrothesp, Rajasekhar1961, and Varunmodgil: Daask (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- multiple sources atest to being the winner of India's highest award for medical science, the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, awards from the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, and other positions that clearly pass multiple WP:PROF categories. Documenting and verifying Indian professorial records can be difficult, but this one seems quite clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Hultgren[edit]

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

He was no doubt a metallurgist, and I see that he wrote about metallurgy, but I do not see a lot of reliable secondary sources that would constitute significant coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences in 1930 and of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1945 so passes criterion 3 of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the four pages in w:sv:Jernkontorets Annaler referenced in the English article, Swedish Wikipedia references an entry in Vem är vem inom handel och industri?: 1944–1945, so that would be a couple of different sources having significant coverage. /Julle (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a third source for WP:GNG we have this clipping from a Swedish mining guild, Sancte Örjens gille [sv]. And the two academy memberships give a double pass to WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Third party sources. WP:GN applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree there were no source but since the article define itself, the nominator may have bypassed WP:BEFORE. An elected member of a notable society meets WP:ANYBIO and as such, there is possibility of meeting WP:GNG and sources. Clean up is the best way of cleaning such articles. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Julle -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Walker (educator)[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, South Africa, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Robinson (scientist)[edit]

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

I don't doubt that he was indeed librarian of the Yorkshire Philosphical Society during the dates given but in no world is that a claim to notability. In 1850 he was listed as auditor and council member of the same,^[1] and that's all I got from a BEFORE. Seems like a very odd choice for an article to be honest. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Annual Report of the Yorkshire Philsophical Society MDCCCL

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too little here to justify notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a little while, I thought this Henry Robinson might have been the civil engineer who was the author of "River Pollution" and Sewerage and Sewer Disposal (1896). I don't think that Henry Robinson is notable either, but his writing was at least influential in the late 19th century debate in England about whether rivers were inherently "self-cleaning" or whether pollution needed to be managed. However, they're not the same person. This is clearly about the Henry Robinson who is the subject of this "article"; his son Charles Best Norcliffe discusses his "late" father. That was published in 1884, so the author of the 1896 book cannot be the same man. With that in mind, I have absolutely no idea what this article was trying to accomplish. I think I can find references for the claims it makes, but why? There's nothing here or, so far as I can tell, elsewhere to suggest any particular level of notability or importance. Lubal (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough here for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
delete the only references to him were in the YPS minutes and the York directories. I suspect that he may have been a fine fellow, but not especially notable even during his lifetime — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this him [1]? Talks a bit about the person, but still not enough for keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that Henry Robinson wrote in the 17th century, while the article's Henry Robinson was active in the mid-1800s. Lubal (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no allegation of notability nor any evidence therefor. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleem[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline and notability guidelines for people. likely autobiographical. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The BLP currently relies on unreliable sources. Created by a SPA so likely COI. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Good find. 86.130.244.141 (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Aeschliman[edit]

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

This is another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Italy, Switzerland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, with redirection also being an option if anyone other than a blocked sock is interested in making a stub on the notable book. I see a notable book with reviews (and also respectable citations in a low citation field), but little other evidence of notability. WP:BLP1E at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the problems of puffery and COI authoring etc before the gutting of the entry ... he seems to me to pass WP:Author as his book has been primary subject of multiple independent reviews and an article on him might therefor be useful. An article on the book would seem to me odd, but a brief article on the author mentioning the books would seems OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Had another look (thanks to User:JoelleJay's ping) and think the book's publishers WE & DI and reviews in some marginal journals raise enough fringish worries to make my keep based on the book not so wise. Perhaps he is more known as a journalist in the National Review but notability is not so clear enough to me to justify. Preface by Malcolm Muggeridge to, and praise from Rowan Williams for, the book were the things that I now think mislead me. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. This is about a "survey" (as the book is self-described) published in 2019 by "Discovery Institute," a Seattle-based think tank, which was later translated into French. At the risk of stating the obvious, if the guide or the author were notable, sockpuppets and primary sources wouldn't have been necessary for the article creation. The guide reviews aren't found in reliable sources and appear (as is sometimes the case with unknown manuals) to be provided by the author's associates. There don't appear to be any reliable sources for the author either. In addition to failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR, the article reads like a peacock marketing piece that runs into further WP:GNG problems when considering a ten-year or twenty-year test. 174.197.67.208 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per FRINGE and our notability guidelines. As noted above, this guy is affiliated[2] with the Discovery Institute, a disinformation-spewing intelligent design think tank. The Restoration edition is not reliably published -- it went through Discovery Institute Press,[3] a fact that is strangely absent from the article. Its reviews include several in unreliable sources like Evolution News (DI magazine) and/or do not satisfy WP:FRIND's criterion (bolded) The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book.
The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @Msrasnw. Also ping @David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For me, one book (even in multiple editions) is never enough for WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be no evidence of WP:PROF notability. No objection to redirecting to an article on the book, if anyone cares to make an article on the book. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me that the book takes a fringe anti-science position, whether it is reliably published, or whether the reviews are positive or negative; all that matters for AUTHOR or for notability of the book is the number and depth of mainstream (per WP:FRINGE) reliably published reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Hughes[edit]

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

This article is a sockpuppet production. After the sock was blocked, I removed all primary sources. I was left with only two, one of which has the subject talking about another topic (his school) in an interview. This subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. Please see history for an extensive record of puffery. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah--this is where this came from: a socking case of COI-puffery. JFHJr, in such cases, don't even bother cleaning up the article; not doing so makes the fluff stand out nicely. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I try to present each specimen in its most favorable light. And without extraneous reading. Anyone wondering about the application of my edits can see the history. Thank you for your comment. I always appreciate your input. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  For everyone's consideration and time-sinking availability, this version is what we are talking about. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  ~~I'm opposed to you wanting to delete this article. Looks like an attempt at illegitimate blanking.~~ Wikiviewer2 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I am also opposed, who is crossing out wikipedia user's statements? Jane asia (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  
  Same question! Why are Wikipedia user statements being crossed out? I'm genuinely curious as to why someone would be so determined to delete an article about a legitimate, leading practitioner in the field of international education. Annabella25 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, South Africa, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Independent coverage seems to be limited. Deb (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not really, in the article you took down there were at least 10 independent references and there are many more out there, just look through the web!~~ 213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm left wondering: who is striking through Wikipedia user's statements, and for what reason?? Annabella25 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~I was surprised to see the previous article removed. Dr Hughes is well known in international education. Have you googled him? Why should the article be reduced or deleted, according to who?~~ 213.55.220.222 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not removed, and "well known" should be supported by reliable secondary sources. "Have you googled him" is not a reasonable or helpful question to ask. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's easy to find articles on him:
  
  https://www.k12digest.com/designing-and-implementing-educational-systems-for-the-future/
  
  https://www.internationalschoolparent.com/articles/interview-with-dr-conrad-hughes-ecole-internationale-de-geneve-ecolint/
  
  https://www.letemps.ch/economie/chatgpt-fait-son-chemin-dans-les-ecoles-privees
  
  Have you seen all the things he's published with UNESCO?
  
  It seems a bit weird to want to remove him, is there some personal vendetta going on here?
  
  - Lefka1 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  That's two interviews (WP:BLPSPS) and coverage that includes Hughes talking about a different topic (the in-depth coverage is not about Hughes but AI in private schools). How does that approach WP:ANYBIO? JFHJr (㊟) 20:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  ~~So why are you deleting those two interviews? In the article you removed there were lots of sources~~ Wikiviewer2 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Wikiviewer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  The interviews have not been deleted. They're still at their URLs for anyone who googles this subject to find. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  He has clearly made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in education, just by his publications for the World Economic Forum, Springer, The Conversation, his doctoral research, and dozens of articles. He's a well respected scholar. This alone meets WP:ANYBIO Lefka1 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  I agree! Now, I'm genuinely curious about the motivation behind someone's relentless effort to delete an article about a reputable, leading practitioner in the field of international education. Annabella25 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  You or whoever removed the first article took out lots of independent references. There's an interview with the International Baccalaureate for example. That's not a primary source, why are you removing it? There was also an article in the TES about him and by Cambridge's SHAPE. I am opposed to your proposal to delete this. 213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm about to block a socking account. The nay-sayers here likely have conflicts of interest, but worse than that they lack a proper understanding of what Wikipedia is and what the processes are. Interviews and whatnot do not count towards notability. If there is an "enduring historical record in education", there will be secondary sources that say that. That someone published articles also does not make them notable--unless others have written about those articles. If there's any more socking, this AfD will be semi-protected. Oh, Lefka1, if you make any more comments about "personal vendetta" or whatever, I will happily block you too. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm intrigued by the controversy surrounding this article. I have no axe to grind about Hughes, one way or another, and I don't necessarily espouse his views, but - whether one likes it or not - he is unquestionably prominent and influential in international education, and increasingly so. Are the editors who propose the deletion of the article familiar with this field?

International educators throughout the world would be puzzled to hear that quite a small article devoted to Hughes has been earmarked for deletion, on the grounds of insufficient notability. An article providing some basic, sober information, free of "puffery", about who Hughes is and does fulfills Wikipedia's responsibility to inform its vast reading public, in an objective and neutral manner, about noteworthy people and topics, with the support of solid citations. I can't say I care enough about the Hughes article to do extensive research on its behalf, but as far as secondary sources go, you might look at the reputed TES journal (29 May 2020, "Rethinking school: a special issue", by Alistair McConville), the McKay interview with Hughes on World Radio Switzerland (29 February 2024), or the June 2024 "Formation" supplement ("Ces écoles centenaires") of Bilan magazine, page 4). So my advice, as an experienced Wikipedia reader (though not editor) would be DO NOT DELETE. All those in the field of international education understand why there is an article about Hughes in Wikipedia, regardless of whether they share his well-known educational goals.

By the way, I notice that some previous contributions to this discussion have been crossed out. Why, by whom, and on what authority? Those deleted comments are somewhat assertive, but by no means rude or irresponsible. I hope that this is not how Wikipedia functions, with certain editors censoring the reasonable contributions of others. 83.79.254.53 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - You were blocked as User:Tamara Santerra pursuant to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove and now you're participating in this discussion logged out (block evasion). Why do you think it's okay for you to continue trying to participate here? (pinging @Bbb23: if you have 30 seconds for followup, as blocking admin for Tamara) JFHJr (㊟) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've heard this speaker in conferences, he's well know in international education circles. But when I go to wikipedia I see someone is trying to delete the page. I am opposed to this page being deleted. Jane asia (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- @Drmies, since your comment re page protection, we've gotten 2 new SPAs here, 1 more SPA at this page's talk; a blocked sock trying to vote here as an IP; a second IP that certainly belongs to one of the others; and more talk about a personal bias motivation (vendetta). If you have time today, could you please SPP this discussion? Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - JFHJr, just let it roll. Don't respond. Tag them as SPAs if you like, and straighten out their indenting. I ran CU on a couple and they're all roughly in the same area, but not enough for me to block them on technical grounds. I bet this will all be over soon. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seeing no evidence that article's subject is sufficiently notable re: WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR.The article itself is quite poor.Boredintheevening (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Hughes is a widely known figure in international education. To anybody who is knowledgeable about this field, that's obvious. I'm surprised that this can be such a controversial issue. Basic research about Hughes will confirm his notability. 77.59.138.101 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion proposal is not controversial. It does not require controversy to happen. Just a crappy article and crappy sources. The only controversy here is all the WP:SOCKs, who are apparently determined to edit logged-out after blocks (editing logged-out is much like editing naked, leaves very little in doubt). You're making it much easier to tie a single sock to multiple IPs, so thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Dr. Hughes is a prominent figure in international education, widely respected for his significant contributions. He has authored two important books and numerous articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and he leads one of the oldest and most esteemed international schools in the world. His direct involvement with UNESCO and other international organizations, as well as his frequent invitations as a keynote speaker to global events, further underscore his expertise and influence in the field. Moreover, he holds two PhDs! Any attempt to delete his Wikipedia article may be motivated by personal bias rather than factual grounds. It's deeply troubling and shameful to witness someone of such high regard being placed in such a situation. Annabella25 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – WP:ANYBIO is clearly not met, and I can't see how he meets WP:NACADEMIC either. As pointed out (repeatedly) above, secondary sources are required, and they simply aren't there. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best case for notability is via NAUTHOR, but this would require multiple reviews of multiple works in reliable sources. Reviews are not evident, and I did not find them on my search; noting that searching is complicated by the subject's common name. The history of sockpuppetry and promotionalism here is indeed concerning. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Falls short of WP:GNG (the one Tribune de Genève article) and of WP:AUTHOR (I could only find two reviews of one book [4] [5]). Weak because he's partway there on both criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Two interviews are not enough. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have been taught at schools with IB and other independent ("private" or "prep") school for 5 years. I have never heard of him. He is not known world-wide, or at least not in New York City. 15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

John Paul (scientist)[edit]

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

Unnotable individual fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines see WP:SIGCOV. Most of the existing sources are unreliable and not independent of the subject. The individual also has no significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Scotland. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 15:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – After being appointed to a personal chair, Paul was appointed director of a cancer institute and then during his tenure the research capability was transformed with the Beatson becoming an internationally acclaimed organisation. He was awarded an honorary Dsc. The obituary published in the Independent included that "During his most productive years his publications were among the 1,000 most-cited scientific papers in the world". Clearly meets WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a hint: when someone gets an obituary in the top journal of their field, they have made a significant impact on their field. Also with an obituary in The Independent, etc. speedy keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above he passes WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, supporting/agreeing with the comments above. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Craig Considine (academic)

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

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [6], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [7]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin Abdal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:[8][9][10][11][12] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else. HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 links, 2 being sources solely about him. I doubt you checked any of them. Your comment and vote below basically disregards what AfD is meant to be for. On top of this, we can all see you created your account 6 minutes before commenting here. Welcome back, I guess! Aintabli (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked all your citations from 1 to 5. None of them has any references to the claims made in them and in this Wikipedia article. If you think that I missed them, then you are welcome to present any documentations. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point of those links. Aintabli (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look to this page https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal. There are a lot of absurd statements, like Safavid King Sultan Hossain visited some village in nowadays republic of Armenia. Safavid King Ismail gave an order to M. Abdal and etc. They are absurd, because kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery or diwan. There is no record of King Sultan Hossain visiting some village in that region. It seems articles about this person are hoaxes. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Azerbaijani-language version has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [13], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the citation 6 at https://ia801605.us.archive.org/26/items/huseyn-ismayilov-miskin-abdal-2001/H%C3%BCseyn%20%C4%B0smay%C4%B1lov%20-%20Miskin%20Abdal%20%20-%202001.pdf. It is the same as citation 5 in previous log. There is no references to any documents. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have investigated this article in depth and found out that this is a hoax for the following reasons.

1. All citation for this article do not reference any well known Safavid literature, although in its first paragraph, it is stated that "many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524)." Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them was an ashugh or had nickname Miskin Abdal or was from nowadays territory of Armenia as stated in this article

2. At page 38 of the first citation "https://www.academia.edu/40616613" there is a picture supposedly of an order given to M. Abdal by Safavid King Ismail. However, it is fake. Because non of the Safavids Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom. Also, kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery.

3. In the first paragraph of this article it is stated "He was the founder of the ashugh school" and again referred to this book "https://www.academia.edu/40616613, where there is no references proving this statement.

4. The second paragraph states "One of the brightest figures in the history of Azerbaijan, he played an important role in the development of science and art." and refers to a book, where I did not find any proof to this statement. Only statement by its author.

5. The third paragraph states "Under the name of Miskin, Abdal (Architect of the soul) was the creator of the literature of Azerbaijani minstrels - ashugh folk singers." to which there is no reference.

6. The fourth paragraph states "After many years of service at the court of Shah Ismail I Khatai, in 1524 he returned home. He opened the first school in Sariyagub ... " and refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal#cite_ref-3 However, the referred content does not have anything related to the above statement. So, the fourth paragraph is a completely false statement.

7. The rest of the article until the last sentence does not have any citations, so I accepted it as statement of users who created this article. Btw those users were identified as sockpuppets

Due to the above reasons, I recommend this article be deleted immediately. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Astorga Junquera[edit]

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

Subject has a stable article at Spanish Wikipedia but notability according to English Wikipedia guidelines for either WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST isn't evident. I'd like to hear what others think. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, and Venezuela. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Any biography: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field- His recognized contribution to Digital Art Curation. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by whom? The term "digital art curation" does not even appear in the article. Geschichte (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding reliable sources to show notability. There are huge swaths of unreferenced material in the article about his career. IMDB and Facebook citations are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am also having difficulty finding significant coverage in reliable sources. This is mostly due to translation issues and there seems to be some mixing of info on this subject and their father, mixing information on Juan Astorga Junquera, and Juan Astorga, Juan Astorga Anta, etc. This subject's father, Juan Astorga Anta was the first director of the Museum of Modern Art in Merida and it is named after him ("Museo de Arte Moderno Juan Astorga Anta").[14]) There might some salvageable article here, but leaning towards delete at this time Elspea756 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Mehrpour[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The current sources do not provide the required coverage about the subject, as they are either passing mentions, profiles, or not reliable. GSS ^💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iran. GSS ^💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject deserves a Wikipedia Page as per WP:Academics. It fulfills The criteria for academic personals.
Shortcuts
- WP:NACADEMIC
- WP:NECONOMIST

As per the criteria, a subject is considered notable if it fulfills one of the listed criteria. In this case the subject fulfills 1 or more of the WP:Academics criteria as following.

Criteria 1a: Highly Cited publications

•The subject is among top 2% of highly cited scientists according to the Stanford/Elsevier database. 1

•The subject has also high citation metrics on Google scholar. 2 Here below is the list of some scholars with equal status having Wikipedia page and lesser citations on google scholar than this subject for comparison:

1. Ahmad Reza Djali, his Google Scholar Metrics 3

2. Saba Valadkhan, her google scholar Metrics 4

3. Neda Alijani, his google scholar Metrics 5

Criteria 1d: The subject has served as editorial board member of known scientific journals. 6 7 8 9 10

Criteria 1e. The subject had been selected in competitive fellowships 11 12

Criteria 2: The subject has been awarded academic awards. 13

As per the criteria for academic peoples, the subject is notable enough for having separate Wikipedia page. Joidfybvc (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Joidfybvc (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Sorry, but I think you are trying to hard:

1a: None of those mentioned qualify just on h-factor. However, Djali is notable politically, Valadkhan has major awards as does Alijani.
1d: No evidence in article. In any case just being on an editorial board does not qualify as notable.
1e: All his fellowships are minor, none meet the criteria.
2: Minor awards which also don't meet notability criteria.

Ldm1954 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 10:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm not sure the academic awards are notable; his publication records seems ok. Just passing academic notability. Lots of fluff now in the article, but we can edit that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An article that weakly meets WP:SIGCOV. I am also certain of meeting WP:NAUTHOR from researches and publications. I'm considering this for a second chance though. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, nobody deserves an article on Wikipedia. We are a private charity, not a government agency, and in 2024, everyone knows, or should know that, so free speech protections don't apply. Secondly, I don't see any evidence that he passes the WP:PROF test, either by citations in an index, or reaching a distinguished or full professorship. Finally, the burden is now on the defenders of an article that a living person has gotten significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which I do not see here. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The claims made earlier that his publication record is strong are inappropriate -- his h-factor is moderate but not notable. None of his awards are major. He definitely does not pass WP:NPROF; it is not a close call, he is far below the bar. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Mammolotti[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clear friend a ^💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Various awards and nominations for Best cinematographer. (https://www.inventaunfilm.it/sei-premi-in-cerca-d-autore-2021-autore-dell-anno-gianni-mammolotti/articoli16539 ; http://www.ilquotidiano.it/articoli/2005/09/25/44313/assegnati-i-4-esposimetri-doro-per-il-premio-gianni-di-venanzo ; https://www.daviddidonatello.it/motore-di-ricerca/cercavincitori2.php?idsoggetto=1679&vin= ; https://www.sherlockmagazine.it/index.php/2942/l-aquila-una-citta-in-nero) May meet WP:ANYBIO. ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (edited as there is only 1 Donatello nomination I can verify not more, although the Italian WP mentions 2 (which is not >2) but he has received other awards)[reply]
I won't say these sources you mention are reliable. I am particularly interested in the award citation. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: On the basics of WP:ANYBIO. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern[edit]

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable claims of notability. doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Zack Cooper (via WP:PROD on 28 May 2024)

[1] Annual Report of the Yorkshire Philsophical Society MDCCCL

[1]