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

Max Baker-Hytch

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

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

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}}

.

Keep. This article satisfies the criteria for notability (academics). (1) His research has the significant impact. He has published numerous papers in various academic journals. In addition, he has the high rate of citations (more than 100 considering the rate of citations of all his papers). You may use Google Scholar carefully. (2) He received the British national award from the Research Councils UK. (3) He is a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly institute. He is a fellow of the University of Oxford and member of the relevent associations at Oxford. (4) Many academic papers discuss his ideas. For example, DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION, Divine hiddenness, the demographics of theism, and mutual epistemic dependence: a response to Max Baker-Hytch etc. Again, you may use Google Scholar carefully. If you find it difficult to have the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. (5) He is a distinguished research fellow at the University of Notre Dame and University of Oxford. (6) He is a senior fellow at the University of Oxford. (7) He has a substantial impact outside academia such as popular debates. (8) He reviewed and edited numerous academic journals such as Erkenntnis, Philosophical Papers, Religious Studies etc. Therefore, it is indispensable to keep this article. -- Pesclinomenosomlos ( talk) 19:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think you really missing the point here and provided more reasons for the article to be deleted as participating in debates, having citations around few hundreds, and being a postdoctoral research fellowships or a college tutor (that is his own words) is not a reason for article to be included here. see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for details about what the word "substantial" entail FuzzyMagma ( talk) 21:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If you read carefully the criteria, you will find that academics meeting any one of the criteria, are notable. There is no need to meet all criteria. One is enough. Max Baker-Hytch already satisfies the first criterion and others. Therefore, he meets the notability requirements.

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Christianity, England, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Double-digit citation counts on Google Scholar fall below the bar for WP:PROF#C1. Being a Fellow at Oxford is just a teaching job, not the kind of honorary level of membership in a selective society (such as FRS) that would pass #C3. Reviewing for journals and occasionally getting cited in journals are things all academics do; our standards for notability are significantly above that level. Nothing else in the article even resembles a claim of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: Max Baker-Hytch is not only a fellow but a reputable academic and researcher at Oxford. His work is characterised by its depth and relevance, evidenced by its considerable, significant impact within the academic sphere. In addition, his research consistently maintains a high rate of citations, further solidifying the claim to keep his article. As a result, he obviously meets WP:PROF#C1 and the established criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pesclinomenosomlos ( talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I have struck out your comment as you are only allowed a single keep or delete opinion in a deletion discussion. This is not a vote; more keeps and more repetition of the same claims will not help. It is a discussion to clarify how Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to this case and build concensus on whether Baker-Hytch does or does not meet those guidelines. You might also find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful advice. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Striking out my comment is unacceptable and outrageous as it goes against a fair discussion on Wikipedia and the First Amendment.

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

Max Baker-Hytch has written numerous academic papers, resulting in a total citation rate (of all papers) higher than 100. This impressive achievement reflects the impact and significance of his contributions to the academic sphere. Pesclinomenosomlos ( talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This promotional glurge reads like something an AI would write. [Comment referred to Special:Diff/1221275435 before it was edited to change what I replied to.] — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I am a human and not an AI, but I speak in a calm, formal manner. I am elaborating on my argument. Could you stop irrelevant distractions or personal attacks? We should focus on our clarification instead. Pesclinomenosomlos ( talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

100 citations isn't a high bar for a real academic in most fields. I have 88 at the moment, and I've never held a non-clinical faculty appointment. Jclemens ( talk) 23:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
But you are not from Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos ( talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If you read carefully, you will find that I said his TOTAL citation rate is higher than 100, not only 100 but significantly higher than that. The total citation rate and discussions on all his papers are obviously above one thousand. You may use Google Scholar to search all his papers and relevance discussions. Pesclinomenosomlos ( talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2014 PhD. Citations are far short of WP:NPROF, even in a low citation field. I don't see reviews of the one book for WP:NAUTHOR, and it would likely be a WP:BLP1E anyway. Little sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It appears to me that you have only considered his DPhil thesis and have neglected many papers written by him. The total citation rate and discussions of all his papers are higher than hundreds or thousands (see Google Scholar). Therefore, there is no doubt that he meets the WP notability criteria. Pesclinomenosomlos ( talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I specifically address the citation record above. I have examined the publication and citation record, and see nothing that is not WP:MILL. There is one paper with a good number of citations relative to career stage, and not much else. As I say, WP:TOOSOON (at best). Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 06:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. Pesclinomenosomlos has apparently been canvassing this AfD to multiple user talk pages [1] [2] [3] and has been blocked as a result. Pesclinomenosomlos, once your block expires: do not do that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. TOOSOON is too generous. I see no evidence of coverage, let alone significant coverage. — HTGS ( talk) 01:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete (if I'm allowed to !vote in these circumstances), there seems no reason to keep this article. I've no idea why I might have been canvassed to help keep the article, as I've not come across either editor or article subject; but since Pesclinomenosomlos has been indeffed, the matter is purely, er, philosophical. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Paul Melo e Castro

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

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

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

Steven James Bartlett

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Psychastes ( talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, France, Germany, Mexico, California, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC). reply
how so? Psychastes ( talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Marion Evans

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

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

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

Todd Archibald

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Alamgir Hashmi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, United Kingdom, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment - Appears in The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English (1 ed.) (available through Wikimedia Library, excerpted here):
Hashmi, Alamgir (1951– ), was born in Lahore, educated in Pakistan and the United States, and has worked as a professor of English, editor, and broadcaster. His early work ... is characterized by a terse, witty, imagistic style, and reveals a recurring preoccupation with language, time, and place. The poet's peripatetic career in America, Europe, and Pakistan is reflected in the concerns of his subsequent collections, .... As Hashmi has developed, there has been a broadening of human sympathies and an emerging political awareness which have modified the virtuosity and self-absorption of some of his earliest writing. His most recent publications are ....

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

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

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

Ami Dror

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Lodahl

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

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

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

Saman Amarasinghe

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

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

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

Alexey Okulov

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

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

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

Robert McGee

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

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

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

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

Jill Astbury

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability. Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability. LibStar ( talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and Australia. LibStar ( talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations, albeit in a high cited field. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC). reply
Keep Concur that it passes WP:Prof#C1, and Astbury was quite prolific in the 1980's and 1990's so online sources may be hard to come by. Perhaps seeking offline sources to better establish notability might be an option? While I agree being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't "add to" notability, there is a reason why she is there, and that is for the significant contribution that she has made in her chosen field. I'd also like to add that it is disheartening to see articles of notable women being nominated for deletion, particularly when Wikipedia continues to battle the issue of gender bias when it comes to biographical articles about women 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B ( talk) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)— 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

I think that being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women does add to notability but, by itself, does not establish it. Xxanthippe ( talk) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC). reply

Bruno Marques (architect)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zivit Inbar

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

Unreliable information. No RS. Fails the GNG. gidonb ( talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Israel, and Australia. gidonb ( talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete orphan article that looks like a CV. WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar ( talk) 23:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability, this is just promotional. Fails WP:GNG among other notability cirteria, and WP:NOTCV. LizardJr8 ( talk) 23:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: PROMO with no sources outside of PR items or lists. Even my searches only turn up PR items. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: I searched for reliable sources and found no evidence of notability. Marokwitz ( talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: per norm Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete: Looks just like a CV, clearly intended as promotional. -- D'n'B- t -- 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: not notable. TarnishedPath^talk 08:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete nothing notable about the topic. Chekidalum ( talk) 11:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Strong delete: promotional material without any evidence of WP:GNG. Contributor892z ( talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Stephen Barth

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

Non-notable lawyer/keynote speaker. Lack WP:GNG-style direct and in-depth coverage. DepreciateAppreciate ( talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 19. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I lean toward delete; but I'm wondering if his textbook "has made a significant impact in the area of higher education" per WP:NACADEMIC #4 (although the discussion under that bullet point suggest that meeting notability through that path requires "several books that are widely used as textbooks"). This is an area of academic law not within my experience, so I will refrain from an actual !vote. TJRC ( talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Gregg Henriques

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

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

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

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

Paolo Tasca (professor)

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

Previously deleted and salted as Paolo Tasca * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Computing, Italy, and England. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete ~~Delete~~ -- I don't have access to the deleted versions of the article, but since it has been deleted and salted, the level of improvement to notability needs to be higher than typical to keep, and I don't see a WP:PROF pass here that would warrant it. But UCL is a significant university, so I don't want to be too hasty -- salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Moving to weak delete by Mikejisuzu's arguments, but nothing warrants speedy keep by a long shot. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment. Note that he's actually only an associate professor, not a full professor. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep -- Paolo Tasca is much more notable now in 2024, with multiple publications and third-party media references. Right now Tasca has several citations in triple digits. I'd argue that notability itself has increased significantly since the last deletion.

Given the higher requirement for notability, Tasca should have at least one well-cited multiple author work and others in double digits. From a quick look at Google Scholar, he has 6 works in triple-digit citations and more than 20 with double-digit citations. It looks like he has also grown in notability from a media perspective at least regards to reliable sources such as Euronews, and Project Syndicate. [42] As a result, Tasca clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF notability criteria. Mikejisuzu ( talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Whoever gave you the idea that that is enough citations in the very highly-cited field of computer science? Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, for a start the title is a lie, as he's an associate professor, not a professor. Why do people involved with blockchain always seem to lie like this? Exaggeration is a sign of immaturity, not strength. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment on notability, encyclopedic relevance, academic publications, positions, and so on - In response to Phil's and Necrothesp's comments: Paolo Tasca's work is multidisciplinary, and he also does a lot of work in economics. Please check Google Scholar for his many dozens of academic publications. This is certainly enough to establish basic notability. ( Google Scholar)

He also has an ORCID profile where dozens of published works are listed. ( ORCID)

And if that's not enough, there's an official UCL profile as well with additional information. ( UCL page) UCL is one of the top universities in the UK and Europe, equivalent to an Ivy League-type institution. We can't just delete UCL, or Yale, professors with many dozens of publications unless we can demonstrate solid reasons for why they absolutely don't fit into the scope of this online encyclopedia. This is definitely a serious academic, not some self-promoting "motivational speaker" or "life coach."

There are plenty of academics out there who used to be non-notable, but have since become much more notable due to their recent extensive publications, research, and presentations. Tasca would certainly be one of them. Simply having a previous deletion or two should not prevent the subject from being permanently barred from eventually having a Wikipedia article even after the subject has eventually attained sufficient notability. I understand that the nominator thinks that Tasca had been deleted before and hence would like to reconsider whether or not the article should remain deleted. Nevertheless, by now, I strongly believe that his notability and encyclopedic relevance has greatly increased, and he is certainly worth including on Wikipedia now. This article is now certainly useful and relevant for encyclopedia readers, which is what Wikipedia is meant for.

I would also really like to see more experienced users vote on this issue, particularly @ Cunard: and others.

As for Tasca being an "associate professor"? I'm not sure who created the page and why they decided on "(professor)", but it certainly seems fair enough to me. The article creator didn't try to put "(full professor)." A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. Thus, "(professor)" is a fair an accurate description, and I think it's unfair to call out the article creator for inaccurately describing the subject and picking on whether Tasca is a full or associate professor.

I hope that I have laid out a strong case for why Paolo Tasca should be a strong keep and speedy keep. Mikejisuzu ( talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Associate and assistant professors are types of non-professor, not of professor. "Full professor" is an American term, but the subject has no connection with America. Phil Bridger ( talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. No they're not. In the UK, these people used to be (and in many universities are still) called lecturers, senior lecturers and readers, not professors. An associate or assistant professor who called themselves or insisted on being addressed as "professor" would still be looked on askance, because they have no right to that title. The use of "professor" as a synonym for "academic" is an Americanism, pure and simple. Elsewhere, the unqualified "professor" only refers to someone who holds a chair. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. I agree that salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one; this certainly looks like someone who could become notable under WP:NPROF. But I agree that citations are not high, given his discipline. Note also that our article contains false claims; he is not the author of The FinTech Book or Banking Beyond Banks and Money. Both books are edited collections. (He is not one of the editors of the former, either.) -- asilvering ( talk) 03:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

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

Academics and educators

Proposed deletions

Academics and educators

Proposed deletions

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook