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]

Frederick Rauscher[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Longhornsg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Michigan. Longhornsg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yudelman[edit]

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

This appears to be a WP:BLP1E for an otherwise non-notable postdoctoral researcher. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a slam-dunk case for deletion for that reason. 47.186.144.163 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Canada, Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the dictionary example of BLP1E. Alansohn (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florian G. Kaiser[edit]

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

89.5% of this article's content was written by FgkaiseR5131, who has seemingly admitted to being the subject of this article. I will skip reporting this to WP:COIN since this user has stopped editing after Liz warned them of the COI policy on their talk page in December 2023. Google and Google Scholar searches do not return significant external coverage and all three of the article's references not written by Kaiser only discuss the Campbell paradigm, rather than supporting the idea that Kaiser has been significantly impactful in this area of social psychology. While this subject could be considered prominent with an h-index of 59, there is no external coverage to support this and the other notability criteria for academics do not apply (e.g., prestigious awards, fellowships, professorships, etc.). BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does this subject meet C8 of WP:NPROF from spending a year as the editor of the Journal of Environmental Psychology? This is not my field, so I can't tell whether this is a "major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." Qflib (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

correction: Co-editor... Qflib (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the interpretation of "subject area," as it is the top environmental psychology journal, but it is not within the top 50 of Scopus' 2023 rankings of psychology journals. Given that subject-specific notability is therefore borderline amid a lack of third-party coverage, I would also be fine with moving this to draftspace. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Trachtenberg[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable person. The article lists he is a history professor and that he appeared before a Congressional committee (the cited source for the latter is about a completely different person and does not mention him at all, so I am not sure this is correct). He is not a public figure, not well known, nor an especially prominent scholar. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not loving that this nomination is the first edit of a brand new account, because that definitely doesn't smack of being an incredibly unusual first edit by anyone actually new to this platform - as opposed to, say, the correction of a minor typo. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has the nominator done a WP:BEFORE search? Because that would also be remarkable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One way or another, I'm going to oppose based on the in-depth coverage of this scholar's views since as least as far back as 2018, providing a clear WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG case (outside of WP:NACADEMIC). Indeed, the man appears to have been getting in notable scuffles with power and driving people up the wall for absolutely years. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes it is my first post. I am in this field (well history) and saw a link to the page. Perhaps we can focus the discussion on the merits of arguments rather than number of edits.

In terms of academic influence, look at Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0t_itmQAAAAJ&hl=e

A standard metric is an h index equal to number of years since Phd: his is 4 (see cited by tab)!! He only has 115 cites which would not get tenure at an R1 research university.

Now for the points you raise. How does getting into scuffles with power make someone notable? The article you link to simply debunks his work. And the other article is a single mention in Al-Jeezera. Several dozen scholars get far more media attention on this.

If there are more notable aspects related to this entry, please do add them. But I am not seeing them. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's academic credentials are only the main concern if WP:NACADEMIC is the metric by which we are measuring it. If the metric is WP:GNG, all forms of WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage in RS contribute. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I guess you mean he is a public figure? I do a Google news source and omitting academic or local mentions I do not see much. In Google news I see two mentions in ten years to major media (your article and a la times one). How is this sustained coverage? SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for WP:PROF#C5 (named chair) is a little unclear because he received the chair as an associate professor and was only promoted to full professor very recently [2]. Nevertheless he has a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR through many published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The central measure of notability in academics is citations, and the totals I mentioned are in no way notable. Why is a book review notable (and how many are you referring to?). His books are almost exclusively read by academics so I think think that is the criteria the subject should be judged by. Notable historians and social scientists have hundreds of thousands of votes per book. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should be "cites" not "votes" in .y last sentence. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation counts have some use in STEM fields whose practitioners generally published articles in journals and cite each others' papers. They work much less well in the humanities, where the major publications are books and the sign of recognition of a book is not its citations but its reviews. Some books are well cited despite that, but it is not usually a good indicator for notability. More, reviews fit much better into Wikipedia's notability ecosystem than citation. A review is an independent, reliably-published source with in-depth coverage of the subject's contributions. We now have 13 of these sources in the article. WP:GNG requires only two. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the reviews referenced on the page are academic book reviews. A book is itself considered notable for 2-3 reviews in reliable sources. Here we that and more (academic ones) for three books - so that's three notable works. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a purely practical perspective, an entire "scholarly views" section could almost certainly be built out just based on these book reviews alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Oh yeah! Totally missed the sheer volume of reviews there on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on David Eppstein's note about the timing of the named chair and full professor: in my experience (at least in the humanities; his might be the same or different) sometimes people get a major award or an offer from a university that would be a step up, and the counter-offer from the university to keep someone who was just recognized as a star is promotion, but this has to go through university systems incuding external review and might take a year or more, so the one thing a university can do is offer a named chair immediately to show their dedication while waiting for the system to play out. I know of a case of a composer at a good college, but not primarily known for music, who won one of the highest prizes for composition while she was an assistant professor, who was promoted over the course of three years to full professor, but was given a named chair immediately as a sort of "we'll keep our word" gesture to retain her. In any case, it still signals notability for WP cases. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. (I have also seen cases where the timing was the opposite: it was actually faster to hire someone, despite that process usually being slow at high levels, than to grind through the bureaucracy needed to approve the named chair.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tenured to a named chair and significant reviews passing WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 20:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the reviews added, this is a pretty clear WP:NAUTHOR pass regardless of whether or not the chair he holds qualifies for WP:NPROF#5. Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Book reviews are not a central metric for academic books. If you do not like citations, then you would either look at reviews in important outlets or more so book prizes (at most two of the reviews listed could possibly be considered important outlets). All that as an aside, five or fewer reviews per book would not even stand out in the subject's own department. At a minimum mid-double digits would be considered notable. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally are. These aren't reviews written by a bookworm on Goodreads, these are academic reviews in published journals. The article currently lists 13 across 3 books. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WP:PROF#C5 -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the nomination statement that the source about the congressional hearings "does not mention him at all" is false. It mentions him twice. The mention is in the subscriber-only part, not the free-to-the-public part of the source, but that should be irrelevant. Unfortunately both mentions are brief and in passing, so I don't think that source counts for much. It didn't source what it was used for here (a description of a political position taken by the subject) and for that reason I removed it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Delano[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Only source is an IMDB entry. Search returns no coverage. Fails WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obituaries for people with the same name, but nothing found otherwise for this film person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Bill Delano created this about himself. Aside from it being his autobiography, there is no substantive content. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, California, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per — Maile . Self-promotional article of a non-notable filmmaker (here are his personal websites: 1, 2). No SIGCOV at all of him or any of his work. Surprised this article has been up for 17 years. Mooonswimmer 18:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass any element of WP:NPROF, either. Qflib (talk) 20:09, 7 May 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]

Kristina M. Barkume[edit]

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

Rejected speedy deletion. Non notable academic. Fails GNG, WP:NACADEMIC Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a 2008 PhD, she has no non-student publications in astronomy (there is one on social media monitoring with many authors and low citations). She does not appear to have a subsequent academic career of any note, and instead has been working for Meta (for which she has no significant publicity). Her best first-author student paper, "Water ice on the satellite of Kuiper belt object 2003 EL61", has only double-digit citations, not enough to make a case that she was such an exceptional student as to be notable through her student work. So although I agree with the A7 decline (the bar is very low for that) I do not think she can be notable through WP:PROF nor through WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the analysis of academic publications above. For other AfD reviewers interested in more context, there seem to be some brief mentions in various outlets from 2006 and 2007, e.g., these Sky & Telescope articles from April and October 2006, this AAS meeting brief from October, and this New York Times article from March 2007. Best, Bridget (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nice summary by David Eppstein. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy WP:NPROF; discovery has not received significant coverage. Qflib (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Onouye[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Writing a few non-notable books doesn't really make you notable, especially as not scientific or media sources seem to exist. It's been 14 years since the issue has been raised. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. I missed this, but the first nomination closed as no consensus. Frankly, I feel the delete case is stronger here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I still don't see anything we could use for sourcing, same as the last time this came to AfD in January. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete as per points raised by Allan Nonymous below. Qflib (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Keep. As I mentioned last time: "the page needs improvement but should be kept. This is an educator who has spent most of his professional career in architectural practice in an impactful way within the city of Seattle; see C7 of WP:NPROF...a distinguished chair and an annual studio have been named in his honor at the University of Washington, which are closely connected to C5 of WP:NPROF." This last has to be highlighted; an R1 university has established a named chair in his honor. That doesn't happen every day. Usually it happens as a memorial after someone passes away (he's still kicking) or the individual himself makes a donation to fund the chair (no evidence of that). The subject is academically notable and the page should be expanded on, not deleted.Qflib (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C7, is a pretty clear fail, given his lack of any news articles, and uh... the endowed chair seems to have been a donation by a former student of his [3], so not sure that really fits C5. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That being the case, I’ll change my recommendation. Qflib (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be. I thought the name chair would be important but not for a former student. scope_creep^Talk 09:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minesh Mehta[edit]

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

Written as an advert for a radiation oncologist. Possible COI edits by User:Anniyam and User:Pikar 81. GobsPint (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Uganda, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but heavily trim. He has heavy citations for his work (WP:PROF#C1) and at some point at least appears to have held an endowed chair (#C5), the Eric Wolfe Professorship of Human Oncology at the University of Wisconsin, although the sources I can find for this are not great [4]. But the article is promotional and puffed up with non-accomplishments and non-reliable sources to the point where notability has become hard to discern. WP:DINC, but there is an argument to be made for WP:TNT here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per NPROF#1 based on the GS profile, h-index of 130 is clearly somebody who should have an article in Wikipedia. --hroest 16:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but heavily trim. I'll see what I can do about trimming this down and making it readable, but I agree with David Epstein. Qflib (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G. E. Kidder Smith[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBIO, only sources that I could find is one book from 2022 [5] (already cited extensively in the article, and authored in part by is grandson), and his obituary [6] in the NYT. Most of the contents of the article were added by one IP and do not look verifiable. His son Hopkinson Smith looks notable though. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Architecture, Photography, Military, Alabama, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Guggenheim Fellowship and an obituary (not paid death notice) in the New York Times should be enough by themselves. But (unsurprisingly for a prominent author of many books) there are also many book reviews to be found]. I found and added 28 published reviews of 8 books (multiple reviews for each), giving him an overwhelming pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the impressive expansion by David Eppstein. Aintabli (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per NAUTHOR. Thanks to David Eppstein for his work to find sources. --hroest 16:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan Aliyev[edit]

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

NO GNG. Created for advertising and PR purposes. The article is submitted for deletion as there are grounds for its deletion.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's (Correspondentman) right to edit on Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been indefinitely restricted by administrators. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Azerbaijan. Skynxnex (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad[edit]

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

After the cruft was removed, it seems there's nothing that supports WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No significant independent RS coverage that I could find. Only hits in WP:LIBRARY are his research papers and a quote in Men's Health about growth hormone therapy. His book is self-published and I couldn't find any reviews. That leaves us with WP:NPROF criteria. I think the research impact criterion is the only one that might apply, but I'm unfamiliar with the subject area so will leave that for others to evaluate. Jfire (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jfire, others, I do not see signs of significant academic impact here. I see on Google Scholar several papers with a moderate number of citations, but in a medium-to-higher citation field. (Even in a lower citation field, I'm generally looking for several papers with more citations than the highest cited one I see of his.) Awards listed in the article are all WP:MILL, as is membership on an editorial board. I was cursory in checking NAUTHOR and GNG, but did not quickly see a pass. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sadeghi-Nejad is one of the most notable experts in the field of pediatric endocrinology, globally, and his publications support that. A niche medical field does not have the same number of citations as more general research areas. In addition, the book Dreams of Persia is an important contribution to Persian-American culture and linguistic heritage. KatMaldon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — KatMaldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yohanna Bako[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Sources are either song releases, PRs, promo puff from primary sources, or clearly not independent of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:04, 2 May 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 Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - graduate assistants are basically never considered under WP:PROF guidelines, so we're looking at GNG or NMUSICIAN. I don't see a pass there. Guardian.ng seems to publish press releases as is under their name. If it were a real story, it would count towards notability, but real news stories don't end with "Dr. Yohan and TAP are thrilled to share this masterpiece with the world." -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOO SOON. WP:SIGCOV is yet to be seen. Best, Reading Beans 09:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. For failure to pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG criteria — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Rönnbäck[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to reach WP:NACADEMIC. All of the reference are to their own company website, own publication or the usual academic databases. Scopus shows H-factor of 5, with highest number of citation for any paper being 26, for a 2010 paper. The affiliation at Stockholm is unclear, as they have no web presence there (suggesting that they are not a principle investigator). The prizes look like routine conference early career development prizes, insufficient to establish notability. The maths book doesn't seem notable either. A merge to Anchor modeling could be considered (their most notable contribution perhaps), but wouldn't help the subject at that page. Klbrain (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a bit harsh. Is there no other notability criteria that can be deemed suitable? Sauer202 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Computing, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not pass any WP:PROF criterion (and in particular not #C1, because the citations are not high enough in a high-citation field). He (or someone with his name) apparently won some local teaching award in 2010 [7] but that doesn't pass #C2. We have no independent in-depth coverage of him needed for notability through WP:GNG and my searches didn't turn up any. One book would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR and we don't have any of the published reviews of it that (together with reviews of other books) could be used for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He is one of the persons "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" of anchor modeling.
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The local teaching award is in neurology, so it was probably awarded to this Lars Rönnbäck. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you follow the connected Wikidata item (which was available at the time of your comment), you will see that you are confusing Q125678771 Lars Rönnbäck (data architect) with Q76738550 Lars Rönnbäck (Swedish neuroscientist). Sauer202 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No. I pointed out that there is a neuroscientist with the same name, and that it probably was the neuroscientist that recieved the award. That is the opposite of confusing them, so your patronizing is uncalled-for. Sjö (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but my point is that the article has never claimed that he received a neurology award. Sauer202 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is one of the inventors of anchor modeling, a well-known data warehouse architecture, and is an active contributor in various open professional and social media channels about data warehouse architecture. I find it very weird that this should not meet any general notability criteria? Is this a competition about finding reasons to delete articles? Sauer202 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Our anchor modeling article is entirely primary-sourced, and although searches for that term in Google Scholar have many hits, many of them appear to be for an unrelated technique in audio signal processing. I am not convinced that this is a significant enough contribution to give its inventor inherited notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't view anchor modeling as primarily academic, but primarily applied. It is true that the Wikipedia article about anchor modeling is sparse (and I plan to develop it further), but that can not be held against its creator. Anchor modeling is open source, and its concepts are taught independently by Nikolay Golov at Harbour.Space University.[8] Nikolay has many interesting videos on YouTube with interesting comparisons of data vault and anchor modeling. Anchor modeling is the only data warehouse modeling technique that is 6NF, and therefore I think notability is inherited to its contributor. Sauer202 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it's not academic work that he might be notable for, then you need to go through our notability criterion for people notable for non-academic work, WP:NBIO. That requires independent publications that provide in-depth coverage of the person, seemingly even harder to reach in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add independent sources. Can you make a new assessment of whether it meets the threshold? Sauer202 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Bukoff[edit]

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

I can't find any sources on this guy anywhere. There are a few papers but they have few citations and he's hardly ever first or last author. WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC are both failed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and Michigan. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but the article does not even assert academic notability; it appears to be trying to claim that he is notable as a fine artist through having multiple works in notable collections. Fluxus is notable (and his connection to the movement can be documented [9]) but that does not give him inherited notability and he is not even mentioned on the Fluxus article. I'm not convinced that having copies of a newsletter kept in an academic library (see link above) is really the sort of thing that counts towards WP:ARTIST #4d, the way having individual paintings in major museums would count. He does have artworks, of a scale that would definitely count to #4d if they were in major museums [10] but the Coon Rapids Sculpture Park is not a major museum. If we could find similarly significant individual works by the subject, in multiple notable and bluelinked museums, I would likely have a different opinion, but my searches did not turn up any. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding any evidence of notability online. The talk page shows a nomination for a speedy delete in 2006, removed because an editor claimed they were still creating the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not allegation of notability, much less evidence of either WP:PROF or WP:NARTIST. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edward T. Jackson[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, without a lasting claim to relevance for the general public. Sadads (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly meets WP:NPROF criterion 3 as an elected member of the Royal Society of Arts.Central and Adams (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FRSA definitely does not pass #C3. It is (currently at least) the sort of fellowship given to paid subscribers as a way of letting them express that they are interested in the arts. It is not the sort of fellowship given only to people with significant academic accomplishments. See the description of what it means at Royal Society of Arts § Fellowship. This has come up repeatedly before but unfortunately I do not know of a good link where that past wisdom has been collected. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's a senior research fellow at a Canadian University [11], I'm not sure if that passes PROF notability. Carleton is a mid-level Canadian university in Ottawa. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was hoping the Citizenship medal would get some coverage, but I can only find his name in a list of winners. I don't see notability due to a lack of sourcing. If the chair position in my question above makes him notable, I'll revisit my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passed WP:PPROF, check This , clearly passes PROF notability. _Usimite (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. That just says that some research group hired him to be a researcher ("senior research fellow"). The word "fellow" is overloaded in academia, and again, this is not the sort of highest-level honorary membership in an academic society that would pass #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no evidence that he passes any of the criteria in WP:NPROF, including the material in the writeup given by Usimite. The criteria are very specific, and people have to be demonstratively notable in one or more of them. His award from the Canadian Evaluation Society is not big enough, as the relevant chapter has only ~450 members which is too small -- and it is a local not a national award. While he has contributed importantly to the University, it looks routine (WP:MILL) to me. The only possible pass is the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship which is notable enough to have a page. However, it is pretty low in the order for Canada, see Canadian honours order of wearing so I don't view it as passing the wider WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the article was full of puffery also. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cook (energy market strategist)[edit]

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

Given this article has had verification issues for nearly 12 years, and the fact that none of the sources satisfy WP:GNG mostly because they either lack WP:DEPTH or aren't independent. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, History, Sports, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 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!} 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Sorin Biris[edit]

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

Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a GoogleScholar profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with h-index 66 and i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced. Turgidson (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified. Kannarpady, the WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal. [12][13] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations — a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's keep the discussion focused on the article and not the nominator; there's enough to unpack w/o looking at motives. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with this article, but the editor's intent in removing it is questionable. Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- the citation counts (in a high citation discipline) and one independent coverage of notability seem barely enough to keep the article. Yes, it has too many dependent sources and isn't our best article (though it is salvagable). The high citations of articles where he is last author (institution director) take away a tiny bit from his notability as a researcher but puts it exactly in notability as a director/leader in higher education research. I could, however, be persuaded to go to either a full keep or weak delete with more evidence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Kannarpady who created this article seems to work for this person: https://ualr.edu/nanotechnology/about-us/researchers-and-staff/dr-ganesh-kannarpady/

Seems like personal beef. I would delete this article SleeplessSeatle (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see some highly cited papers, even in a higher citation field, but middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper doesn't convince me of so much. There are a couple of highly cited papers where Biris is last author, but one has been retracted for research misconduct. I did some work on trimming this down into shape (as did Turgidson), and it is no longer in WP:TNT territory, but the mess leaves me unconvinced of NPROF. There is definitely room for disagreement on this one, and I can also see policy-based arguments for keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really wish you had carefully read the following pages before you made change to the article :

[^[1]]

^[2] Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ How can Alexandru Biris be so successful at University of Arkansas at Little Rock? In just 5 years Mr. Biris published in more than 240 journals, presented at numerous international conferences, and been granted more than 33 U.S. patents. - Quora|https://www.quora.com/How-can-Alexandru-Biris-be-so-successful-at-University-of-Arkansas-at-Little-Rock-In-just-5-years-Mr-Biris-published-in-more-than-240-journals-presented-at-numerous-international-conferences-and-been-granted-more
^ Reused figures lead to two chemistry retractions, one correction|[1]

We cannot use the Quora source for anything concerning a living person, as it is user generated content. The retractionwatch source is already used in the article. Neither has much to do with notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Melo e Castro[edit]

(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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for Literature. Contributor892z (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. There is a misunderstanding here, on at least two counts. Firstly, the attainments of the subject are not as a Lecturer or in a British context, but rather in the field of Indo-Portuguese (and Portuguese) translations, and in the Lusophone world. Secondly, since the article is of niche and specialised interest (from a friend not many might understand or appreciate), it has not been updated for long. Melo e Castro's recent attainments have been overlooked in this listing. Have made some updates, please note. Fredericknoronha (talk)

@Fredericknoronha: looks like you have an undisclosed WP:COI as you mentioned you are a friend of the subject. Is that correct? Contributor892z (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not have the citations for WP:PROF nor the reviews of his books needed for WP:AUTHOR, and nothing in the article even hints at any other possible notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a possible notability claim beyond WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO, which he doesn't appear to meet. I'm sympathetic to the idea that he is notable as a translator in a particular niche, ie Lusophone works in Goa. But I'm not seeing any secondary coverage of him from that angle. I agree with David Eppstein that there is no prof/author notability claim here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror[edit]

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]

@North8000, Would you care to list your three "solid" references? Regards. X (talk) 18:22, 3 May 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]

Account has made thousands of edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia though. Doesn't seem like a problem Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the problem because you only started in Afd on the 2 May 2024 and you've never written any large articles of consequence to discover the problem. The reason its a problem is because the English Wikipedia has a much higher standard of notability requirements that most of other wikipedias and that includes the Hebrew Wikipedia. The reason for that is the paid-editing hassle that began in 2008 and ran for many years before it was fixed, that eventually led to much improvement in the BLP notability criteria, to a much higher standard than other Wikipedias. So that is reason for it. So for that editor to turn up, who hasn't edited any length on Wikipedia and doesn't know criteria is a real problem. While anybody can turn up and !vote, the statistical chance of somebody from the Hebrew wikipedia, coming to en Wikipedia, selecting this article and then coming to the Afd, minutes after I posted it, is almost zero. It does not happen. It indicates canvassing, orchestration, which is illegal on Wikipedia. It indicates that the group is working against Wikipedia, breaking the Terms of Use, and its is unfair and downright crass. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 4 May 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]

Editor has nearly 50k edits on Hebrew wikipedia, and stated that they translate a lot of articles, quite likely just on their watchlist Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason described above. Having 50k editor on another Wikipedia doesn't for squant in Afd. The editor took this stance in a previous Afd when the same spurious argument was made, a quantitive rather than qualitive argument. Numbers of reference do not count and haven't counted for more than decade, unless its WP:THREE. Its an argument to avoid in Afd, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. scope_creep^Talk 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be fine on WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 2 May 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]

@Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this. X (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zero^talk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zero^talk 15:00, 29 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]

Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.

Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy. X (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis for my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards. X (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Desertarun (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start: [41] [42] [43] . Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made a quantitive versus a qualitive argument in this comment and the last comment. Wikipedia strives for quality at every level and for some reason, you decided to support this article even when 4 other AFC editors in good standing decided it was junk. You have rationalised somehow that those other editors didn't make a proper WP:BEFORE review, before declining which is both disengengous and a failure of WP:AGF. Your essentially stating they have a lower standard of reviewing at AFC than yourself, yet you can't identify here what is good source amongst all these low quality sources and offer 3 paid for PR sources as though they valid, the best there is. It is an extremly poor argument for a supposed NPP reviewer in good standing, that fails WP:AGF in disparaging four good editors, one of which is myself who has written close to 750 articles (you have written 17 small article) and has almost twice the number of edits as you. Current consensus regarding WP:THREE, which changed last summer at a WP:RFA and is now considered best practice, is three WP:SECONDARY reference. Even though you happen to provide three reference for other editors to examine, which are extremely poor. I don't have confidence in you as an NPP reviewer. Lets looks at these references:

[44] This has video shot by the Shine company, where Dror does an another interview. It is classic PR where he WP:PUFF's himself up. That is not independent.
[45] The images come from Leaplearner which is Dror's company. It is PR and is not independent, failing the criteria.
[46] The images here have been provided by Dror. Its states it clearly. It is more PR and is not independent. His business partner states: "Hussein tells ISRAEL21c. “People like us have a responsibility to do something big." That is not idependent either. Its is a busines PR article. Its may be non-profit but it still not independent. scope_creep^Talk 17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far no indepth, secondary, independent coverage has been offerered. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many many elements in your post, include IMO mischaracterizations, ad hominem approaches and many which I consider to be out of bounds regarding Wikipedia behavior. It's not my MO to pursue such things. I'm not going to engage further on that and am content to let others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One quick exxtra note, having images supplied by or credited to the person in the image is common, not something that deprecates the published piece that it is used in. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels as odd as this AfD, to be honest. From a business point of view, I'd be a clear delete - I agree with scope_creep's analysis of the WP:THREE sources presented by North8000. It does seem like he could be a notable protestor, but the best-looking links I can see are either Youtube videos or interviews, not significant coverage. And there looks like some paywalled articles I can't access which might be significant coverage. I wouldn't have accepted this at AfC, it needs a complete re-write, it reads like it's written close to the subject, it's badly source-bombed, but it's not clearly not notable. I'm really not sure how to !vote here on notability grounds but notability isn't clear from the time I've spent parsing it, but if you made me make a decision about this one I'd draftify it. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From where did you get the idea that interviews are not significant coverage? How many non-notable people are regularly sought for interviews? Moreover, what someone says about themself in a interview is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Zero^talk 07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't significant coverage for WP:BLP's. Interviews can't prove notability for BLP's and that has been consensus for more than a decade. They are WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't know where you get this idea that is both misleading and disengenous that WP:ABOUTSELF seems to trump WP:BLP and WP:BIO. It is a complete of misreading of policy and completely out of date. I've done 1000's of Afd and I've never read anybody making a statement like that. Never seen it mention once. More so, concering your comment above, We live in the age of internet and youtube where folk with millions of followers get interviewed on the most banal things and that is seen by quanities of people that even in the golden age of mainstream press in the 1940-60's, could never compare. It is a false argument. There is no analysis here to show Dror has lasting notable, by secondary sources, the standard way of measurement of notability for people. It's Dror showing up at the camera and talking, for every reference. Its all surface and no depth. scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all applications of WP:ABOUTSELF are to primary sources, so that's not a valid argument. (Anyway, that is about the reliability of the content of the interview, which is different from the reliability of the interview itself.) As for interviews, it is not the mere fact of an interview that proves notability but the independence of the venue and the reason for the interview. If a journalist goes to an event and interviews whoever happens to be there, that obviously does not indicate notability. Nor does an interview sponsored by the interviewee. But if a journalist specifically seeks out a particular person to interview for publication, that is an obvious case of notability indicated by an independent reliable source. The independent reliable source in this case is the journalist and their news outlet. Notability is also indicated if the journalist's report emphasises the notability. So it is incorrect to just dismiss interviews out of hand; instead they have to be examined for their circumstances. I don't see any such examination here. For example, dismissing this as non-independent as you did is wrong unless Judy Maltz works for Ami Dror. By the way, your signature is ugly and visually annoying. Zero^talk 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying the newspaper and the journalist in this case are somehow exceptional and should be reliable in this instance, even though time and history has shown that argument to be be wholly false, in any number of ways, i.e. subject to human vagaries of corruption, incomeptence and all the other problems that beset humanity, human bias and political favour. There is no basis argument for that on Wikipedia. This is another curious and unusual fringe argument that I've not seen. For me, its never been the channel nor the venue that is important but the source that provides the information and whether another source reflects that information, making it uniquely idependent of the first, that is important in WP:V. That is whole reason for WP:SECONDARY sources. The argument has been reinforced at every level in my whole Wikipedia existance, right back to 2005. Its has no validity. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only time I seen that argument is in talk pages when its been used to support using some information like the date of birth taken from a twitter message or linkedin profile, not for a mainstream BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a logic error in confusing the reliability of an interview article (which means the interview is correctly reported) with the reliability of the interview content (which means the person being interviewed told the truth). There is no contradiction in a reliable interview article quoting the interviewee telling lies. The notability tick is placed if the interview article is reliable. Articles by journalists in respectable newspapers are one of the sources most commonly accepted as reliable in WP. In this example, as Haaretz has always been considered reliable, this is assumed to be a reliable report. Whether the things that Dror told the journalist are reliable is irrelevant for notability and thus irrelevant for AfD. (I would be happy to cite Haaretz in our article with attribution to Dror, but that's another argument.) Incidentally, I was already an admin when you joined WP so you won't get anywhere with the longevity argument. Zero^talk 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete nonsense. Yes, its true that newspapers are generally a good source, I use them all the time, but that covenant only holds when when there has been research by the journalist to construct the article not to turn up and ask a few questions of the interviewee and convey it verbatim. To say such a statement makes me question your competence. It is a not question of reliablity anyway. I never questioned that aspect in all the comments above. The problem is independence. There is not a single piece of information here that doesn't come directly from Dror. Thereis no filter. There is no analysis or verification from any other source as far as I can see. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you have no idea how much background research was done by the journalist for that article, and you brought no evidence for its unreliability. You just asserted it. Zero^talk 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be attempting to put words in my mouth, for the second time. I never made any mention of reliability in any argument. The problem is there is no corroborating evidence to show this individual is notable, nothing. Its all comes from him talking. All of it. Its a question of independence, not reliability. Interviews don't add up to squat. I can't make any progress with you. I suspect your involved somehow with your Freudian slip above, saying "our" article. Your views are diametrically opposed to the majority of folk who write content of Wikipedia and expect to work inside consensus. I'll not make any other comments to you, from this point forward. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing articles about people for GNG, I always discount interviews as non-secondary sources as required by GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid the context creep which might be starting, here was the context of me mentioning those three sources. "IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist.....For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:" So it was nothing more than that, it was not explanation of my own overall opinion on "whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist" North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my opinion on an answer to that question is a strong "yes". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I see WP:THREE invoked I always assume it's because the three sources presented clearly pass GNG, which I do not believe was the case (they all just sort of quoted him.) As I noted I'm not really sure where to fall on this, but if there are three that stood out which clearly pass GNG, I'd be happy to switch my !vote to a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, I did not bring up that essay, nor say that my assessment was based just on those three. It is based on going through a few thousand articles during NPP reviews and taking about 100 to AFD. GNG sourcing in this article is far stronger than a typical kept bio article; conversely criteria and application advocated by someone here would have about 3/4 of Wikipedia's bio articles deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't do a WP:BEFORE on it. Your joking? scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your insulting comment is doubly out of line. WP:BEFORE refers to person doing the AFD which is you. Secondly, I never said that anything that you could derive that statement from, even if it was applicable to me (which it isn't). You need to ease up on things regarding other editors here, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with that statement on 3/4ths of bios being deleted based on these "stricter" standards. The sourcing for this particular article just isn't that great. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look pretty WP:GNG solid to me:

Ref 3 [47] - Haaretz
Ref 32 [48] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [49] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [50] - in Israel21c

--Omer Toledano (talk) Omer Toledano (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all interviews with the subject, they don't pass the secondary prong of WP:GNG, and only Ref 3 is different from the one North8000 presented. They're also all business interviews, which can be solicited by subjects for marketing purposes (not insinuating this is the case, and WP:NCORP doesn't apply because it's a biography, but similar precautions need to be taken here). If he passes WP:GNG, it's likely because he's been covered independently as a protestor. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omert33, Ref 3 (Haaretz) is mostly an interview with 2 short paragraphs of texts followed up by primary elements, it's just him talking about himself and his activities. Ref 32 (Shine News) is also more of the same. Ref 33 (Calcalist), is even a more prevalent interview, from the starting paragraph. Ref 30 (Israel21c) is also like the rest here. X (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The "3/4" was just my off the cuff guess. On your last point, I never said that the GNG sourcing on this article was great, just stronger than average. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee[edit]

(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]
Weak Keep per GNG and per WP:NPROF#1 based on his GS profile, he seems to be highly cited for his field in ethics/philosophy. Also there is enough evidence for a GNG pass.--hroest 07:37, 1 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) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 we also have a case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of his books [51] [52] [53] [54]. Each case is borderline but I think together they're enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable. The subject overwhelmingly cites himself, never seen this before. See my comment below. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Easily searchable on google and has a myriad of academic articles. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that this article was previously AFD'd under another name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am considering this article strongly in favour of deletion. In 2022, the article was deleted (AFD#1 Robert W. McGee) and recreated under Robert McGee. The AFD#1 Robert W. McGee is a very interesting read where the subject joined in, seemingly WP:BLUDGEONING in order to justify his article. In terms of martial arts, he has accomplishments to be proud of but nothing to show WP notability, his martial arts championships are in senior age (limited participant divisions). Unverified claims such as "1020 medals" looks like Self promotion/vanity page. I also have a huge problem almost all the citations in the article. Citations such as "AT 72, ROBERT W. MCGEE IS JUST GETTING STARTED" published by Union Institute & University where the subject earned his PHD is absolutely non-independent and unreliable. As another user mentioned, (and I verified) if you look up the work of the subject called “The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice” the majority of the citations in this work are self-citations from the subject other work. Another of his work “Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews”, we noticed self-citation rate of around 80%. Most of the sources are from his own works/self-published. It’s quite concerning. Heavy self-citation technically makes citations WP:PROF#C1 unusable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that reduces the case for #C1 notability, but your rant about how all of the other stuff he did is uninteresting does nothing to address the case for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the multiple published reviews by other people of his books. Let me spell that out: we have multiple in-depth sources about his work, independent of that work and reliably published. That also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe article would need an entire rewrite if we base the notability off this criteria (WP:AUTHOR), as barely one sentence mentions his authorship. As for the reviews you mentioned, as you said, I find them borderline and not very compelling. I may be wrong, but I'm not at all convinced of the subject's notability as an author based on WP:AUTHOR, but I would be happy to change my vote if more info is brought forward to strengthen the case for WP:AUTHOR. Edit: I noticed your Delete vote on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee. I still see evident self promotion as you mentioned and I still don't see great coverage to meet GNG. I am wondering what made you change your mind? Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I didn't find the books and their reviews during the previous AfD. So now I have new evidence for notability that I didn't have earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Wilhelm Josef Oomens (via WP:PROD on 4 May 2024)
Caroline Fohlin (via WP:PROD on 3 May 2024)
Yussuf Aleem (via WP:PROD on 1 May 2024)
~~Jorge Aravena Llanca (via WP:PROD on 30 April 2024)~~

[1] How can Alexandru Biris be so successful at University of Arkansas at Little Rock? In just 5 years Mr. Biris published in more than 240 journals, presented at numerous international conferences, and been granted more than 33 U.S. patents. - Quora|https://www.quora.com/How-can-Alexandru-Biris-be-so-successful-at-University-of-Arkansas-at-Little-Rock-In-just-5-years-Mr-Biris-published-in-more-than-240-journals-presented-at-numerous-international-conferences-and-been-granted-more

[2] Reused figures lead to two chemistry retractions, one correction|[1]

[1]

[2]