Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

This listing is for biographical articles on academics. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles in general and WP:ACADEMIC for the widely-used notability standard for academics. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools for deletion debates about educational institutions.

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academics and educators. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators

Nick Clifford

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

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kade Ferris

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kade Ferris

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

I believe this article should be deleted because it clearly fails WP:NOTE. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources are a bit thin but I wouldn't say it's 'clear' either way. Did you look for sources? The article lists several books authored by the subject, did you look for reviews per WP:NAUTHOR? – Joe (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can't find anything to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. I still stand by deleting this article. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope this article fails notability guidelines for authors too. It seems this page was made by friends of the article's subject. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it was made by friends of the subject? Belbury (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His books appear to be self-published but that would be ok if there were reliably published reviews of them. I couldn't find any. The sources in the article now include a book review, but of someone else's book and mentioning Ferris only in passing. The only in-depth source that we have is a local-news obituary, appearing to be a family-written obituary rather than a work of independent journalism. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Kade Ferris is the author. Charles Albert Bender = Chief Bender and is the subject of the biography. There are other reviews of that book too. Anyway I'm leaning keep. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chief Bender meets notability guidelines for his sports career while Ferris does not meet any Wikipedia notability guidelines. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that the book Métis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People, with the author listed as Michel Hogue on the cover, is really by Kade Ferris? Because that is the book whose review I was referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Right. I clocked that the first time I read your comment, but the second time I read it, I read it the other way. I can add the other book reviews (of his book) and also quote from at least one other book I found. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article still seems to fail WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Minnesota, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that the review in American Indian Children's Literature got removed from the article as a source. I am adding it back. While the site itself could be construed as a blog, the reason this particular blog qualifies as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS, is that it is produced by Debbie Reese, who is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded it to include more about the impact of his tribal history preservation work and the impact that has on reservations, ND and MN educational standards and added information about his mapping skills. oncamera _{(talk page)} 08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how this article ceases to fail WP:NOTE WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His written work as an author and oral traditions that he embedded within his maps, blogs, and recorded videos for the state of North Dakota established notability. He was a respected tribal historian and elder knowledge keeper and professional work reflects that. oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been puffed up with some 30 footnotes, most of which do not seem to be the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. Of the ones that actually mention Ferris or his works in their title, "Kade Ferris's Gift" is an interview (not usually counted as independent), the Red Lake Nation News obituary reads like a family-written obituary (not independent), the Mendoza book review is in a blog (not reliably published), Teachings of Our Elders is by him not about him, and Archaeologist presents has no depth of coverage of Ferris. Perhaps, per WP:THREE, advocates of keeping the article could save us the effort of similarly evaluating all 30 of the footnotes and point us to three sources that are actually in-depth, independent, and reliably-published? I'm looking for a small number of high-quality sources, at most three, not many low-quality sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be helpful to hear the three best sources. It seems like notability is marginal at best and it's hard to see through all the passing coverage. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article was already extremely well cited, but I added an infobox and a little bit more. His notability stems from his tribal historic preservation work which is interdisciplinary (history, anthropology, archaeology, policy making, language advocacy, etc.) Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address the discussion above about lack of high-quality sourcing, rather than merely asserting that "This article was already extremely well cited" when clearly it isn't? It has many sources but that misses the point. We need a small number of high-quality sources, and continuing to add larger numbers of low-quality sources only makes notability harder to discern by hiding the good sources in a big pile of dross. It would be better to remove both the low-quality sources and the material sourced to them so that we can focus on the essentials. The sources you added (his own dissertation and a web page about someone else that mentions him in passing) do not contribute to notability according to Wikipedia's standards for notability, which are not based on the work the subject might have done but rather on the depth of coverage of the subject in sources that are independent of him and meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cowell

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

Does not meet WP:NECONOMIST, could not find any coverage to establish notability. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of citations on Google Scholar, enough for WP:PROF#C1, and plenty of reviews of his many books, enough for WP:AUTHOR. I don't think being a full professor at LSE provides automatic notability through WP:PROF#C5 or otherwise, but it is certainly suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PS RePEc lists him in the top 100 economists in the UK, out of some 4600 listed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the citations in G-Scholar and his publishing history (some of his books are in their 3rd or later editions, and I presume they are being used as textbooks) he easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. I am concerned that we do not have sources for the biographical information - however, all of that is found in his CV. Although that is not independent it is at least a source, so I'm going to source the bio paragraph to that document, hoping that something better will come along. Lamona (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think for basic biographical claims that are not disputed or dubious, a cv is fine as a source, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. It doesn't contribute to notability, but that's not the point of using it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Read

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

Not seeing much to satisfy WP:BIO: no reviews of his books that I can find, and the Stevie Awards are, according to its own article, won by about 30-40% of its nominees. (I have also nominated the awards for deletion too.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I'm not impressed by the list of prizes, but that may be because I don't know much about prizes in the business world. The opening sentence says he is a researcher, but one can search in vain for information about what research he has done. Athel cb (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hasan Osama

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

Suspected terrorist, with no claims to notability and sourcing does not indicate passing WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh

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

The author challenged the draftification done by Zinnober9. Based on my check, I don’t think the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criteria. I looked for reliable sources but did not find any. If anyone finds sources in Hindi or other languages, you are welcome to share them here. His books are also not notable. In my opinion, there is no need for draftification anymore. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, and Bihar. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. Sources are just poor and unreliable such as using Wikipedia Commons to source on his early life and education. The author's achievement is not significant or noteworthy to satisfy notability and to warrant a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my rudimentary findings, this person does not meet WP:GNG as there is little to no coverage of the author, and my impression of most of the sources existing in this article/draft were from this author's works; which is problematic for reliably sourcing any claims or facts stated within. I realize that there could be reliable sources in Hindi that would support this draft, but I do not know Hindi, and I am not personally interested in this subject. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As someone who made a few edits on the article, I was debating between moving it back to draft or bringing it to AfD, but since it's been brought to AfD already, I'll cast my vote. Also note that this link here of one of his works listed on the page is nominated for deletion due to possible copyvio and false rationale for uploading (i.e. not own work). Procyon117 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No in-depth coverage, fails WP:AUTHOR. Youknow? (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dear,I would like to humbly request you that you have put a request to remove or delete the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh by proving it false, but you do not know anything about that Indian Hindi writer Hariballabh Narayan Singh. According to the information received from Google / Internet Archive and more reliable sources, Hariballabh Narayan Singh is a reputed writer of Indian Hindi language who has written many books in Hindi language, he has written a commentary book on Hindi grammar named Sugam Hindi Vyakaran Evam Rachna and he has also written many books like:Shiksha Vichar Manthan etc. You should once take information from reliable sources and I humbly request you to please withdraw or cancel the request you have put to remove the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh. Thank you. 2409:408A:1E06:D395:C395:471E:16C9:10F7 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Contributing editor is actively discussing reasons for a keep on their user talk page instead of here where the actual vote is. @Archivehindu: Please add your viewpoint here, as this is where the evidence and full discussion for determining if the subject qualifies in regards to sourcing and WP:GNG and such. And please comment here while logged in. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dear @Zinnober9 I would like to humbly request you that you have put a request to remove or delete the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh by proving it false, but you do not know anything about that Indian Hindi writer Hariballabh Narayan Singh. According to the information received from Google / Internet Archive and more reliable sources, Hariballabh Narayan Singh is a reputed writer of Indian Hindi language who has written many books in Hindi language, he has written a commentary book on Hindi grammar named Sugam Hindi Vyakaran Evam Rachna (view reliable source here) and he has also written many books like:Shiksha Vichar Manthan (view reliable source here) etc. You should once take information from reliable sources and I humbly request you to please withdraw or cancel the request you have put to remove the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh. Thank you. Archivehindu (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Archivehindu: Google itself is not a reliable source; it is a search engine where you can find both reliable and unreliable sources. The Internet Archive links you provided contain books written by the author, but that does not make him notable. Writing a book does not make someone notable; there needs to be enough coverage about the author or their works, which I currently cannot find. You are repeating your words; please cite reliable sources such as newspapers or secondary books with which the author is not connected. I hope you understand. GrabUp - Talk 07:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not question his being a published author or his reputation, and I have no issue with his works being sources for verifying statements in the article. What I, and others here are having an issue with is the lack of sources available showing that he meets notability requirements. His being a published author and having those works does not satisfy in regards to notability, as his works themselves are not used to determine notability (this is clearly stated in WP:GNG). Other people talking about his works establish notability and (so far) there has not been evidence of significant coverage by other people talking about him in reliable sources.

Of the sources I've looked at that you added, most were either blogs, or the author's work. Author's work I just mentioned above. Blogs are not to be used per WP:BLOGS. The newspaper articles, or any reliable news coverage that focus on him are a great start, but there doesn't seem to be that many, and so still lacks evidence of significant coverage.

I did not submit this AFD request, so I can not withdraw this request. I also still currently agree with this request, so even if I could, I would not at this time. To change my mind, you would have to show that there has been significant, reliable coverage of other people talking about him from the news or from other people's published works. Arguing that his works are notable because he has written many is not proof of notability, and is not evidence of significant coverage. Other people must be talking about him from a reliable setting.

We are not trying to be difficult, we are trying to make sure that your contributed article/draft meets the specific, required criteria that all other biography articles must meet, and have tried to be clear about what this draft, so far, has been lacking so that you could address these concerns and change our minds. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zinnober9 Archivehindu (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmudul Hasan Gunovi

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

Suspected terrorist fails WP:GNG. No coverage beyond arrest. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Coverage does not transcend his arrest. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winfried W. Weber

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NPROF. There are references to articles written by the subject, however there is no secondary coverage of the subject as a journalist. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Management. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: citations to work seem negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: This article doesn't quite meet WP:NPROF. While it mentions the subject's own writings, there aren't enough independent sources discussing their journalistic career. Waqar💬 17:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Shirazy

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

I see nothing that persuades me that he passes WP:BIO, nor WP:NPROF, nor WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor WP:NATHLETE. A draft of this name already exists. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of resume-material involving his works, miscellaneous papers, work experience, and poetry writing, but nothing that seems to definitively secure his notability. Closest thing might be his (failed?/successful?) candidacy for the assembly. The recent COI activity doesn't help either. GuardianH (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be part of a cross multiple wiki spamming exercise by the creating editor. There is a possibility that this is self promotion, whcih I rate currently at a 0.75 probability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bastien

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

Cited sources do not establish notability, and could not find anything more convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in a Korean source [1] and reviews of a book he co-authored [2] and [3] Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT ref does not seem to be a review from what I can see. The second is a vanity publisher & therefore effectivlt self-published.TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Notable, sources, has written a book. --McSyl (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having written a book isn't enough to meet the relevant standard. Indeed, the usual rule-of-thumb is that an author has to have received multiple reviews for each of multiple books in order to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Magnani

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

Not particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
- Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [4] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [5] [6] [7] [8]
- Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [9] [10] [11]

Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [12][13] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [14] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 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) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Faingold

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

I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are in reliable sources. That's the point. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joe's exactly right, and this is the reason why WP:NPROF is constructed the way that it is at present. Qflib (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I've closed hundreds of AFD discussions and for academics, citation counts are routinely considered in discussing notability. They are not the only factor but they are a factor that shouldn't be casually dismissed as being arbitrary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:PROF#C1 based on citations which, yeah, like it or not, is the most common way of assessing whether someone meets WP:PROF#C1. Scopus lists 5746 citations to Faingold's papers which, in Wikipedianese, means that there are 5746 reliable sources covering Faingold's work. Most of these will be passing mentions but it is still incredibly unlikely that with more than five thousand potential sources we won't find enough to support a decent summary of his contributions to science. That's enough for an article (biographical details are nice to round it out, but not strictly necessary) and the core logic of WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Tinashe Mushakavanhu (via WP:PROD on 1 July 2024)
Busha Taa (via WP:PROD on 30 June 2024)
Dale Allender (via WP:PROD on 27 June 2024)
Hakan Yılmaz (political scientist) (via WP:PROD on 26 June 2024)
~~Hallvard Lillehammer (via WP:PROD on 25 June 2024)~~