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

Bruce Hedman

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF from his publications listed in scholar, and I can't find any other evidence that he's notable: the Templeton award he won seems to be different from the Templeton prize since that had a different winner in 1993, and the International Association for Jungian Studies doesn't appear to be a selective organization. Psychastes (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: H-index of 6 is exceptionally low for a senior academic; getting an award for a paper from the Templeton Foundation most decidedly not the Templeton Prize. I don't see any evidence of notability here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The better-cited of the papers in his Google Scholar profile seem to be mostly respectable papers in graph theory and the history of mathematics (although I do wonder why one of them is in Hadronic Journal); these are low-citation fields but we can't use the small citation numbers as a reason for keeping. The sources in the article are not in-depth and independent, and searching failed to turn up anything better, so we have no evidence for notability through WP:GNG nor through any WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hedman is not the traditional professor or minister. His areas of study / specialization are definitely niche. And his integration field such as mathematics & religion, Jungian psychology & first people's art are notable. While the his Templeton recognition is not the main prize, he is recognized for his paper in the field of Humility theology, which is again not "mainstream", is notable. - — ERcheck (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a stronger and more specific argument for this than WP:ITSNOTABLE? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that one paper is enough to make a person notable (in Wikipedia's sense of the word), outside of truly exceptional cases. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not totally unheard of, Edmund Gettier is a salient philosophy example, though there are certainly others. but Gettier's paper currently has 6400+ citations in google scholar and largely defined the last 50 years of epistemology, while the paper in discussion here on Cantor has... five, all of which are papers which also have a single digit number of citations. Psychastes (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citability is low, and there is nothing else to indicate notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dröscher

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. I will put aside the question for the time being as to whether Heim Theory really does pass WP:GNG/WP:NFRINGE and whether we need two articles (one on the "theory" and one on the eponymous author), but this article seems to be claiming a kind of inherited notability from those obscure points. I don't really see serious coverage of this person in independent sources. jps (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Spaceflight, and Germany. jps (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (inherited notability), seems to be notable only for developing Heim theory, but the theory's article in turn credits most of its proposal to Burkhard Heim and does not mention Droscher at all. GoldRomean (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited and GS cites are too small to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Notability not established. The only tangible achievement cited is being co-author of a paper that won a minor award given by a sub-committee which the other co-author headed. - Donald Albury 13:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, does not todaly clear WP:GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of being, by all indications, a marginal figure even for a marginal topic. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 2006 AfD got it mostly wrong -- even within the (fringe) area of work isn't sufficiently cited as an authority. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lello Zolla

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

AfD to enforce draftification. BLP of a perhaps notable academic with zero sources. Multiple editors have tagged the page for lack of inline sources, peacock, inaccurate sourcing and other issues. Article has been declined more than one, and has a history of removal of both AfC & maintenance tags. Most recent editor overrode AfC declination moving page with zero sources to main and again removing maintenance tags. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and Italy. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. He may well pass WP:PROF#C1 but the article is unsourced and unready for mainspace. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with the above. He is certainly worthy of an article, but this one is completely unacceptable as it stands. His research output is good, and his origins with Erno Antonini and Maurizio Brunori -- two of the greatest Italian biochemists in the second of half of the 20th century -- could hardly be better. I should probably be familiar with Lello Zolla's work, but I'm not, at least, not until I look it up. I'm amazed that neither Antonini nor Brunori have English Wikipedia pages, though Brunori has one in Italian. Surely with the flood of obscure football players there ought to be room for them. In the case of Antonini I don't think I have the knowledge to write one, but I ought to be able to do something for Brunori (whom I know pesonally) if I can raise the energy. Athel cb (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. Substantial improvements are underway, and I would like to clarify that:

1) I'm gonna reviewing the article to include inline citations and a references section, primarily using peer-reviewed publications and institutional profiles (e.g., Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and university websites).

2) Lello Zolla meets the criteria under WP:PROF#C1 due to his extensive peer-reviewed publication record (100+ papers), with notable research in proteomics, metabolomics, and chromatography applied to both human and plant biology.

3) He was also instrumental in the creation of the Journal of Proteomics, a high-impact journal in the field.

I acknowledge that the earlier version lacked sufficient sourcing and tags were removed too early — I take full responsibility and am addressing these issues in good faith. I respectfully request that the article be moved back to Draft, if necessary, rather than deleted, to allow time for a thorough revision to meet notability and sourcing requirements.

On a related note: every time I submit or revise the article, I receive unsolicited emails offering paid editing services from people claiming to be “Wikipedia reviewers,” proposing to fix the article for money. These messages only arrive after each submission, which I find troubling. I sincerely hope that these contacts are not related in any way to the review process itself, but I wanted to mention this for transparency’s sake. My intention is simply to contribute in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, independently and without commercial involvement. Fveneziano93 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Yes, those are WP:SCAMs. GoldRomean (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check if the article is now compliant? 2A02:B125:12:4B26:CC94:9B20:F5EE:A9D3 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check if the article is now compliant? Fveneziano93 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sheldon

AfDs for this article:

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

this article was previously deleted, and remade despite no further evidence of notability / meeting WP:PROF Psychastes (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous article, and the first nomination that led to its deletion, appears to have actually been about another Mark Sheldon; that one was about a politician (mayor), not the philosopher and professor of medicine that is the current subject. (I have no opinion on the current article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Medicine, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His job title, "distinguished senior lecturer", is one that in US universities designates someone hired for teaching rather than for scholarship but who has been at it long enough to be distinguished and senior; it is not itself a sign of notability or its lack, but it is not promising. (In universities in UK-based systems it would have a completely different meaning.) I searched but was unable to find well-cited publications or multiply-reviewed books that could lead to WP:PROF#C1 or WP:AUTHOR notability. There is a different Mark A. Sheldon with a well-cited paper on semantic file systems but even that one paper wouldn't tip the scale. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was previously a full professor at Indiana University Northwest, however. See the bulletin here for example[1]. However that's not great either, since it's not the flagship IU campus. Jahaza (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The "distinguished" in "distinguished senior lecturer" is an assertion of notability (in teaching, research, or a combination of both) from a flagship institution which in my view does (and should) count towards a WP:PROF pass but in itself, without published documentation about what that distinction was, is not itself enough to pass. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schmid

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

Fails WP:PROF, nothing in google scholar for *this* eric schmid, none of the listed papers have any significant number of citations Psychastes (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Switzerland, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I am skeptical of WP:NCREATIVE, and the current article does not make a case for it. Commenting that several of the references in the article do not appear to mention the subject here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still looking into sources in the article and a BEFORE, but it seems that what is here are a lot of name-check mentions, listings, connected non-independent sources, or brief snippet of content that are basically mentions rather than sustained in-depth significant coverage that we would normally see for a notable artist. No notable exhibitions, nor works in permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, nor the usual art historical sources nor art critical/theoretical coverage. Holding off on !Voting for now until I do a deeper search, but it looks like he is not a notable artist or curator. Also want to mention that curators do not inherit the notability of the artists they select for shows they curate. Netherzone (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Someone has to cast the first !vote) -- one reason for general guidelines like WP:NPROF's statement that graduate students are very rarely notable is to help wade through mountains of side-mentions, mentions-of-groups-participated-in, etc. and all the other near citations that this article is full of and let us ask, "is there a significant reliable source that says that this person is significantly important in any of his fields?" Without it, it's WP:TOOSOON to have an article. (keep up the good work Eric...) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.Nandibewoor

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

I can't find any reliable secondary source that mentions this professor. Sources that backed up his achievements are mostly links to Wikipedia pages, and only one source shows that he is a professor in Karnatak University. Also, the article is poorly edited. I think it failed WP:GNG 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 14:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. His citation record could potentially make a case for WP:NPROF#C1, although I think it's borderline at best. But the article as it stands is an AI-generated mess that's almost entirely uncited or cited only to Wikipedia. If someone wants to clean this up it's not impossible that he might meet NPROF, but I'm having trouble finding sources that would allow us to write an adequate BLP in any case. The article as it stands is pretty much entirely unsalvageable. MCE89 (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and TNT. All sources except the irins link (which is generic and not about the subject) are either WP:CIRCULAR references to Wikipedia itself, or tagged as via chatgpt. Nothing here can be verified and even if it could we would need TNT to eradicate any chatgpt-generated content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. And the fact that this article will require fundamental rewrite to confirm to standards, irrespective to notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting Wikipedia standards, poorly sourced and a non-notable article.Almandavi (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TNT was never more relevant than for this article. Someone wanting to make a case for notability would need to start over anyhow. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tajmar

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Woodward (physicist) and I came over here to find a WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTCV promotional article for an academic that I do not see passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. None of these sources is truly independent of the subject in the way we would want for a proper biography what with the WP:FRINGEBLP implications. The cringeworthy picture included makes me think there has probably been some WP:PROMO going on and while AfD is not cleanup, this seems to me to indicate that a WP:TNT is warranted and I doubt anything will arise from the ashes. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Spaceflight, and Germany. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the past discussion from 2008 about whether this article should be deleted seemed to have suffered at the time from an undue credulity that the ideas for which Tajmar's notability was being argued, were somehow not WP:FRINGE proposals. The benefit of time, I hope, shows that they really, truly are and that the sourcing does not rise to the required WP:FRIND levels for proper inclusion in our encyclopedia. jps (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with sourcing required. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Which sourcing? The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the extremely low bar of WP:NPROF. Most of their papers are barely cited, and when they are it's often in predatory journals or bottom tier ones. Not all the time, but often enough that citations are too low to matter. Awards are also minor. This is not a notable researcher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After evaluating the sources in the article and searching for other possibilities, I agree with jps and Headbomb. Nothing indicates that an article is warranted here. The awards are inconsequential fluff, and the citation record would be unremarkable even if all the citations came from worthwhile journals, which they don't. (Two of the sources currently in the article are conference proceedings. In physics, that's little better than writing a blog post about your work.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tajmar’s TU Dresden profile [2] lists his key publications from 2003 to 2011. These have a median of about 25 citations on Google Scholar, which is modest for an academic. A JSTOR search only turns up a single passing mention, which doesn’t suggest much academic attention. His CV also shows no listed publications from 2012 to 2020, despite being updated in 2020. This falls short of notability under WP:PROF and WP:GNG. On top of that, the article also gives weight to a 2006 gravitomagnetic experiment that has never been independently replicated, raising WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE concerns. This is more than a cleanup issue. The subject does not meet the standard for a standalone article. HerBauhaus (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, does not todaly clear WP:GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalvo Ferreira Santos

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

Didn't see this was already deleted through a prod back in 2020, so not eligible for prod. Same two issues apply. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. And does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find the publications and citations that would be needed for WP:PROF#C1, and his administrative positions are not at the high level (head of entire university) that would be needed for #C6. With the possible exception of the government source for his honorary Sergipe citizenship [3] the sources do not have the depth of coverage and independence needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Hedengren

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

Sourced entirely to academic/scholarly databases, organizations, and articles, some of which do not seem independent of subject. Not enough significant coverage shown in secondary sources. His daughter Jane seems to be far more notable. Would appreciate input of editors that specialize in academia. Furthermore, User:OptimiserPrime appears to have a conflict of interest with a similar article James B. Rawlings and perhaps Hedengren as well. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did find this source but one alone is not enough. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Texas, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Nominator does not address most relevant SNG of WP:NPROF. And COI by itself is not a reason for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a field I know, so I am assuming that having one academic paper with over 400 cites and another with over 200 (plus others with fewer cites) is significant for his field. From the sources I read he is "somebody" in his field, based on professional activities and the fact that he runs a research group at BYU. Lamona (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professor (Full) at BYU, an R1 research institute, and winner of the John R. Ragazzini Award is enough to satisfy WP:NPROF which is the relevant deletion criterion. (The athletic section might also be relevant under a different notability subject? I don't know, but a HOF at an NCAA Div I might be enough there too?). In any case, whether his daughter is or isn't also notable is irrelevant here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Rawlings

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

Same reason that I nominated John D. Hedengren for deletion. Entirely sourced to academic databases or organizations, and not enough independent secondary sources shown. Also, User:OptimiserPrime seems to have an apparent conflict of interest with the subject (and perhaps Hedengren as well) based on the user's edit summaries. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion because of an incorrect deletion rationale and not properly understanding Wikipedia policy pertaining to the notability of academics. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - subject meets WP:NPROF C1 - has some very highly cited works, h-index of 80, WP:NPROF C3 via IEEE fellowship, and WP:NPROF C5 via named chair. Zzz plant (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. His named professorships (Paul A. Elfers Chair and later Mellichamp Process Control Chair) each pass WP:PROF#C5, his society fellowships (AIChE, IFAC, and IEEE) each pass #C3 (and in fact IEEE Fellow is listed in WP:PROF as a prototypical example of something that passes #C3), his other awards make a plausible case for #C2, and his massive citation counts (one publication with a 5-digit count, h-index 80) give him a clear pass of #C1. The nomination rationale is totally erroneous: it doesn't even consider WP:PROF notability, which does not rely on the existence of secondary sourcing and does not require sources to be independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't specialize in academia but article creator has a likely COI with the article subject. I'm happy to withdraw my deletion nomination if Wikipedia policy for academics deems him notable.

I always thought Wikipedia needed to reference secondary, independent sources from the media (which is what we do for athletics). Was unaware that scientific journals and organizations counted, especially if they have a direct tie to the article's subject. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KnowledgeIsPower9281, athletics is covered in the daily news. Academic contributions are not. WP:NPROF gives the reliable sources that verify significant contributions to their fields. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Has held named chairs at two top-tier public research universities. Member of the National Academy of Engineering. Please refer to WP:PROF. Jahaza (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, California, Texas, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Woodward (physicist)

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

The WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:NFRINGE considerations of this page makes me think that James Woodward is just likely not notable. None of the sources listed mention him seriously as a person and I question whether his fringe theory really is all that notable. Certainly his idea is not published reliably, but instead are in fringe journals, and there does not seem to be WP:FRIND sources available to the degree we would normally wish. When academics are supposed to be "notable" for the claims outside their field of expertise, it is an immediate WP:REDFLAG. I think this is not deserving of an article. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Spaceflight. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to meet WP:NPROF. Only two of the seven sources cited are independent of him, and those two don't provide significant coverage of Woodward, but rather more about the flaws in weird propulsion science. More telling, we can compare Woodward's h-index of 58[4] with what's typical for a full professor in the sciences [5], suggesting that he isn't notable, but rather average in terms of scholarly impact. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Google Scholar profile page is for a different James Woodward, a philosopher of science who worked at the University of Pittsburgh. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, New York, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find evidence that Woodward is notable (in either the colloquial or the Wikipedian sense of the word) as a person. The general topic of esoteric space drives that would require violations of known physics is encyclopedia-worthy, like perpetual motion machines and squaring the circle. But the "Mach effect" is just one proposal in a long line of them. I doubt there's enough in reliable sources about it to justify giving it an article, and there's certainly much less justification for having an article about Woodward as a person. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, if suitable WP:RS exists the theories can be assigned to some relevant article, but they seem minor even in that odd line of concepts. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the similarity of name and topic I am convinced that all the publications that might contribute to WP:PROF#C1 are by the other James F. Woodward (who is definitely notable despite our problems with his article) and that all publications that might contribute to notability for this James F. Woodward are fringe physics. They don't have enough citations for #C1, and I was unable to find reviews that might contribute to WP:AUTHOR for his book Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes, let alone the mainstream reviews needed for WP:NPOV-compliant coverage of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I taught physics twice and had my articles rejected after peer review by Ralph Alpher. That doesn't make me notable, and neither does it make this guy, who fails PROF badly. We are not the place to post original content and we never have. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the current state of the article is not good, WP:PROF is not the only metric for notability. WP:GNG may be satisfied. Woodward's career, and the fringe nature of his research, has been covered in depth by the likes of Scientific American^[1] Wired magazine,^[2] Big Think,^[3] as well as a shorter article in the Orange County Register.^[4] His research is summarized and built upon briefly in a paper by Martin Tajmar.^[5] I'm not well-versed in physics, theoretical, or otherwise, but if someone did a deep literature dive it's plausible even more reliable secondary coverage could be found. If people and/or their ideas have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, then they are notable. Simply summarizing Woodward's controversial research, as Wired and Scientific American have, should not be considered promotion of it. The third-party sources I've found in a few minutes of googling can largely replace the existing primary sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out Martin Tajmar article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar (2nd nomination). N.b. Wired and Scientific American did not do their due diligence in seeing how out-on-a-limb this guy (and others in those articles) really is. See WP:SENSATION -- which is, sadly, what both of these otherwise upstanding source fell into. As for OCR and Big Think, those two sources are much more commonly recognized for credulity pushing. jps (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-science magazines and websites are generally unsuitable for writing about fringe topics. They nearly inevitably skew to the sensationalist; they've been known to grant unearned credibility to total nonsense. (The industry has a history of getting suckered by space drive stories in particular.) Credulously "summarizing" claims that violate basic principles of physics is promoting them. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Scoles, Sarah (August 2019). "The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion". Scientific American: 58–65. JSTOR 27265292.
^ Oberhaus, Daniel (September 3, 2020). "Gravity, Gizmos, and a Grand Theory of Interstellar Travel". Wired.
^ Johnson, Stephan (September 7, 2020). "NASA-funded scientist says 'MEGA drive' could enable interstellar travel". Big Think.
^ Cruz, Sherri (May 21, 2013). "Woodward's Wormholes". Orange County Register.
^ Tajmar, Martin (2017). "Mach-Effect thruster model". Acta Astronautica. 141: 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.09.021.

Yasmeen Hanoosh

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

Apparent subject request: talk:Yasmeen_Hanoosh#Please_delete_page ···sardonism · t · c 08:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. ···sardonism · t · c 08:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appears to clearly fall short of WP:SIGCOV from what I have been able to gather, thus I think we should lean in favour of granting the request. ···sardonism · t · c 08:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can only find one review of her books[6] and no profiles. However, the reason for this !vote is lack of notability and not "security concerns". The article is no more a security concern than the subjects LinkedIn page or her faculty profile. Jahaza (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found the same review on JSTOR 27099782 and another review of her translation of someone else's book on JSTOR 23062852. It's not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR for me, and definitely not enough to provide the clear case for notability needed to keep an article in the face of a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, assuming that can be verified. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her faculty page and the linked cv seem to include most of the content of this article so it's difficult to understand how our article poses a risk. It would be better for her to go through the formal system to request this deletion (but on a quick look around I can't find this: Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects just refers someone wanting their article deleted to go to Wikipedia:Deletion policy; Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself doesn't seem to address requests for article removal, only for removal of specific content). We do not know that the IP requesting deletion is the article subject rather than someone else wishing to remove her from Wikipedia. PamD 07:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD you're looking for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. It's further down on WP: Biographies of Living Persons than the "Dealing with articles about yourself" section. Jahaza (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza That still doesn't help the reader much: It says to use AfD or "requesting that a member of the Volunteer Response Team do so", which gives a link to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. There, it says "To contact the volunteer response team, please see Wikipedia:Contact us.", with a link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Readers, with a link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. There, there are instructions about making a COI edit request, and "If this does not help, or for further information, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects.", but Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects#How can I get rid of the article about myself or my company? just refers them back to the deletion policy. Not great. PamD 11:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The final paragraph of Wikipedia:Contact us is useful, but likely to be overlooked as the left-hand margin has a clear link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects, which an article subject is likely to follow: that page seems to provide less, rather than more, information for someone like this person who wants their article deleted. PamD 11:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. she fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR with a single review of a single book (I will not count the review of a translation). She is at best marginally notable, most likely not notable at all. In this case deletion is the prudent course of action independent of the deletion request. --hroest 18:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Hanoosh became notable last week, because she was placed on administrative leave on Friday June 6, 2025. Please consider this deletion carefully, since it is important news.

https://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2025/06/07/portland-state-university-places-professor-on-leave-after-video-shows-her-saying-i-am-hamas/ 129.95.164.214 (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. This is an evolving news event. The faculty member is notable for past statements and a conflict with the university president. 129.95.164.214 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST; the comment by IP 129... makes it clear that the somewhat vague description by the requestor of this article as a "security threat" is a genuine case of "real-world harm identified by the subject". 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject request and borderline notability on either WP:NPROF or GNG (at least at present; 129.95.164.214 is right that this is an evolving event; but does not seem to be turning into larger coverage that would warrant keeping). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moloney

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

No sigcov after Googling, and the sources in the article aren't enough. Only the Sports Business Journal seems significant. The Reuters and MarketWatch articles don't mention him, the Bizjournals bio isn't a real article, and the rest are WP:PRIMARY or passing mentions. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable; only primary sources, and those merely say that he has had various jobs in the commercial world. I can't find any RS. Lamona (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BuySomeApples. Thank you for reviewing the article. If I could find more secondary and reliable sources on the internet, would it be possible to prevent the page from being deleted? Sergiomarcus (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sergiomarcus: of course! The purpose of a deletion nomination is to give people time to find sources and even improve the article if they can. Even if you can't find sources now, there's nothing stopping you from recreating the page if the topic becomes notable later. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Merlevède

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

I am nominating Florence Merlevède for deletion as she does not meet WP:PROF criteria for academic notability.

Research Impact (WP:PROF#C1): While Merlevède has published in probability theory, her citation count (2,329 on Google Scholar)^[1] falls short of the threshold typically considered "highly cited," even in low-citation fields like mathematics.

Selective Honors (WP:PROF#C3): The 2021 IMS Fellowship^[2] is not clearly exceptional: about 34 fellows are selected annually^[3] from ~4,000 members^[4] — a substantial proportion.

Other criteria: No indication of major academic awards, named chairs, or high-profile research leadership. Editorial board service^[5] is routine and insufficient on its own.

Sourcing (WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:PRIMARY): The article is based largely on primary or routine sources: university homepage^[6], the Mathematics Genealogy Project^[7], brief catalog reviews^[8], and the IMS announcement^[2]. No in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources has been found.

BLP and NOTDIR Concerns: The article is largely a CV-style listing of affiliations and roles, with no detailed discussion of impact. As a WP:BLP, higher standards of sourcing and notability apply. The subject appears notable within her institution, but not in a way that meets Wikipedia inclusion standards.

Conclusion: This article does not meet WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or WP:BLP standards. Without evidence of exceptional academic impact or significant independent coverage, deletion is appropriate. Alternatively, content could be merged into Probability theory or related articles per WP:MERGE.

I am nominating the article on Florence Merlevède for deletion because it demonstrably fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics (WP:PROF) and the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Despite Merlevède’s position as a professor at Gustave Eiffel University and her 2021 Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS) fellowship, the article lacks evidence of the exceptional impact or widespread recognition required for a standalone Wikipedia page. A thorough search across Google Scholar, news outlets, JSTOR, and general web sources reveals no independent, reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of her work or contributions, as required by WP:GNG.

The article’s sources are inadequate to establish notability: 1. The Gustave Eiffel University profile [1] is a primary source, offering no independent analysis. 2. The Mathematics Genealogy Project [2] is a routine database entry, irrelevant to notability. 3. The two reviews of her book *Functional Gaussian Approximation for Dependent Structures* [3] are standard academic reviews (Zbl 1447.60003, MR3930596), not evidence of broad impact or recognition. 4. Her editorial role in *Probability Theory and Related Fields* [4] is a common academic responsibility and does not demonstrate exceptional distinction under WP:PROF. 5. The IMS fellowship announcement [5] is a primary source from the IMS website, lacking in-depth, independent coverage.

A comprehensive search for additional sources confirms this deficiency. On Google Scholar, Merlevède’s publications, including her 2019 book, have modest citation counts (tens to low hundreds), far below the threshold of highly cited works typical for notable academics under WP:PROF. No news articles in major outlets (e.g., Le Monde, The New York Times) or in-depth scholarly discussions on JSTOR mention her contributions. The absence of independent profiles, biographies, or significant awards beyond the IMS fellowship—shared by many academics without Wikipedia pages—further underscores the lack of notability.

Potential arguments for keeping the article, such as the IMS fellowship or editorial role, do not hold under scrutiny. WP:PROF requires that honors like fellowships reflect exceptional impact (e.g., major international awards or field-defining contributions), and the IMS fellowship, while prestigious, is not rare enough to confer automatic notability. Similarly, editorial roles are routine for senior academics and do not alone justify a standalone article. Without robust, independent sources demonstrating significant coverage or impact, retaining this article risks undermining Wikipedia’s notability standards by including academics with routine credentials.

I urge editors to provide verifiable, independent secondary sources (e.g., news articles, books, or in-depth reviews) to establish notability during this discussion. If no such sources are found, I propose deleting the article or, as a lesser alternative, merging any salvageable content into a broader article on probability theory or dependent random variables. restored and struck original nomination - StarryGrandma (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EditorSage42 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC) — EditorSage42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Florence Merlevède". Google Scholar. Retrieved 2024-03-15.
^ ^a ^b "IMS names 2021 Fellows". Institute of Mathematical Statistics. 2021-04-22. Retrieved 2021-10-16.
^ "IMS Fellows: a little history". Institute of Mathematical Statistics. Retrieved 2024-03-15.
^ "About IMS". Institute of Mathematical Statistics. Retrieved 2024-03-15.
^ "Probability Theory and Related Fields editors". Archived from the original on 2024-03-15. Retrieved 2024-03-15.
^ "Florence Merlevède". Université Gustave Eiffel. Retrieved 2021-10-16.
^ "Florence Merlevède". Mathematics Genealogy Project. Retrieved 2021-10-16.
^ Reviews of Functional Gaussian Approximation for Dependent Structures: Dominique Lépingle, Zbl 1447.60003; N. C. Weber, MR3930596

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (well-cited publications [7] for a low-cited area, probability theory) and WP:PROF#C3 (Fellow of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics), and give a WP:TROUT to the nominator for using AI text generation to hide their nomination rationale in a sea of unreadable verbiage, and for a bad deletion rationale that claims to evaluate the article against WP:PROF but actually only considers WP:GNG-related criteria. In particular, WP:PROF does not require secondary sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: WP:PROF#C1 requires "highly cited" work - her papers have modest citations (tens to low hundreds), not the threshold typical for notable academics. WP:PROF#C3 fellowships are common - hundreds receive IMS fellowships without Wikipedia pages. The detailed rationale reflects thorough research, not poor faith editing. EditorSage42 (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the Institute of Mathematical Statistics says she is notable (she has "outstanding contributions" in the field). Let's not waste editors time in this. 2804:14D:4CD8:423A:2D44:F041:4133:F431 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2804:14D:4CD8:423A:2D44:F041:4133:F431: IMS fellowships are awarded to hundreds of academics annually. "Outstanding contributions" is standard fellowship language, not evidence of exceptional notability warranting a Wikipedia article. EditorSage42 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact this is completely false. The number of IMS Fellows named in 2024 was 34 [8], not "hundreds". This is in line with other societies for which we count fellowship as an honor worthy of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: You're correct about 34 annual fellows, but this strengthens the deletion case. With 1,098 total Fellows since 1935 and ~470 living Fellows among 4,700 members, this represents 10% of membership - hardly exclusive. Annual counts vary from 7-38 with median 17, so 34 is above average. When hundreds globally hold this honor, it's insufficient alone for Wikipedia notability without independent secondary sources showing broader impact - which Merlevède lacks per WP:GNG. EditorSage42 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation records look credible for WP:NPROF C1 in a low citation field (noting that her work is more torward mathematics than statistic), and I think the IMS fellow program meets NPROF C3. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe: "Credible" citations aren't equivalent to "highly cited." Her work falls below citation thresholds typical for notable academics even in specialized mathematical fields. EditorSage42 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EditorSage42, I'm seeing several papers with over 100 citations. In a low-citation field like mathematics, I think that is enough. Combined with the election as an IMS fellow, it looks unambiguous. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe: Thanks. Papers with 100–200 citations are respectable, but WP:PROF#C1 requires *widely* cited work—even in low-citation fields. IMS Fellowship is an honor, but with 30+ awarded yearly and many fellows lacking Wikipedia pages, it isn’t by itself enough for WP:PROF#C3. Merlevède is a strong academic, but that alone doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s notability threshold. EditorSage42 (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only, based on past consensuses, it very clearly does. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe: If IMS fellowship clearly meets notability, why do many IMS fellows with similar or stronger records not have Wikipedia pages? That suggests the honor alone isn’t always enough.

Also, per WP:PROF, notability requires *exceptional* impact. With 30+ fellows named annually, the title is respected but not rare. Without strong independent sources or widely cited work, this article doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s standards. Deletion still seems appropriate. EditorSage42 (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 in a low-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: Low-cited fields don't mean lowered standards. Even within probability theory, truly notable academics demonstrate significantly higher citation counts and broader recognition. EditorSage42 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NPROF C3: IMS fellow and WP:NPROF C1: several highly-cited works (where she is first author, i.e. it's not a 15th-of-30 authors-situation). Zzz plant (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzz plant: Her highest-cited works have ~100-200 citations - hardly "highly-cited" for mathematics. First authorship doesn't compensate for modest overall impact. EditorSage42 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to keep arguments: Wikipedia isn't a directory of professors with fellowships. Without independent sources demonstrating broader impact beyond routine academic credentials, this article fails basic notability standards regardless of field-specific considerations. EditorSage42 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to be new here, despite finding your way to WP:AFD, you might want to read WP:BLUDGEON. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'll limit further responses to substantive new points only. The core issue remains: lack of independent secondary sources per WP:GNG. EditorSage42 (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is completely irrelevant to WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken regarding WP:PROF sourcing standards. I'll focus on whether the specific WP:PROF criteria are met rather than WP:GNG requirements. EditorSage42 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the claims in the nominator's deletion argument are irrelevant, and the others are incorrect. For example, using the Mathematics Genealogy Project and a university homepage are not bad things. Sources like that are fine for routine claims, like who a person's PhD supervisors were, which is how they are used here. The article is not written like a CV; a CV would recapitulate the whole list of publications, rather than giving a brief synopsis of the education and career highlights as done here. Even if it were written like a CV, that by itself wouldn't be a reason to delete the article, but rather a reason to clean it up. I am convinced that the criteria for being a highly-cited researcher and for being recognized by a prestigious fellowship are both met. Despite the nominator's claim above, "low-cited fields" do "mean lower standards", insofar as it requires smaller absolute numbers to stand out relatively. Likewise, even if many IMS fellows currently lack Wikipedia pages, that doesn't mean that IMS fellowship is a minor deal. Plenty of meritorious subjects lack Wikipedia articles simply because nobody has had the time to write them yet. The nomination is written in a verbose, bullet-point-ish style, and the references in it that weren't copied from the original article fail to support the claims to which they are attached. The citation for "about 34 fellows are selected annually" redirects to IMS Fellows 2014, which says nothing about the annual average. The title of that supposed citation, "IMS Fellows: a little history", only appears on a 2015 blog post, which says that the median number for 1971–2015 was 17. The citation for "~4,000 members" redirects to the About page for the IMS Bulletin, which obviously says nothing about how big the IMS membership is. The formatting, the disconnect between text and references, and some features of the many replies above suggest that a chatbot was used, which merits censure. (The nominator repeatedly rewriting the nomination while the discussion is ongoing is also quite confusing.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the nomination statement has been significantly revised since the original nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. I don't know if there's an explicit rule against that, but it's definitely impolite. And I have the suspicion that multiple passes through a chatbot were involved. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction: I accept your corrections. However, they strengthen the deletion case:
1. Citations
- Merlevède: 2,312^[1]
- Top probability theorists: 10,000–30,000^[2]
- Even field-adjusted per IMU guidelines^[3], not exceptional
2. IMS Fellowship
- ~10% selectivity (470 fellows / 4,700 members)^[4]
- Compare: NAS ~0.02% of US scientists^[5]
- Many fellows lack Wikipedia pages
3. WP:PROF Failure
- WP:PROF#C3: 10% ≠ "highly selective"
- WP:PROF#C1: No independent sources showing "significant impact"
- Editorial boards = "routine and insufficient"
4. Precedent
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics regularly deletes similar profiles
- WP:NOTDIR: Not a professional directory
5. Gender
- Women underrepresented (20% IMS)^[6]
- Lowering standards isn't the solution
- Focus on women who clearly meet criteria
Conclusion: Standard academic career. WP:PROF presumes average professors not notable. Without exceptional impact or significant coverage, delete. EditorSage42 (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

No. You keep repeating yourself without showing any indication that you understand the replies being made to you. For example, I explained why fellows lacking Wikipedia pages is not an argument for deletion, yet you just repeat that it is. You say that "Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics regularly deletes similar profiles", but WikiProject Mathematics is just a place for Wikipedia editors who like mathematics to hang out. It's not a decision-making body, and it doesn't delete any pages. And the people who do hang out there say that this page should be kept. You link to a page supposedly about "top probability theorists" for no clear reason; Wikipedia doesn't require a person to be among the top-5 most cited mathematicians in a field to be notable. Your "Gender" bullet point is completely irrelevant. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this reply increases my confidence that a chatbot is being used to produce these replies. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction: You're right to call out my citation errors, and I apologize for those mistakes. However, your response actually exposes the fundamental flaw in the keep argument: you make assertions without evidence while criticizing me for the same.

You claim she meets "highly cited" standards but provide zero citation thresholds or comparative data. You assert IMS fellowship is sufficiently "prestigious" but offer no analysis of its selectivity or comparison to other honors we reject. When I noted approximately 10% selectivity among living members, you simply ignored the mathematics entirely.

Your "editorial time" explanation for missing fellow pages is particularly weak—if IMS fellowship truly met our notability bar, we'd see more coverage, not systematic gaps. You can't simultaneously argue it's an exceptional honor while explaining away why most recipients lack Wikipedia presence.

Most critically, you completely avoid the sourcing issue. This article has zero independent coverage—no news profiles, no scholarly discussions of her impact, no book reviews examining her contributions. Just institutional pages and databases. You correctly note WP:PROF doesn't require secondary sources, but when "highly cited" and "highly selective" become purely subjective (as here), independent coverage typically distinguishes truly notable academics from accomplished ones.

Your argument reduces to: "trust my judgment that these accomplishments are exceptional." But Wikipedia requires verifiable standards, not editorial opinion. Without objective metrics or independent sources, we're creating precedent that routine academic success—respectable citations plus professional honors—warrants inclusion, directly contradicting WP:NOTDIR. EditorSage42 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EditorSage42, I do not think that your WP:BLUDGEONing of the process is having the effect that you wish it to have here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe: You're right. I've made my position clear and should let the discussion proceed without further repetitive arguments from me. I'll step back now and let others weigh in. EditorSage42 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:NPROF as others have already said, for a low citation rate field and the fellowship. Doesn't really add much weight, there is at least one short review of her book. I also note that hundreds receive IMS fellowships without Wikipedia pages isn't a valid reason for deletion, as per WP:WHATABOUTX. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete not a clear-cut case but the citation count is on the very low end to meet NPROF#1 and the case for NPROF#3 is really not that strong. An h-index of 26 is in the somewhat low side so I would say that this is rather WP:TOOSOON and the field is not *that* low in citation as a glance at the papers that cite her work confirms, hundreds to thousands of citations for high impact papers are not that uncommon in this field as well. She doesnt really pass the "average professor" test in her field. --hroest 17:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lindsey

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

Fails WP:NBIO; some promotional content. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Indiana, and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. There's no such thing as a "certified STEM teacher". Bearian (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent sources, there is a short blurb in the SurfKY article and an interview in the Kentucky monthly (primary source) but nothing really substantial and in depth. --hroest 16:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaynab El Bernoussi

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. And does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR, meager citation count, some minor awards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some older sources that list assistant professor, but they are outdated and old. The admission to the Weatherhead Center for Interntational Affairs and lecture at the Harvard law school were notable achievements. Another notable event was organizing the International Prayer for Peace in 2006. 196.74.228.91 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some older sources that list assistant professor, but they are outdated and old. The admission to the Weatherhead Center for Interntational Affairs and lecture at the Harvard law school were notable achievements. Another notable event was organizing the International Prayer for Peace in 2006. 196.75.253.199 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The selection for a doctoral fellowship at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill under the mentorship of Charles Kurzman in 2014 was also another significant achievment for a scholar born and raised in Morocco. 196.75.253.199 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

She was recently names Recipient of the 2025 Global South Award [9] [10] (does this satisfy "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."? WP:NACADEMIC

I found some of her work published on reputable publications, does that contribute to her notability as an academic in any way? for example Oxford Columbia Uni

She was appointed Interim Chair of the Department of Humanities at The Africa Institute [11] (does this satisfy "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." or "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society."? WP:NACADEMIC Rap no Davinci (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Global South award is not notable enough to satisfy NACADEMIC. Having worked published in and of itself is not indicative of passing WP notability standards. Rather, how many others have cited her work? In this case, the answer is not many. Interim chairs also do not count as notable. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to address all the 3 questions I had.

unfortunately I am not familiar with her work, so I can't help with much as I don't know if she has " significant impact in their scholarly discipline". but one last attempt:

she has been cited by quite a number of scholars, Scholar books now if they're reviewing one of her works, that could be something I believe, maybe WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR, but I don't have much time to dig that deep, the creator of the article might be better familiar with her work and can help with this part!

She's won few other prizes like the Arab Prize, but probably still not notable enough: "Ms. Zaynab El Bernoussi from Morocco won the third prize of 5,000 USD for her paper published in English, “The Postcolonial Politics of Dignity: From the 1956 Suez Nationalization to the 2011 Revolution in Egypt”." [12]

She sits at the Editorial Board of Cambridge, not sure if that in itself is enough, but might add something! [13]

cheers! Rap no Davinci (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if possible. The author was reviewed by the notable Aili Mari Tripp (who visited Morocco), Jan Nederveen Pieterse (as he invited her to UC Santa Barbara), Joseph Nye and Herbert Kelman (during her program at Harvard University). She also contributed with a piece at the notable Project Syndicate. 196.75.127.190 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The work is notable on the Arab Spring, especially from a Moroccan woman. There is also significant work in decolonizing international political economy, critical security studies, and a unique theorization of the concept of dignity. 196.65.226.219 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Tavakoli

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

Someone that says they are the subject requested deletion on BLPN and on the article talk page. An IP editor attempted to nominate for AfD discussion, but the nomination wasn't correctly formed. I am nominating as a courtesy. I think that the subject probably meets notability, but give some weight to the request from (presumably) the subject, so I am neutral at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLPN discussion at WP:BLPN#Request for Review/Deletion - Janet Tavakoli. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would seem to pass AUTHOR with sources 8 and 12 being book reviews. Seems to be a fairly neutral article, I don't see anything controversial about it. Looks notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She seems to want it removed (from the discussion threat above) due to scammers emailing her. I understand the frustration, but I'm not sure a scam email is our concern, to be blunt. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the following reasons;

The subject of the article initially got interested in it back in 2013, when IP66 (presumed to be her) expressed the belief that the addition of {{Notability}} to Janet Tavakoli was intended as a retaliatory action in response to criticism she leveled at Wikipedia in an article on HuffPost. To my knowledge, before the addition of the template she never objected to the existence of the article. I harbour a good-faith belief that, had the template never been added, we likely never would have heard from her.
Apparent efforts by Janet to have the article removed have largely relied upon the clarification that the article had been created without her participation / knowledge / consent. I find the notion that Wikipedia requires the authorisation of the subject of an article to document notable material regarding them profoundly troubling. Examples of pertinent edits: One, Two, Three (see also: the edit summary of Edit #3).
While she has admittedly expressed a preference for article deletion, I think it's only fair to observe that her contributions to the website have been far from an unequivocal attempt at its deletion. Instead, she has been positively falling over herself to tell us about her career, accomplishments, and prominence. In the very same edit as previously linked she refers to being interviewed by, writing for, or being written about by C-SPAN, Forbes, CBS Evening News, and CBC News - in addition to clarifying one of her books is now in its third edition. I've never seen quite such a self-promotional (bordering on self-aggrandizement, tbqf) effort at claiming not to be notable in all my life. That particular edit almost reads like satire.
As a matter or principle, I don't believe in being more Catholic than the Pope (it's an idiom). The only argument in favour of deletion that I can possibly see is to suggest that the subject of the article is insufficiently notable. Even Janet herself has not been prepared to stake this claim. Now - I could understand someone not having realised this, but Janet has actually been incredibly careful with her choice of words. I have reviewed every edit by both IP66 and Contributions/Requester123 and I have yet to find a single instance of Janet claiming not to be a notable figure. We've had "I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards" (29 May 2025, 18:42 (UTC)), "as I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards" (29 May 2025, 23:47 (UTC)), "does not claim to meet notability standards" (31 May 2025, 22:09 (UTC)), and "Page created without consent of living subject who does not claim to meet notability standards" (1 June 2025, 14:11 (UTC)). But never just "I am not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." If she isn't prepared to claim she isn't notable, I don't see why anyone else should on her behalf.
The subject of the article is demonstrably a significant figure who more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. She has authored a minimum of nine books under her own name, in addition to ten books under the pseudonym Michael K. Clancy. IMDb describes her as an "internationally renowned finance expert." According to this page, she has written for and / or been quoted by The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, New York Times, The Economist, Business Week, Fortune, Global Risk Review, RISK, IDD, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, LIPPER HedgeWorld, Asset Securitization Report, Journal of Structured Finance, Investor Dealers’ Digest, International Securitization Report, Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Magazine, Credit, Derivatives Week, TheStreet.com, and Finance World. The same page further states she has been featured on television by CNN, CNBC, BNN, CBS Evening News, Bloomberg TV, First Business Morning News, Fox, ABC, and the BBC. Finally, she has been profiled by both Bloomberg and the University of Chicago.
I could foresee the use of a pseudonym being cited as potentially being an example of her not seeking to have a public profile. Speaking as a self-confessed zombie nerd, the use of a pseudonym for zombie-focused science fiction novels but not finance-focused books strikes me as being an effort to separate them in a bid to avoid her criticisms of individuals and bodies from being associated with her other pursuits. That she expressly claims authorship of the latter on her website suggests it's not a bid at anonymity.
While it's not necessarily part of the process, I believe we could look at WP:LOWPROFILE to help us gauge whether the deletion request forms part of an apparent effort by a person to 'lie low'. Criterion #1 is 'Media attention': Janet has herself, while arguing in favour of deletion, referred to numerous outlets that she has granted interviews. Criterion #2 is 'Promotional activities': In addition to Janet Tavakoli having a prominent biography on the website of her company - which she has named after herself - she also has the personal website JanetTavakoli.com which lists some of the books she has written. Criterion #3 is 'Appearances and performances': Janet promotes her availability as a speaker at events. I would also argue that some of her financial books would appear to qualify. Criterion #4 is 'Eminence': Janet has been profiled by the University of Chicago, "Structured success" and Bloomberg, "The Cassandra of Credit Derivatives". Additionally, she has appeared as an expert before forums of the IMF, the SEC, and the Federal Reserve bank. Finally, Criterion #5 is 'Behavior pattern and activity level': I've seen nothing to suggest her career is in any way over or in a lull. Zombies and Men (Z-Factor Book 4) by "Michael K. Clancy" was published in mid-2022, and the 3rd edition of Credit Derivatives and Securitization: Instruments and Applications was published earlier that same year.
The only known example of harm caused to Janet by the existence of the article is the receipt of a single spam email. While I could perhaps be somewhat persuaded by this were the subject of the article at disproportionate risk of falling for scams and the like, to my knowledge Janet is a perfectly competent (and, indeed, rather impressive) individual who is readily capable of disregarding such trivial inconveniences.

For whatever it might be worth - I bear no ill will toward Janet. The more I learn of her, the more I admire her. I just don't happen to think there's a great argument in favour of deletion. ···sardonism · t · c 10:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. Elsewhere a community member has raised the notion of this being a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE case, but I've yet to see an argument that even a single factor cited on the page applies. I believe the onus is on those proposing that the article be deleted - not pointing the finger at you, Russ - to demonstrate that it should be. As this has not happened to any meaningful degree, I am presently unable to support deletion. ···sardonism · t · c 15:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, similar past discussions have often ended in delete when any notability was marginal, or in keep when notability was solid enough that the article seems essential to the encyclopedia. As WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says, "editors should seriously consider honoring such requests." Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. (Saw this mentioned at the BLPN thread). The article has received an average of 4 page views daily over the past year (from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025). The general reader base won't be impacted at all if this article were to be deleted judging by the extremely low page views. If the BLP subject, who may not "clearly pass the general notability guideline", wishes to delete their article, we should honor their request. Some1 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks Russ Woodroofe for your assistance. The subject of this article is of borderline notability: I agree with Oaktree b that the article would probably survive a deletion nomination on pure notability grounds (as either keep or no consensus), but the article was tagged for notability in October 2021 and there were a grand total of 6 edits to it from that point until the article subject began requesting deletion a few days ago (four automated, one vandalism, one vandalism revert), so it's not a slam dunk. BLPREQUESTDELETE says Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests. Factors weighing in favor of deletion include a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, ... Obviously this person is not a government official, and the case for passing GNG is nonzero but far short of a clear pass, and the subject has identified a genuine harm (being targeted by scammers). Needless to say that Sardonism's very long comment is completely beside the point. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is exactly the sort of situation that I warned about in my speech earlier this year at Wikimedia NYC: very marginally notable people being targeted by scammers. The interviews (and articles in Forbes) do not contribute to significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject has not sought fame, unlike two other examples this year. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject, while sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia that seeks to be a compendium of all human knowledge, falls short of the degree of notability that reasonably requires Wikipedia to maintain an article against her wishes. Routine activity as a speaker in one's area of expertise and a supporting CV are not the earmarks of the more robust notability that would warrant keeping this article regardless. Requests of this nature have been honored throughout our history, albeit not with perfect consistency, and we should continue to receptive to these request, and grant them when we can. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete per BLPREQUESTDELETE as detailed in the policy, this is a case of marginal notability. While she does have multiple books that were reviewed in the general press and a several hundred citations on GS across three books, this would probably still fall within the "average professor output" under WP:NPROF. Furthermore, while we cannot base deletion decision on the fact that scammers exploit this situation, marginal notability + request for deletion is sufficient reason for me even in a case like this where the subject doesnt keep a low media profile per se. --hroest 16:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The book reviews are enough that I would go for a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR if we did not have a request from the subject, but I think the case is still borderline enough for us to respect WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't think it will cause significant gaps to our coverage to not have an article on this subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jingyi Jessica Li

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

Promotional biography. Article author has moved this to mainspace after several declines at AFC, and has resisted re-drafticiation, so here we are at AFD. The only independent reliable source cited is for a listing on Innovators Under 35's regional China sublist. The rest of the citations are written by the article subject. I have looked and not been able to find better sourcing. One source is not enough to hang WP:GNG on, and they do not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NPROFESSOR, so I think this one ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Biology, Medicine, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her citation record (h-index over 30, 13 publications with 100+ citations) looks OK for WP:NPROF#1 (maybe a bit borderline) but I would say that her Overton Prize and recent Guggenheim Fellowship (I just added that information to the article) count for WP:NPROF#2. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Overton Prize and the Guggenheim Fellowship both contribute to WP:PROF #2 ("highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"). After receiving the Overton Prize, there was an extended article on her in the journal Bioinformatics [14], which also contributes to notability. I did a little tidying up to make this less resume-like and more appropriate for Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. While the awards are relevant, they are all early career to at most mid-career, so not the type of major peer awards for WP:NPROF#C2 IMO. When I look at her citations, I think we need to ignore the first (consortium) source. With just the others she has an h-factor of 33, which by comparison to some of her co-authors such as Peter J. Bickel, Steven E. Brenner or Kai-Wai_Chang is not that impressive, it is not a low citation area. (The first two are more senior, but Chang is not.) I am not impressed by just having a few articles with > 100 cites, my benchmark is more > 1000. Perhaps I am harder to impress... Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NPROF#2a; the Guggenheim Fellowship is limited to mid-career (and later) academics (not students, even postgrads) and is even listed as an example for prestigious awards. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wathek Zair

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

Unnotable scientist who fails WP:G, WP:NPROF and/or WP:SIGCOV with a low h-factor and no awards. Page is full of WP:Peacock with dubious claims, self-published work and refences to vanity articles. Novice editor has repeatedly removed maintenance tags, ignored review suggestions and restored to main after draftification. I see no way to repair this article, time to delete it. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Science, and England. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems notable in his field. He invented and introduced few drugs and founder of a pharmaceutical company. Passes WP:BASIC. CresiaBilli (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from duplicating your identical content beneath all my votes and comments.CresiaBilli (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think; I'm not convinced that his own publications are sufficient for NPROF #C1, or that he's got sufficient independent sourcing to satisfy GNG. Google Scholar messes up and returns the publications of a wide range of other people, which isn't helping. I'm also very unconvinced that his company Parkers Pharma Limited (which claims to make rodenticides) is itself notable. At least its UK activities seem to be a very small micro-company with few employees, and a google search finds only its social media activities, not its products. Searching for the actual products advertised on our Parkers Pharma article or on the company's website (taken from our article) similarly finds unrelated topics. This just isn't normal for a company claiming to have customers in 35+ countries and a wide range of products. The text associated with the products is largely identical to that of PelGar products. I am smelling rats. Elemimele (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele, a good point about his GS_profile. Since he created it, it is his responsibility to purge citations from it that are incorrect, some happen. However, this does look like a deliberately misleading profile. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article reads like a CV (WP:Peacock), sources in general do not support claims made (WP:V - a few publications on the same topic don't support a claim of "substantial contributions," particularly when it looks like all the papers were sourced from the single PhD thesis), and the pharma company appears to be a [minor family business] with 10 employees and no assets.

Crmccull000 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crmccull000 has total edit count 28 and registered account on 28 May, 2025. specially came here for adding his first Delete vote here. Seems like a puppet of an experienced user.CresiaBilli (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Copyedits to the article were suggested as a "new user task" and I saw the deletion discussion banner. Disregard my argument if you think it has no merit, but don't resort to ad hominem. Crmccull000 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the correct explanation which is asked above from you. I smell you are a sock of nominator Ldm1954. Neo9812 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo9812, please do not make accusations like this without evidence. The explanation provided is completely appropriate, and indicates careful analysis. I request that you apologies to @Crmccull000. My skin is tough enough that I will ignore your comment. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to add to Ldm1954's considered nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The delete votes here are not strong due to lack of resource analysis. As an inventor and scientist Mr. Zair is notable who meets Wikipedia's Notability Standards for a scientist. Neo9812 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist. Let's analyze the references in the article one at a time and compare to WP:RS, WP:INDY, and WP:V guidelines.
1. Sales pitch for Parker's Pharma product. Not independent, not reliable.
2. Same as 1, different product. Not independent, not reliable.
3. Appears to be a press release - no indication of interview with subject or critical coverage. Not independent, not reliable.
4. Self-authored registry entry. Not independent, not reliable.
5. Unable to substantiate, may be OK (supporting section may be in the Arabic portion).
6. Brief, self-authored newsletter article (appears to be based on PhD work, see 7). Not independent for information regarding the author.
7. PhD thesis (self-authored). Not independent for information regarding the author.
8. Journal article (self-authored, based on PhD thesis, see p. 6 of thesis). Not independent for information regarding the author.
9. Points back to the same thesis as 7 - not sure why it is listed twice. Not independent for information regarding the author.
10. Storage stability test data and materials certification for one of Parker Pharma's products. Does not support the cited claim (appears to show Zair as an employee of a pest control manufacturer? See page 2). Irrelevant reference.
11. Self-authored book, published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a suspected predatory publisher. Figures at minimum are generated by AI - see for example pdf page 17 of the referenced sample. Not independent for information regarding the author, not reliable.
With the possible exception of ref. 5, which I am unable to verify due to unfamiliarity with the language, none of the numbered references can be considered WP:SIGCOV. Crmccull000 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Popescu (author)

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

Seems like a pretty random guy, with no in-depth coverage, just some self-generated, promotional profiles. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not a vote (yet) but I don't think the article title is sufficient to differentiate this Andrei Popescu from possibly 1-2 other academics with the same name. I am having a hard time finding information about the crypto Popescu compared to the mathematician Popescu. Moritoriko (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the method would be to search in conjunction with his books. Geschichte (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In my searching I have found the textbook but it is pretty recent so nothing shows that it is notable (yet). Looking at his and other finance gscholar profiles he seems to be in the low-mid range for cites, primarily buoyed off two papers. As for business profiles everything I saw is connected to him or not good enough source wise. comment: the following is not part of my delete opinion but the author is currently under sock investigation as part of a multi-year promotional sock-farm. Moritoriko (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Wightman

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

A decent author and professor that wrote some interesting short stories that by and large seems to have escaped notability to live a quiet life. Nothing in the article claims notability and other than his name being included in a couple lists of science fiction authors I can't find any independent information about him. (But give some of his short stories on TWL a read maybe) Moritoriko (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Moritoriko (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science fiction and fantasy, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It would be great if here at Wikipedia we could keep up the level of coverage found in the secondary sources as described in the nomination and the sources in the article. I expect that there is not enough for stand-alone notability, so a merge as WP:Alternative to deletion would be best. The main question is where. List of science fiction writers unfortunately does not offer itself to merge in accordance with the suggestion of WP:ATD-M, so I guess Tachyon Publications, where Wightman is already mention, would be best. Open to other suggestions. Daranios (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What information from this article would you merge? The fact that he wrote for Thirteenth Moon and the name of his (only?) book are already on the Tachyon page. His name is on the Future on Fire page (but unlinked interestingly). That leaves his education and employment at a community college which I don't believe belong on a different page. Moritoriko (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, thinking about it, content-wise I would like it best to WP:PRESERVE everything except the sentence about his degrees, maybe shortening the occupation. That's the problem with the deletion request. That kind of information would be worthwhile for the encyclopedia, but without a separate article I don't know if it fits into any existing target. Additionally, Wightman contributing in Amazing Stories should be added based on The History of the Science-fiction Magazine Volume 3, p. xix, and his year of birth based on isfdb. Daranios (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has a decent portfolio of SF publications but without much evidence of attention to them, of a type that might lead to WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability, and obviously his community-college teaching position is not going to pass WP:PROF. I found one short review of one short story, and three long-list nominations for a minor award. That's not enough. Wikipedia is not the Internet Speculative Fiction Database nor should we aim to include everything that can be found there. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for a possible Merge or if this article should just be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It fails to show general notability guidelines, significant coverage and nauthor. Fade258 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Somaiya

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

Not a notable manager and CEO. I don't see the sources to pass WP:Anybio. Cinder painter (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources. Darkm777 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can identify only one reference for consideration [15]. If you own any other substantial coverage, please provide it; I may be inclined to support a Keep. B-Factor (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable profile, Most of the coverage is non-reliable.Almandavi (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like there's stuff out there if you search with google.co.in instead of google.com.^[16][17] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: He heads not only a business but also an eighty year old charitable organisation running several educational, healthcare organisations which are doing good work for the benefit of society and underprevilaged. Further, references give from Times of India, Economic Times, ThePrint, ANI, BusinessWorld and Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers are quite reliable. KhrushchevN (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to AfD guidelines, votes should be made by choosing one of these options, "Keep," "Delete," "Merge," "Redirect," or another relevant choice. Please avoid saying "Do not delete", Instead, use "Keep" to support keeping the article. Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks KhrushchevN (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete:~~ I have furtrher developed the article with additional reliable references. KhrushchevN (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree with B-Factor and A. B.. There seems to be more information and sources available. . I believe the article can be improved. Let me try working on it to improve the article.--Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have worked on improving the entire article by adding more relevant details and credible citations, have made sure it aligns well with WP's policies. The subject meets WP:ACADEMIC as he is the Chancellor of Somaiya Vidyavihar University and head of multiple educational institutions, which satisfies the guideline that states, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." He also qualifies under WP:ANYBIO for receiving the Order of the Star of Italy, a major international honour. So, keep. --Vikram S Pasari (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate recent revisions to article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Thanks @Vikram S Pasari for further developing the article. 14.142.143.98 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same reason as previous relist, but I'll hand out a round of pings this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 00:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinder painter@Darkm777@B-Factor@Almandavi@A. B. This article has changed significantly since it was nominated. It would be helpful to hear your thoughts on the current version and any new sources added. Toadspike [Talk] 00:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – Samir Somaiya meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There is sufficient coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources that establish his significance in academia, industry, and interfaith work.

Academic & Institutional Notability: He is the Chancellor of Somaiya Vidyavihar University, one of Maharashtra’s first private universities, and has led major academic and research initiatives. His contributions are covered in mainstream media such as The Times of India, Scroll.in, and The Indian Express, as well as institutional recognition like Harvard Business Publishing’s case study: "Godavari Biorefineries: From Waste to Wealth" co-authored by Prof. Forest Reinhardt.

Industry Recognition: Samir Somaiya has received the Platinum Jubilee Distinguished Alumni Award from the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers (IIChE) in 2023, and was named among The Economic Times’ Most Inspiring Leaders in 2022. These are neutral, independent recognitions from authoritative bodies: Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers The Economic Times

Cultural & Philanthropic Impact: He and Amrita Somaiya co-founded Kitab Khana, widely acknowledged in Scroll.in as one of Mumbai's most influential bookstores. The article Scroll.in, 2022 offers neutral, in-depth coverage, including both achievements and challenges.

International Engagement: He serves on the boards of global interfaith organizations such as KAICIID and Religions for Peace, and has spoken at UN forums. These roles are publicly verifiable through their official sites and covered by Vatican News and Free Press Journal.

Balance of Sources: While a few sources originate from affiliated institutions, multiple reliable third-party sources (e.g., Scroll.in, Indian Express, The Hindu Business Line, Economic Times, ANI, IIChE, HBS Publishing) provide independent coverage, satisfying WP:GNG and refuting concerns about promotional bias.

Overall, this article documents a person with a sustained, verifiable, and significant impact across several domains. Any neutrality concerns can be addressed through editorial improvement—not deletion. KhrushchevN (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:ANYBIO and WP:HEY. Fade258 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment much better now. The Order of the Star of Italy is a major argument to keep. Cinder painter (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMAN, this article demonstrate notability as indicated in WP:GNG. I can see significant coverage: [18], [19] and [20].CresiaBilli (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have WP:SIGCOV at all, the three sources cited by CresiaBilli barely mention him in passing and one is clearly a profile at a University page and not independent coverage while the other source are not in depth. He does not pass WP:NPROF#6 based on his appointment at a private University as he does not have a "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." While the higher levels of the Order of the Star of Italy are notable, he did receive the lowest rank of Knight per his own communication of which several hundred are handed out each year so I dont think that is notable. --hroest 14:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The Times of India focuses primarily on university initiatives with minimal direct mention of Samir somaiya [21].Indianchemicalnews.com centers on his appointment with a neutral tone but lacks details on specific achievements or challenges, making it informative yet incomplete[22]. Indiansugar.com, linked to the Indian Sugar Mills Association, an authoritative body, mentions Samir Somaiya’s presidency in 2008-09, affirming his professional leadership[23]. Economic Times focuses on his opinions rather than personal achievements, making it neutral but limited due to the absence of other aspects of his work[24]. Asian News International highlights his role in religious dialogue but lacks in-depth analysis or details, and its press release basis makes it promotional[25]. Religions-Congress.org emphasizes his positive contributions and promotes the organization’s goals, rendering it somewhat promotional[26]. Johnson.Cornell.edu focuses on his academic and professional achievements but, written from the university’s perspective, has a positive, slightly promotional tone[27]. New Woman centers on his philanthropic work with a positive tone due to the magazine’s nature, omitting challenges or criticism[28]. Scroll.in discusses Kitab Khana and Samir-Amruta Somaiya’s contributions neutrally, balancing achievements and challenges, making it one of the most neutral sources[29]. Connect2Dialogue.org focuses on his religious and academic contributions but, written from the organization’s perspective, is somewhat positive[30]. Chinimandi.com focuses on an award with a neutral tone but lacks details on Samir Somaiya’s specific contributions[31]. iiche.org.in, tied to the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers (IIChE), an authoritative body, mentions Samir Somaiya’s 2023 Platinum Jubilee Award but lacks in-depth analysis[32]. The Free Press Journal focuses on award recipients with a neutral tone but lacks specifics on Somaiya’s contributions[33]. qimpro.org emphasizes his achievements and promotes the organization’s goals[34]. iiche.org.in is fact-based, listing award recipients, making it neutral[35]. Somaiya Vidyavihar University, affiliated with the university, emphasizes his achievements, making it promotional[36]. Indian Express focuses on Amruta Somaiya but mentions Samir Somaiya in the context of Kitab Khana’s establishment, with a positive and neutral tone[37].Some sources (e.g., Indian Sugar Mills Association, IIChE) are neutral but raise questions about website reliability. Others (e.g., The Times of India with minimal mention, Economic Times with limited scope, New Woman, ANI, Somaiya Vidyavihar, KAICIID) feel promotional due to their positive tone. The Free Press Journal is neutral but lacks contribution details. Scroll.in and Indian Express are similar sources and among the most neutral, balancing achievements and challenges. Other websites appearing in red are not reliable. Among these, one source is reliable. If someone adds another reliable source, I will consider revising my opinion after reviewing it. -SachinSwami (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Bocklandt

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

The article lacks sustained, notable coverage of the subject via third-party sources. The majority of sources on this page are research papers partially authored by Bocklandt. The TIME article does not mention Bocklandt at all. The subject's work on the "gay gene" is detailed in the Biology and sexual orientation article. Various aspects of their work could be detailed in their respective subjects, but Bocklandt himself doesn't appear to be notable. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Science. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over 30 references (out of 46) were added to the article, where the subject did not partially author the source. Several links to interviews in magazines, newspapers, radio and TV were included, where the subject's work was the main topic of discussion, which implies notability. Eurenansantos (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:REFBOMB was not the way to go about this, considering 17 of the total references are only used to state that Bocklandt has appeared in media. The sources are not used to support any other claim on the page. The articles that speak to Bocklandt's research would be great applied to the Wikipedia articles about the subject rather than Bocklandt himself, especially considering he typically worked within a team of researchers. There are multiple 45+ minute long pieces of media with no timestamp, multiple primary sources linking to companies that Bocklandt is affiliated with, and some paywalled links that I do not have access to. There are also many blogs linked within here as well.

It still appears that a majority of the press here mentions Bocklandt in passing, where the focus is on the research itself. A Dutch editor may be able to speak to the availability of higher quality sources (unrelated to interviews) in that language, but from what I can see, the reliable sources in English on this page only mention Bocklandt in passing in relation to his work - particularly about the Sexual orientation studies - (The Boston Globe, The Guardian), or not at all (Time, The Conversation).

Also, if you intend to vote "keep" for this article, please format your comment appropriately. If this was meant purely as a comment to persuade others, disregard that sentence. 30Four (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not enthusiastic about this researcher or his research, but that may be prejudice. He has well cited papers as first author in respectable journals, so I think we need to accept that he is a real scientist. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. In my view, he does not pass WP:NPROF looking at the cumulative body of his work and a lot of the reception within science stems from the controversies generated by the papers that he wrote. From an academic point of view, there is a lot of WP:BLP1E with a handful of papers that have garnered a large number of citations but not a wide body of impactful work as reflected by his h index of 13 which is not very impressive and lower than the "average professor" in the US, but the few papers that he did produce have a disproportionate impact on science as measured by citations, with his first author plos one paper gathering 1000+ citations. In the popular media, I could not find [[WP:THREE] in depth articles about him personally (most is WP:REFBOMB with just random quotes) so I dont think he passes WP:GNG. Also the article clearly overstates his contributions, citing papers where he is a second to last author as "his" work and the article was written by a WP:SPA that seems to have been created specifically for this and reads like WP:PROMO. Overall I think he is a borderline case but given that he neither clearly passes GNG nor NPROF and according to WP:BLP we should be hesitant to write an article. --hroest 14:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

José Manuel Vargas (via WP:PROD on 7 June 2025)

[1] Scoles, Sarah (August 2019). "The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion". Scientific American: 58–65. JSTOR 27265292.

[2] Oberhaus, Daniel (September 3, 2020). "Gravity, Gizmos, and a Grand Theory of Interstellar Travel". Wired.

[3] Johnson, Stephan (September 7, 2020). "NASA-funded scientist says 'MEGA drive' could enable interstellar travel". Big Think.

[4] Cruz, Sherri (May 21, 2013). "Woodward's Wormholes". Orange County Register.

[5] Tajmar, Martin (2017). "Mach-Effect thruster model". Acta Astronautica. 141: 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.09.021.

[6] "Florence Merlevède". Google Scholar. Retrieved 2024-03-15.

[fims-7] "IMS names 2021 Fellows". Institute of Mathematical Statistics. 2021-04-22. Retrieved 2021-10-16.

[8] "IMS Fellows: a little history". Institute of Mathematical Statistics. Retrieved 2024-03-15.

[9] "About IMS". Institute of Mathematical Statistics. Retrieved 2024-03-15.

[10] "Probability Theory and Related Fields editors". Archived from the original on 2024-03-15. Retrieved 2024-03-15.

[lama-11] "Florence Merlevède". Université Gustave Eiffel. Retrieved 2021-10-16.

[mg-12] "Florence Merlevède". Mathematics Genealogy Project. Retrieved 2021-10-16.

[fga-13] Reviews of Functional Gaussian Approximation for Dependent Structures: Dominique Lépingle, Zbl 1447.60003; N. C. Weber, MR3930596

[14] Google Scholar

[15] Mathematics Citation Rankings

[16] IMU Report

[17] UChicago

[18] NAS

[19] IMS

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]