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

Robert Schleip

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

Insufficiently notable per WP:NPROF. While the subject does get a text box at doi:10.1126/science.318.5854.1234 this is not enough. Other sources are unreliable and/or being used as a coatrack for questionable biomedical content. Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lean keep he is a full professor at TUM, one of the leading German research Universities and his GS profile looks quite decent with an h index of 42 and a total of 18 articles with 100+ citations. Also there is a (short) profile in this Science article. --hroest 13:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Lewis

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

Subject was previously weakly deleted in 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher) (3rd nomination). Since then they have apparently published a book with some reviews, but on the face of it the article still seems to fall short of notability for an academic. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep since the last time this was up he's gone from Associate Professor at a flagship state university to full professor at an Ivy. His H-Index has gone from 10 to 18 according to Google scholar and he's continuing to publish in top journals (and book chapters with top presses). The book has been cited quite a bit and by our notability standards, if we think he's not notable, the article should be redirected to the book title and an article on the book created. Jahaza (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the book itself is notable. BD2412 T 00:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit WP:OTHERSTUFFy, but if this is notable... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, England, California, Florida, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. A good citation presence in a low cited area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral on the article. The citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (although maybe strong for philosophy) and one book isn't enough for me for WP:AUTHOR. But the book is definitely notable: the article currently lists three reviews (Sebens, Shaw, and Garcia) and I found three more: : Valia Allori, Philosophy of Science, JSTOR 26551953; Ben Novak, The Review of Metaphysics, JSTOR 44806993; Alyssa Ney, Metascience, doi:10.1007/s11016-017-0232-8. With six in-depth independent reliable sources it passes WP:GNG. If the biography is deemed notable, it would still be possible to have an article on the book and redirect to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The topic appears notable. The prior deletion is somewhat antiquated. However, I still cannot observe a substantial enhancement in coverage regarding the subject CresiaBilli (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the last 2010 AfD has had a book published by Oxford University Press and moved from associate professor at a good regional university to full professor at Dartmouth, with good citation numbers for a low-citation field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budhendra Kumar Jain

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

Sources are only for Padma award. No significant coverage from multiple independent sources neither. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. GrabUp - Talk 15:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – Keep the article

Dr. Budhendra Kumar Jain is a Padma Shri awardee (2025) and a distinguished ophthalmologist known for revolutionizing rural eye care at Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya, Chitrakoot. His work has been recognized both nationally and academically.

Significant coverage includes:

The subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NBIO based on sustained, independent coverage from reliable sources. The article should be improved, not deleted.

— Anildiggiwal (talk) 17:25, 12 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) 16:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a Padma Shri receipient, India's fourth-highest civilian award. Meets WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based in the award and the article in the peer reviewed Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, these both strongly indicate notability per WP:GNG and also to a degree for WP:NPROF as having made a strong impact. Clearly the award is relevant and looking at past awardees, almost all of them have an article. The sources found by Anildiggiwal also clearly indicate this is not a case of WP:BLP1E as asserted in the nomination. --hroest 13:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Salahi

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

In my opinion this article don't meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia and there is no reliable source quoted either in the article. R1F4T (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikesh Lagun

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

Looks like article written by subject himself or someone closely connected, as this if full of information unsupported by sources. Lacks genuine coverage as a researcher or academician. No media coverage to meet notability. Not yet established as an academic entity. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While accomplished for his age, there is no sign of the impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF notability. I also did not find press coverage for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find sources to meet WP:BIO; similarly WP:NPROF is not met. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 03:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Sharma

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

I can't see any sign of notability. Terribly written, simply a promotional article about a non notable person Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Technology, India, Delhi, and California. Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination that does not even consider the obvious notability criterion, WP:PROF. IEEE Fellow is a pass of WP:PROF#C3; in fact this specific fellowship is used in the guideline as the prototypical example of a fellowship that passes this criterion. The description of the content of his dissertation is unsourced and should be trimmed, and the New Scientist piece should be used to describe what he has done rather than to promote him as someone who has appeared in New Scientist, but WP:DINC and these are not delete-worthy problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David_Eppstein and as not promotional by the subject. It appears to me that a different person with the same name attempted to hijack this article by editing twice to include films by them. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:PROF#C3 as David Eppstein said, has a significant impact on his field with 47 publications and cited by ~16,700 according to his Google scholar, is a distinguished member of ACM ([1]), etc. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vinod Sharma

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article under Wp:GNG, Wp:BIO or Wp:ACADEMIC.

While Sharma is associated with a Guinness World Record for the largest memory lesson (2018), there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Science, Medicine, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of these sources are WP:SIGCOV that I can see, they are short blurbs (even those that I could translate from Hindi). A world record by itself does not confer notability especially as these can be essentially purchased. Clearly doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear! @Hannes Röst, No, Guinness World Records titles cannot be purchased. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can, pretty much. They're a marketing gimmick from a novelty publisher. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How ? Any reference or Discussion available ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criticism is that you can make up some really niche record like "most 10W light bulbs lit at the same time" and pay for the items to be delivered and get the people from Guinness in to confirm the record and bam you have yourself a record. AFAIK the Guinness people dont care what the record is as long as it can be verifiable and can be broken by someone else and you pay a fee (see for example this recent record for most glass bottles trapped with a Slinky in 1 minute). --hroest 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own article about the Guinness Book explains, in polite terms, how it's a racket. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO according to sources. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the evaluations by the nominator and by hroest. This is an advertisement and should be removed as such. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete. No evidence of notability, while I could follow the argument of ERcheck in theory that he combines these fields in a unique way we would have to have some external evidence of a source specifically talking about this per WP:NPROF. Usually academic recognition comes in form of highly cited papers which are not present here but they can come from other sources as well (of which there isnt any evidence here either). A single paper award is not enough per NPROF#2, it would have to be a major award from a well established academic society. --hroest 14:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since he is not solely an academic, it seems that holding only to WP:NPROF is too narrow. - — ERcheck (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the standards outside of NPROF are even more stringent, so using NPROF is the most charitable. Do you think he passes WP:GNG? Are there any sources with WP:SIGCOV? As I said I would be happy to keep if you can back your arguments up with a reputable source -- its not enough for you to say that he is notable and exceptional in his field, for an AfD keep !vote we need a reputable source that says so. --hroest 18:23, 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]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and seems somewhat covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly no reception in the academic world that is evident, a single paper award is not enough for NPROF#2. Whatever can be salvaged can be written in Heim Theory. --hroest 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even setting aside the WP:FRINGE issue, which requires in-depth coverage by mainstream sources to provide properly neutral coverage of his work, his citations are not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and a best-paper award (much of the basis for the 2006 keep) is not enough for #C2 (nor enough to show lasting influence for #C1). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Coverage of Dröscher is minimal and largely tied to Heim Theory, which lacks mainstream recognition and falls under WP:FRINGE. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:14, 12 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]
Keep. He clearly passes WP:NPROF#1 with an h index of 67 and the article has been substantially improved with sources per WP:HEY. What sources to you have for his involvment in the launch of the Journal of Proteomics? I only see him listed in the editorial board and the editor in chief was Juan J. Calvete, he wasnt even an executive editor (basically he was just a frequent peer reviewer). There is something wrong with your citation Zolla, L. (2008). "Editorial – Launching the Journal of Proteomics". Journal of Proteomics. 71 (6): 561–571. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2008.09.002. PMID 18848913. since it links to a different article from 2008. --hroest 14:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we are there yet for a WP:HEY versus draftification. In addition to the citation error noted above, some of the others have wrong author lists, the DOI goes elsewhere and I find no evidence for the existence of [8].Ldm1954 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The DOI for reference 2 points to somewhere else, and the article supposedly being cited doesn't seem to exist. I can't find any indication that reference 8 is a real paper, either. I suspect that LLM slop may be involved here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your valuable feedback. I've reviewed the article carefully and taken the following steps:

1) I have removed the claim regarding Zolla's involvement in the launch of the Journal of Proteomics, as the cited editorial was incorrectly attributed to him. The DOI pointed to a different article, and I found no reliable sources confirming his foundational role. He is currently listed as a member of the editorial board, which I have retained with appropriate attribution.

2) I’ve verified all existing references: those with incorrect DOIs or unverifiable claims have been removed or replaced. 3) I am now working only with confirmed publications from Scopus, PubMed, or institutional sources.

Reference [8] has been deleted, as I could not confirm its existence. I will ensure that only verifiable, independent sources are used going forward.

I welcome any further input and will continue improving the article in line with WP:NPROF, WP:RS, and WP:V. Fveneziano93 (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you, at any point, use an LLM in making this article? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used google translator for some specific parts for which I had difficulties in translating. Is that a (new) problem? Fveneziano93 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLM (Large Language Model), also called sometimes called AI can invent sources if they think that they are needed to support a statement that the code makes. This page shows indications that one was used as there are AI hallucinations in the references. If you only used Google Translate, it may be that the original italian (?) source was created using a LLM. This is currently a big problem with people using LLMs to generate new pages, that then volunteer editors have to check and either purge or repair. Because of all of this, the question of whether you used one was asked.

N.B., did you check the references on the other page? Ldm1954 (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked directly with Lello Zolla (is my neighbour!!!) and it seems that everything is ok.

Let me know if we can go out from the deletion page and finally publish the article.

Thanks in advance Fveneziano93 (talk) 08:29, 13 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[2]. 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]
Delete. There is simply no evidence provided for meeting any of the criteria in WP:NPROF and even upon searching academic sources I could not find any of the usual indicators of an academic passing NPROF#1, such as highly cited papers, published reviews of books or a detailed discussion of his work in context. --hroest 14:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the "distinguished" position and more than 400 citations on Google Scholar count towards WP:prof. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:19, 12 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]
Delete. I agree it is WP:TOOSOON for any criteria in WP:NPROF and likely also for WP:NARTIST since I dont see any indication that he is part of a permanent collection or even had his own solo exhibition yet. For example the Speak Local exhibition was not a solo exhibition and it doesnt look like any of the others were either. Similarly I dont see any in depth profiles that would amount to notability per WP:GNG. --hroest 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree on the comments above, especially the Too Soon comments. Not yet. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON for this multidisciplinary person, they don't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Maybe in a few years, but not now.

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]

Delete without prejudice since it seems the subject itself could pass WP:NPROF with a rather high h index and several awards such as the lifetime achievement award from the https://indianchemicalsociety.com . --hroest 14:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Patre23 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination and other comments. Zuck28 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly written with AI. The author didn't even bother to remove the emojis. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:41, 12 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 [3] 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]

Delete: I was looking through all of his highly cited papers (100+ citations) which are usually relevant to establish NPROF#1 notability and of the 5 papers, none of them were actual research papers with him as first author, the others were either large collaborations with dozens of authors or review papers or a book. There is one paper that contains some experimental data on a particular type of propulsion method but one moderately cited paper is not enough for NPROF. Based on this I dont think we can reasonably argue that he passes WP:NPROF#1 and I could not find evidence for him passing any other criteria of NPROF. --hroest 15:07, 11 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 [4] 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]
Delete. per David Eppstein, economics is not a low citation field and I cannot find any evidence for notability per NPROF or GNG. --hroest 15:09, 11 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]
Weak Keep. His citation record is in the range of passing WP:NPROF but with 27 in a field that is a medium to high citation field and thus not a clear cut case for NPROF#1 but together with the award the could pass per NPROF#2. However I also agree that the nomination should have performed an analysis per WP:NPROF. --hroest 14:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record would only be enough for a weak keep for me but the Ragazzini Award pushes it over to a full keep. It's an award for educators rather than for researchers, but a major one from a notable society; I think those should count for WP:PROF#C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 12 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]
Speedy Keep per WP:NPROF, per h-index of 80 which makes him pass NPROF#1 without question, the Aiche awards as well as the hall of fame award per David Eppstein. Clearly the nominator is not familiar with WP:NPROF and the guidelines in this field. --hroest 13:55, 11 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[5] with what's typical for a full professor in the sciences [6], 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]
I think [this is the correct page for the current subject at CSU. --hroest 13:49, 11 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]

delete does not pass WP:NPROF. Note that there are at least two people with the same name, one which is the current subject with an h index of 10 and a second (history) professor at Pittsburgh with an h-index of 29. Therefore he doesnt pass NPROF#1 and given how little reception he gets inside academia I think it is hard to argue that he passes any of the points in NPROF. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I'm not going to be nice here. Sorry for being so confrontational, y'all, but it really feels like none of you even bothered to look up sources properly (other than the only other person who clearly did and then decided to vote Keep because they actually took the time to look). The guy's fringe, 100%. He's also definitely not a WP:PROF pass, 100%. However, the WP:GNG seems very clearly satisfied by multiple years of news coverage of his fringe-y work, not to mention scientific papers discussing his ideas or debunking them (even if some are written by other fringe-y credulists, they're still in proper journals) that addresses his claims as the main subject of the papers and not just as an aside.

This seems like an attempt to delete subjects entirely because they're fringe, without any regard for actual GNG notability standards. Which is, sadly, fairly standard for Fringe topic noticeboard regulars and there's been multiple cases where I had to come in and actually argue for our notability policies previously.

Beyond Einstein? by Stephen Notley, Edmonton Journal (1999)
Woodward’s Wormholes by Sherri Cruz, The Orange County Register (2013)
Set the controls for the stars by Gwynne Dyer, Kimberley Bulletin (2018)
Is it Space Drive Time? by John G. Cramer, Analog Science Fiction and Fact (2014)
Mach Propulsion, All About Space
Mach-Effect thruster model by M. Tajmar, Acta Astronautica (2017)
Possible Mach Effects in Bodies Accelerated by NonUniform Magnetic Fields by N. Buldrini, Physics Procedia (2011)
A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory by José J. A. Rodal, General Relativity and Gravitation (2019)
Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems and Integration by Paul A. Czysz, Claudio Bruno, Bernd Chudoba, Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Making starships and stargates by E. Kincanon, Choice Reviews

So, if we want to have a discussion about the sources that actually exist, most of which were easily findable from a Google search, then let's please do that. Rather than claiming there aren't any sources, which is easily debunkable. Being fringe pseudoscience doesn't mean non-notable. Silver seren^C 02:00, 13 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.

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]

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 [7] [8] (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 [9] (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”." [10]

She sits at the Editorial Board of Cambridge, not sure if that in itself is enough, but might add something! [11]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The scholar is recognized as a distinguished professor which is notable based on her origin/gender/age group (for representation) and her pioneering research in dignity politics (coining the concept of dignition=dignity+recognition) during the 2011 Arab Spring. Her scholarship is uniquely interdisciplinary and varied (including in several languages). She has notable editorial contributions and was reviewed by major scholars. In addition to academia, she has been referenced in the press as her work deals with protests around the world. The sources are reliable, independent, and verifiable. 196.75.109.181 (talk) 12:54, 12 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 [12], 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]

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]

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 [13]. 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.^[14][15] --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]

The source "Godavari Biorefineries: From Waste to Wealth" opens to hbsp.harvard.edu, which contains no relevant information. The Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers source link does not mention Samir Somaiya significantly. The Economic Times link, when opened, shows unrelated information with no mention of Samir Somaiya. The Scroll.in source from 2022, when accessed, refers to "ISL: After two losses, East Bengal get going with win over NorthEast United," which is unrelated. All sources are unrelated. SachinSwami (talk) 13:28, 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: [16], [17] and [18].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 [19].Indianchemicalnews.com centers on his appointment with a neutral tone but lacks details on specific achievements or challenges, making it informative yet incomplete[20]. Indiansugar.com, linked to the Indian Sugar Mills Association, an authoritative body, mentions Samir Somaiya’s presidency in 2008-09, affirming his professional leadership[21]. 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[22]. Asian News International highlights his role in religious dialogue but lacks in-depth analysis or details, and its press release basis makes it promotional[23]. Religions-Congress.org emphasizes his positive contributions and promotes the organization’s goals, rendering it somewhat promotional[24]. Johnson.Cornell.edu focuses on his academic and professional achievements but, written from the university’s perspective, has a positive, slightly promotional tone[25]. New Woman centers on his philanthropic work with a positive tone due to the magazine’s nature, omitting challenges or criticism[26]. Scroll.in discusses Kitab Khana and Samir-Amruta Somaiya’s contributions neutrally, balancing achievements and challenges, making it one of the most neutral sources[27]. Connect2Dialogue.org focuses on his religious and academic contributions but, written from the organization’s perspective, is somewhat positive[28]. Chinimandi.com focuses on an award with a neutral tone but lacks details on Samir Somaiya’s specific contributions[29]. 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[30]. The Free Press Journal focuses on award recipients with a neutral tone but lacks specifics on Somaiya’s contributions[31]. qimpro.org emphasizes his achievements and promotes the organization’s goals[32]. iiche.org.in is fact-based, listing award recipients, making it neutral[33]. Somaiya Vidyavihar University, affiliated with the university, emphasizes his achievements, making it promotional[34]. Indian Express focuses on Amruta Somaiya but mentions Samir Somaiya in the context of Kitab Khana’s establishment, with a positive and neutral tone[35].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]

Proposed deletions

Kay Duncan (via WP:PROD on 9 June 2025)
Tamara Oleksiyivna Grinchenko (via WP:PROD on 8 June 2025)
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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]