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

Elan Steinberg

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

This article is sourced solely to three obituaries (which can't be used to establish notability). Almost everything a Gsearch finds on the subject was written immediately after the subject's death. Happy to see it sourced, but right now, it lacks sufficient sourcing to pass NOTE, V, or ANYBIO. BusterD (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Israel, and United States of America. BusterD (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Marwah

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable businessperson. The sources are mostly primary/press releases or broken links. Fails Wp:GNG. Created by a blocked user. Zuck28 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Delhi. Zuck28 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Javad Mowla

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

Don't see any evidence this academic meets WP:NACADEMIC. Has found publication success, but that's not sufficient for notability. Orphaned article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, Iran, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:Prof#C1 based on GS record, albeit in a highly-cited field.

R. S. Nandakumar

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

Promotional piece by coi/upe editor. He gets a few mentions, but not the type of in-depth coverage needed to show they meet WP:GNG. And they do not meet any of the criteria to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notwithstanding the latest refbombing of every WP:PASSINGMENTION available. Also sanction Supersumu for ToU/PAID violations (demonstrated by their sneaking this one back in under a new name. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~:DO NOT DELETE.~~
Its not a new name. As you can see, the previous page (r s nandakumar) was blanked and then deleted by me. In India, the Surnames are abbreviated into initials that need "."; the family of the person who is the subject of this article requested for the change.@

This wiki page now has no negative links nor does it have 404s showing in sources. Sources have been extended to include articles, journals and news sources from 20+ years.

~~Please advice on what else one can do to improve the article. Thank you. Namaste. Supersumu (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)~~— Supersumu (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

the previous page (r s nandakumar) was blanked and then deleted by me, sorry, what? It was deleted by Seraphimblade, an administrator, as being unambiguously promotional. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i meant to say i deleted the information in the page. I apologize, i am new to Wikipedia. I have tried to improve the page with reliable sources and links. Supersumu (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)— Supersumu (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

Update is withstanding WP:GNG. Do not deleteInnathatha (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)— Innathatha (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Supersumu (talk · contribs). [reply]

~~I apologize. Hadnt noticed the broken 404s. I have updated the article with reliable sources and links to articles, news publications and journals. Supersumu (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)~~— Supersumu (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

Paul Chambers (academic)

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

This was deleted by CSD G7 in April, after an AFD discussion for which there was consensus to delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosecution of Paul Chambers. The article was again deleted as a recreation at the beginning of May. I don't see that anything has changed since then, other than the subject having charges dropped by Thai authorities. This is still pretty much a WP:BLP1E. Pinging @Fram, @The Anome, @Ritchie333, @JMWt, @Shellwood and JBW as previously involved editors. TarnishedPath^talk 09:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLPCRIME, we should not have such an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- BLPCRIME doesn't really apply here, as all the sources contextualise the case as political repression, so he's broadly painted as a victim and not a criminal. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous AfD was procedurally closed in less than 3 hours, and should not have any future bearing whatsoever as there was never time to allow appropriate discussion to take place. I already challenged the G4 speedy deletion with JBW, who suggested that the point was moot since the deleted version was already eclipsed by the draft. With that out of the way, the article subject is notable and satisfied WP:NPROF long before the recent prosecution case. Per The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity... for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area, he has been quoted and interviewed as an expert on Thai politics—specifically, the military's role in it—by many traditional news outlets including Reuters, The New York Times, AP, CNBC, Channel News Asia, BBC Thai, and VOA Thai. His work in the field has been widely cited, particularly "The resilience of monarchised military in Thailand" Journal of Contemporary Asia (2016) (146 citations on Google Scholar). His 2024 book Praetorian Kingdom: A History of Military Ascendancy in Thailand has been reviewed in Nikkei Asia and in Thai in Matichon Weekly and The101.world. Among his co-edited volumes, Khaki Capital: The Political Economy of the Military in Southeast Asia (2017) has been reviewed in Pacific affairs, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia, and LSE Review of Books, among others. He is also an executive editor of Asian Affairs: An American Review, published by Taylor & Francis, though this seems borderline for The person has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. But the other criteria are already sufficient to demonstrate notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012. Khiikiat (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Coatti

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

Fails the relevant guidelines, WP:NPROF and (regrettably and highly unfortunately) WP:NVICTIM/WP:ONEEVENT. Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His killing might be notable, based on the coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be too soon to tell, as the coverage has to be sustained for it to be notable. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Werner Gessmann

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

Nominating this article for deletion as it doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics (WP:PROF) or the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). So far, I haven’t been able to find any significant coverage about the subject in reliable, independent source, most of what’s here comes from self-published material or affiliated outlets. New to the whole deletion thing so insight is greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeepeeDino (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 14 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) 21:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case Lawrence

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional COI article moved from draftspace after being declined multiple times. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Law, Latter Day Saints, Hungary, California, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the high-quality sourcing is about his company, which already has its own page. Don't see why Lawrence deserves his own page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. As an unsuccessful candidate, he's not notable for that reason. He's also not automatically notable because he's lead organizations or businesses. I don't see WP:SIGCOV, and he fails my person standards for lawyers (there is no consensus). Bearian (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sung Kwan Lee

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, coverage is also not directly about them grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Social science, and Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adjuncts are almost never notable, and I don't see anything that makes the subject notable. It's also so afar from our manual of style that it's close to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also smelling a little like COI; user just uploaded likely copyvio pic of this person for article. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhmani Kaur Saggu

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

Very recent grad (bachelor’s in 2024) who has co-authored 3 papers and appears to have a run-of-the-mill research job. I don't see how she could pass any criteria of WP:NPROF even with the broadest possible interpretation, and as for WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE in google/bing news, google books, newspapers.com, and PressReader did not turn up any mentions. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very far from WP:PROF notability and none of the sources support WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Vegantics (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you look at the version that was accepted at AfC it is noticeably worse. Some poor quality control there, it should never have been passed to main. I do not see any reasonable chance of repair, so a full delete is more appropriate than draftification. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify. Needs to be shortened significantly. Three peer-reviewed journal publications show potential. Wisdom2025 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- three peer-reviewed publications are nowhere close to passing WP:PROF notability in this very highly cited and published field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from WP: PROF (does not pass notability).

Dratify. aligns with WP:ACADEMIC. Per Ldm1954, needs repair. Salvageable with dratification. Wisdom2025 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraz Daya

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

I can't find a single in-depth piece about this doctor from an independent, reliable source. Most of the current references are either dead links or simple mentions of them. The rest either do not mention them at all, or are primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Ireland, England, Northern Ireland, Minnesota, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for your reasoning. Yikes to UPE--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks direct detailing in independent reliable sources. Every major contributor to this page is either the SPA page creator or an ip contributor. BusterD (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is news coverage, although some of the best of it is in the Daily Mail; I triggered the deprecated sources warning leaving 2 such sources in hidden comments, while citing what I consider less good sources that are not listed as deprecated. The article needs to be cut down and its language further de-promotionalised, and I am going to advocate deletion and redirection of Centre for Sight. But I believe Daya meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has been reference-bombed, which is common with articles by paid editors, which makes it difficult to perform a standard source assessment. Can the author of the article, or any other proponent of the article, identify three best sources that establish general notability, or should we conclude that there are a large number of low-quality sources that do not establish notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon... I didn't go through all of them, but I went through 25. Not a single one of them was an in-depth piece from an independent, reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending identification of the three best sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the news coverage does not actually rise to the level of GNG - they are just stories where he is interviewed as part of a larger story, they are not specifically on him. And there's nothing else here which shows notability... SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Robert McClenon, onel5969, SportingFlyer: I've made a further search that shook loose more news coverage. I think the best sources now in the article are:
- James Meikle (29 April 2005). "Donor stem cells restore sight". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 June 2025.
- "Success for 'first' eye patient". BBC News. 9 August 2007.
- Sarah Hall (15 March 2007). "Stem cell therapy improves sight of patients born with no irises". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 June 2025.

In addition, the Daily Mail has devoted at least 2 articles entirely to Daya. I left the URLs of the following sources commented out in the article (note these are for separate news and 3 years apart):

Ben Tufft (24 April 2016). "British eye surgeon will carry out the country's first transplant using an artificial cornea". Daily Mail. (I presume the Daily Times story that I added yesterday to avoid the ban on citing the Daily Mail is cribbed from this)
Martyn Halle; Stephen Adams (22 June 2019). "Pioneering six-minute cornea transplant surgery could spell the end for reading glasses with patients 'able to make out small print within minutes'". Daily Mail.

I also think the Lifetime Achievement Award contributes to his notability: source that I substituted for a barelink PDF: "AAO 2022 Recap". Millennial EYE. Bryn Mawr Communications. September–October 2022. Retrieved 13 June 2025.

For further interest, my search today focussed on The Guardian (we were already citing The Telegraph, which is less respected as an RS on the project, and the article is more personal in approach) shook loose Serazdaya.com, which is an attack website, it seems prompted by Daya's criticism of rival lens transplant operations; both The Guardian and the Daily Mail have cited him as an expert in investigating one or more of those, so those articles also come up on search although they're not appropriate to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvadottir (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian contains an interview, it's not clear it's a true secondary source. The BBC article is very short and he is only mentioned twice including one quote. The second Guardian article is five paragraphs which contains a quote from him. The Daily Mail articles are obviously unreliable even though they go into more of a profile of him, and the lifetime achievement award - it's very unclear from that link who even issues the award, so it can't contribute to notability. There's really not much here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SportingFlyer's assessment of the sources.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
KEEP The User:Bon_courage who added this deletion notice is a paid pharma editor who's targeting this page because I'm working on edits for Rolfing. If you look at the Talk:Robert_Schleip there's already been a healthy discussion and was ruled against. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not contributors. Your !vote will be ignored by the closer for having no basis in policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Biology, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. H-index of 42 appears to pass WP:NPROF#C1. In this situation (where the article is WP:PROFRINGE but passes notability), I think we're supposed to keep the article and clean it up rather than deleting it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 29 references listed. Incredible amount of other sources if you click on publications indexed by Google Scholar listed under External Links. And on it goes. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 14 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]
    - @The Bushranger: Really it isn't, but the AfD on it closed as no consensus. BD2412 T 14:47, 14 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 non-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]
I'm unclear why all of that would make the subject notable, other than the citation numbers, which (as David Eppstein mentioned above) seem borderline, at least to me. Can you refer to any other criterion of Wikipedia:NPROF that you believe this subject meets? Because one book wouldn't be enough, generally. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Qflib: from WP:NPROF "The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" -- generally speaking, receiving tenure and esp. full professorship at an Ivy League institution happens because someone is clearly more notable or more accomplished than the average researcher in a field. Maybe you don't like this argument, but it is a commonly used criterion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn’t convince me, but since the subject is borderline on C1 I won’t oppose keeping the article. Qflib (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, I note that his article-length works aren't just cited in passing; his work has started some long-standing conversations in the philosophy of science. See, e.g., the opening line of this paper. Here and here are papers in that conversation where Lewis's name is literally the first thing that appears in the abstract. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this has made it into the article. BD2412 T 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? Now that it's been pointed out someone can add it. But it's often not worth it to add things to the article when it's being considered for deletion, because then the work gets deleted if it gets deleted. Jahaza (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that to the casual reader of this article, nothing indicates the encyclopedic importance of this subject beyond that of the average professor with a book under their belt. BD2412 T 19:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a problem with the article as written, not with the notability of the subject. Jahaza (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - his philosophical monograph has a couple hundred citations in google scholar, and also three book reviews, which are both *technically* qualifying for the bare minimum of WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I wouldn't personally nominate something like this for AfD, but I also don't think the project would be any worse off if we didn't have this page or the probably 3000 other alive-during-wikipedia philosophy professors of roughly equal notability. Psychastes (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. "Keep but I really wish we had a broader discussion as a community about how we're running a vanity service for middling academics" Psychastes (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I would love to see a discussion to clarify NPROF since we seem to be all over the map. In the end I fear we are introducing prejudice to this category of articles. Lamona (talk) 22:20, 16 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]

Weak keep. From this coverage, it appears the subject has received at least a couple of other industry awards (though most of this is clearly written from a non-neutral viewpoint). Article needs to be expanded significantly with reliable secondary sources to be worth keeping (beyond just the many duplicate Padma Shri references) but I don't think it's a delete.

Crmccull000 (talk) 01:40, 17 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]
Keep: The journal article is fine but the citation used seems to be about another person, the link leads to the correct article. The award won is also notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Padma Shri is a notable award (meets WP:ANYBIO#1), significant impact as WP:NPROF as noted by others. WeWake (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: He was awarded the Padma Shri, fourth-highest civilian award of India. Easily passes ANYBIO and GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 22:27, 15 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]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 17 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]
Speedy keep, fully agree with David Eppstein on this one. Subject meets C3 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C3. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as others have said above he easily passes WP:NPROF. A no-brainer. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Easily clears the bar for a WP:PROF being IEEE Fellow and Google Scholar / research impact metrics. WeWake (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]
Delete: Support nom; does not muster WP:GNG as there's no significant coverage about the individual in reliable sources WeWake (talk) 06:12, 15 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]

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

The result was Draftify‎. I think the consensus here is that the article subject is notable, but given the clear use of AI, cleanup is needed before this is ready for mainspace. I will tag with {{Promising draft}} Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:23, 17 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]
@Fveneziano93 it is not OK, and Msrasnw who appears to be a collaborating editor is not helping, adding incorrectly formatted and duplicated references (I just corrected one), masses of non-existent links and ignoring the non-exist source. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the subject, this is a conflict of interest and you must disclose it on Talk:Lello Zolla. You are discouraged from editing articles about subjects that you have a personal connection with. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for XfD closer. The responses above all say that he seems to pass WP:NPROF, but the page needs to be cleaned up. While the main involved editors have done some work, they are not doing enough for a WP:HEY. Unfortunately some of their edits are making things worse. I think it is time to abandon hope of a quick repair and let the article be corrected as a draft. (I am ignoring the issue of COI in writing an article about your neighbor.) Ldm1954 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person seems to me to clearly pass our WP:NPROF 1 by virtue of his publications and citations (GS seems to report 15347). Sorry if I didn't use the citation template and did not know that was now required. I knew I should have not doubled up the ref. to support the claim that he participated in the founding and establishment of the Italian Proteomic Society and of the Italian Proteomic Association (ItPA). This though would also seem to help with passing WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the continued reviews and suggestions by the community, and I completely understand the necessity for verifying sources and ensuring compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I believe Lello Zolla undeniably meets WP:NPROF due to his extensive publication record (with more than 100 peer-reviewed papers and a substantial number of citations, well above the threshold for notability), his role as a recognized expert in proteomics, and his editorial board memberships in respected journals.

All unreliable or orphaned references have been removed, and I’m currently adding additional independent and reliable sources (Scopus, PubMed, institutional profiles) to further substantiate his notability (if I'm late is because I dont dedicate 100% of my time on Wikipedia!). I’m also careful to avoid any peacock language and to follow Wikipedia’s Manual of Style.

I respectfully ask the community to reconsider retaining the article in mainspace instead of draftifying it, provided that it is supported by reliable sources and presented in a neutral, factual way. I’m more than willing to collaborate and make further improvements to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Please let me know if there are any additional points that need addressing.

Thank you for your continued constructive input. Fveneziano93 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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[2] with what's typical for a full professor in the sciences [3], 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]
That one shows an h-index of 10, which definitely suggests non-notable, particularly for someone as advanced in his career as the subject of this article. In spite of my error identifying the wrong James Woodward above (I thought it was the same guy because at the time, that page listed an article about propulsion, which no longer appears), I stand by my "delete" comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is irrelevant for what is being discussed or why you were asked back here. Per even WP:NPROF, It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Therefore, h-index has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Silver seren^C 20:59, 15 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]

You think these sources pass WP:FRIND? I don't think so. jps (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are literally mainstream secondary sources, the kind that FRIND specifically talks about as what should be preferred. They aren't fringe specific media or sources. Silver seren^C 21:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't look mainstream to me. The ones by journalists look like they are falling afoul of WP:SENSATION. The ones by ostensible scientists look like they are fellow WP:PROFRINGE personalities. jps (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspapers and a science-fiction magazine are not going to be good sources for an article that's supposed to be about science. (Even the Guardian and the BBC have bungled it sometimes, running silly season stories about "local man says he can divide by zero" and such. One example is documented in Underwood Dudley's Mathematical Cranks.) Moreover, we're not debating whether to mention "Mach effects" in an article about the general topic of way-out-there spacedrive proposals. The question is whether a biography page for James F. Woodward needs to exist. There's potentially enough for the former, but after subtracting out the noise, there isn't for the latter. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Choice Reviews item is a brief (248 words) paragraph saying that libraries shouldn't feel obligated to buy Woodward's book. The gist: "Historian/physicist Woodward (California State Univ., Fullerton) proposes a propulsion method that seems to contradict basic physics principles." And, other research "explains the errors of his experiments and points to results that show no extra field effects." A cursory dismissal of Woodward's publication is not evidence in favor of having an article about Woodward. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of what you said has anything to do with notability or WP:GNG. He is a fringe crank, yes. Sources covering him as a crank is a good thing in that regard. In fact, sources dismissing him and his ideas are exactly what we want for notability for a fringe topic, since that allows us to not only have coverage, but can also explicitly put that his views are nonsense. Silver seren^C 22:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Local newspapers and science-fiction magazines aren't reliable for this purpose. A trade journal for libraries is probably not the best bet, either, and one paragraph is not what I'd call "significant". Overall, Woodward falls into the case described at the end of that guideline. He doesn't "meet these criteria" as a person, but there are still "some verifiable facts" about his claims, which are best discussed "within another article". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple pieces of significant coverage about him and his claims. Local newspapers only applies if they are all in the same local area (and generally if its actually an area local to the subject), so you don't have say someone in a single Kentucky county who keep getting coverage from county newspapers. That's not at all the case here, these newspapers have no connection with each other and are temporally disparate to boot, so it's not a single event burst of coverage either. Also, I have no idea what your addition of science fiction magazines has to do with that. Science fiction magazine are perfectly reliable and contribute just fine to notability as with any other magazine. Coverage of someone's statements and ideas is also coverage of them, so long as it isn't solely question and response interview coverage. Silver seren^C 22:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fluff pieces aren't any better than "question and response interview coverage". Those news stories are fluff pieces. (The Kimberley Bulletin: "It's starting to look like interstellar travel may be possible in a time frame that may be manageable for human beings. [...] I'd explain the Mach effect in greater detail, but I barely understand it myself.") Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you selectively picked that one, the weakest of the news pieces, while ignoring coverage like this that is a full page article that has much more detail. Specifically what the claimed theory is, what the machinery is he built and how it's supposed to work and, happily for me, criticism of his claims by other scientists and pointing out how his ideas are doubtful in their efficacy. It's good we have multiple sources, including Rodal's rebuttal academic piece up there, so we can clearly and directly state the fringiness. Silver seren^C 22:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I picked the quote that made the fluff-piece nature obvious, in my view. The Edmonton Journal story is longer, but not better. In some ways, it's worse, because it plays up the false balance. It's yet another example of a genre with which all scientists grow familiar: "This maverick has an extraordinary claim! The so-called 'experts' think there's nothing to it... but who knows?!" It uncritically accepts Woodward's own framing that he had "good theory and good experimental data" and gives short shrift to the one independent critic (Don Page). The extra "detail" just drowns out the basic lack of substance.

The Orange County Register story is quintessential silly season. It quotes no critical voices at all. It flunks high-school physics by confusing Newton's first and third laws of motion.

Even the most generous reading of the available documentation only shows that this far-out fringe idea is not the most obscure of the far-out fringe ideas. I don't see the need to wrap the one-paragraph explanation of why it's a far-out fringe idea with another few sentences about where its originator was born and went to school. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire argument here seems to be classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT in regards to the fringiness. Yes, he's fringe, I've already repeatedly stated I agree on that. But that has nothing to do with notability. Him being a pseudoscience nonsense pusher is completely irrelevant to a discussion of notability. Your criticism of the sources seems to boil down to them not covering the subject in the way you'd prefer. It is not an argument that actually refutes the coverage meeting WP:GNG requirements. Silver seren^C 23:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics. Newton's first law is not the same as Newton's third law! They're not reliable, and so they don't qualify towards any guideline that depends upon the existence of reliable sources. You can't make an encyclopedia article out of news clippings that are scientifically illiterate.

I'm not saying that articles about people known only for fringey things are bad. I'm not saying that an article about Woodward's fringey work would be bad. I don't think there's enough to write about it that an entire article would be warranted, and I don't see how the paltry amount that could be written is enough to hang a whole biography on. Under different circumstances, if different source material were available, I'd be defending the existence of the biography page, but as matters stand I just can't make the case for it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics.

Is that an allowed factor enumerated on WP:GNG? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that guideline requires that the sources be "reliable", and news stories that do the physics equivalent of declaring the Earth to be flat, or setting up a false balance between antivaxxers and actual medicine... There's no way in good conscience to call them reliable, so how can they count towards the guideline? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note my !vote above.

I'm just saying, or asking, as that sounds like a much stricter definition than I've seen argued yet. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the venerable Acta Astronautica? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating Woodward by the academic notability standard, one paper commenting on a person's work isn't enough to make that person notable (not by a long shot). It could contribute to the work being notable, or worth mentioning in an article on a broader topic. Since the author of the Acta Astronautica paper later co-authored a follow-up saying whoops, no "Mach effect" after all, relying on the 2017 paper would give a pretty skewed impression... On the whole, I think we can justify writing a little about the idea, but packaging that into a biography of the person just doesn't make sense to me. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply asking if there was any possible dispute that Acta Astronautica is not a reliable source. I can't see how but in bonkers once-a-century edge cases anyone would argue it's not WP:RS for anything aerospace related. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any reason not to suppose that Acta Astronautica is generally fine. (Of course, claims about spacedrives that rely upon fringe physics are just where one would expect those bonkers edge cases to arise. Engineers have been known to give a pass to wacky ideas from outside their specialty now and then. They might endorse creationism, dabble in crank math, etc. It happens. And all it takes is a couple referees willing to go "yeah, looks fine" to claims from outside their field for a paper to slip through the review process.) My only concern with relying on the Acta Astronautica item is that it's utterly commonplace for A to write a paper that cites B; one instance of that happening is insufficient justification to have an article about B. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually a ton of papers in Acta Astronautica about Woodward and his claims, I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal. And the existence of that later paper increases his notability and makes it that much easier to point out that his claims are bunk. And it makes more sense to have an article on the person and not the effect, since the effect is bunk and should be kept as just a thing this one guy claims. Having a separate article on the effect would actually be giving it more perceived legitimacy. Silver seren^C 23:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that point of view. But wouldn't it make more sense to have a separate article on neither? Shouldn't we just have one moderately-sized page for all the related kinds of bunk? (Particularly since those papers do discuss the "Mach effect" and the EmDrive together [4], for example.) We have the page reactionless drive that could host a section about Woodward's "Mach effect". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm being/coming across as more confrontational than a matter of article organization really warrants, so I'll wander off now and trust that the excessive number of words I've spilled already can convey my point. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal

As far as I'm aware, even if literally nothing but the New York Times covers you--and everyone else in media implausibly ignores you--a WP:SIGCOV in the times once a week for a month makes any of us article worthy, most likely.

If like ten authors wrote about this guy to SIGCOV in that journal, top 20% or so (IIRC) for aerospace, then this is super notable. Is that what you are saying? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I would agree. But there's some people that argue that sources from the same publication don't count separately toward notability, no matter the disparity in time or authorship. So that's why I usually focus on presenting a breadth of different sources, to better convince those with that opinion. Silver seren^C 02:33, 14 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.

Keep Per the first page of WP:NPROF, It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. With respect, all of the !votes that only cite to WP:NPROF without doing sufficient WP:BEFORE searches to determine if the subject passes WP:GNG strike me as quite deficient. Newspapers and magazines absolutely pass WP:SIGCOV, including the ones provided by Silver Seren. Show me where within WP:GNG newspaper or magazine coverage is precluded from grounding the notability of a person who has conspiratorial views and I will change my vote. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 13:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a significant number of new sources have been introduced since most of the delete !votes, I'm relisting and will hand out a round of pings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 19:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist@Hannes Röst@Bearian@Như Gây Mê@David Eppstein, please take a look at the sources posted here since your !vote. Your updated opinions, whether a reaffirmation or an alteration of your original !vote, would be very helpful towards reaching a consensus on notability. Toadspike [Talk] 19:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a delete, but thank you. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't address GNG or any sources whatsoever in your original vote above, does that imply that your delete vote should be generally ignored as irrelevant for the closer? Silver seren^C 21:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still a delete. If the strongest thing we can say about this fringe theory is "The effect is controversial", then we are still failing WP:FRINGE in giving WP:UNDUE weight to fringe theories and falling into both-sidesism instead of providing properly neutral coverage of the mainstream pov. Also, I tend to agree with the opinions above that local-newspaper coverage is often not reliable for fringe physics, and is not reliable in this case. (Reliability is always a function of both the source and the content; these newspapers may well be reliable for other topics but that does not make them reliable for everything.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the fringe theory, it is about the person who made it up. Who is the one receiving the coverage. Multiple pieces of coverage, mind you, that are about debunking his claims or showcasing his fringe claims don't hold up to scrutiny. Notable coverage refuting a fringe person is still notable coverage regardless. You don't seem to attempt to actually address how WP:GNG is applied to articles at all. Silver seren^C 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If what he is notable for is significant coverage of his fringe theories then we need to apply our standards for what constitutes significant coverage of fringe theories: sources that are reliably published and that cover this work of the subject with both depth and a point of view that sticks to the consensus of current scholarship. The newspaper stories that cover his work credulously are reliably published by our standards but are not scholarly and do not stick to the mainstream scholarly point of view, so they fail this test. If he were notable for something else like WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR then we could use our notability standard for that and then treat the fringe theories as a sideline (example: A. K. Dewdney), but we don't have the notability evidence that would allow us to handle it that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (!voting because of the call for uninvolved editors to help form a concensus). Definitely not by WP:PROF standards, but does the total coverage of the theories, the theory's creator, weighed by the reliability/independence of the external sources add up to a GNG pass? It's not easy to say, but it looks like the answer is No even without taking into account any "extraordinary claims require..." rules. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:39, 16 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]

Note: This AfD was closed by @Thomasfan1916 as delete, but as a non-admin closure it cannot be closed as delete. Undoing the closure (as another uninvolved non-admin) so that it can be closed by an administrator (or relisted etc.). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:20, 14 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 16:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. The sources in the article aren't reliable or doesn't talk about him. The Sports Business Journal isn't independent. I did found another press release, which isn't notable either. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. This is a classic case of someone who you might think he's notable because of his organizational connections, but that's illogical. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not satisfy the notability guidelines. From looking at the sources, they are either brief, announcements (e.g. this), mentions, or does not mention the subject at all (Reuters). And no SIGCOV sources found online as well. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:36, 16 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 [5] [6] (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 [7] (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”." [8]

She sits at the Editorial Board of Cambridge, not sure if that in itself is enough, but might add something! [9]

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 [10], 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]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 17 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]
Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Looks like a bio created to promote his investing company and speaker gigs. Lijil (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]