Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

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

Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles, WP:PROF for the widely-used notability standard for academics. Other notability standards that may be of relevance include WP:SCIENCE, the notabilty guidelines for scientific research.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education.

Academics and educators

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. The arguments to delete are stronger (and at least one of the arguments to keep sounds strangely like an argument to delete). Given the borderline nature of this case there is no prejudice against creating an article about this person should notability be established. Shereth 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yongge Wang

Contested prod. I don't think he quite passes WP:PROF just yet. Ray^Talk 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not overwhelming, but sufficient cites at GScholar to establish that his work has had an impact on his field. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment h-index is around 11, books look to be in-house monographs. Abductive (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF; significant body of work. JJL (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep being a mathematician from the United States is not enough for ensuring notability. It should be proven that he had meaningful impact on his field Rirunmot (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep see the discussion above. Top cites on GS are 109, 59, 56. bordeline. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The article needs more information on why he's notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, an article can't be a CV. Abductive (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete On the basis of citations to his work. For this purpose, h indexes are meaningless, because he would have an h index of 11 if he had 11 papers with 11 cites each, or 10 papers with 100 cites and one with 11. What he actually has, for the published papers is a total of 33 citations in other published papers, with the maximum cites 26,13, 2, 2, .... and 41 non-journal conference proceedings in Citeseer, with maximum citation 10, 4, 3, ... The Citeseer results can be more signifcant that the formal papers in his subject, but they distribution confirms the paper count. The distribution in GScholar confirms, tho it lists a miscellany of material, and is hard to interpret. On the whole, though there are certainly enough papers, this is not a record that shows any really distinguished work. DGG (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with DGG that the citation record is a little too slim to make a convincing case for passing WP:PROF #1, and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), but maybe not yet there. Does not seem to meet other WP:PROF criteria. Here are some stats based on about 15 years or work, generated with Harzing’s PoP citation analysis software - Papers: 77 (3 with cites > 50); Total cites: 518; Cites/year: 34.53; Cites/paper: 6.73; h-index: 11. Pretty good numbers, but I would want to see a few more papers cited above 50, an h-index >= 15, or another indication (many libraries holding a book), to recommend a clear “keep” based on criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shereth 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheri Markose

non-notable academic: the vast majority of her papers have single-digit citation figures, and she gets not a single g-news hit. Article is a close copy of her faculty page at Essex. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending further investigation. Personal chair and head of small department at mid-ranking U.K. university. Prof rank at such is equivalent to upper half of that in U.S. universities. About to publish a book with high prestige Cambridge University Press. Citations are odd. Google gives 1,500 hits, Google Scholar:author gives 65 hits, h = 9, top cites 39, 23, 18. However WoK gives only 10 papers with 3 cites between them. I am not familiar with publication patterns in quantitative finance but there seems to be something odd here. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to RAE(Research Assessment Exercise) which focuses mainly on the research quality, University of Essex(Economics department), has got 3rd position, so I guess it would not be a mid-ranking U.K university. --Zeroxis (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that. Citations are still a mystery. It could be that practitioners in the very new discipline of quantitative finance aim their research at other than the traditional academic journals. DGG is needed here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I found out that she was involved recently in projects for government agencies this may be a reason for the small number of publications - check this one, bottom of the page, Agent-Based Modelling - she's referred to as a leading academic by UK Government's Foresight Programme, which is an important one: Foresight link

--Makum (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Scopus shows 14 papers, but with highest counts as 23, 6, 6. In the areas she's working there can be many informal publications - Repec is the right database to bring them together, but none of them show many citations either. As for the directorship of the Centre, it's a Centre within her university only. --someone in the subject could judge that part of things & any influence on policy better than I can. DGG (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't she meet WP:PROF #5? Fences&Windows 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the answer is that she does not. Xxanthippe writes that she holds a personal chair and is head of department -- but I see no evidence that either is true, see the econ dept web site. Even the article here doesn't make either of these claims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the reference on her article page [[1]]. Personal chair? Can't remember where I found it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What am I meant to see there? I'm not seeing either head of department or personal chair. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try this [2] then. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No indication of head of department or personal chair there, either. Anyway, the link to the econ department [3] shows that she is not head of department; that would be Melvyn Coles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notice her paper was the most downloaded article from prestigious Royal Economic Society in October 2006 which is not the case of non-notable academics--Makum (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— makum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Thanks to contributions from other editors I think the mystery of the missing citations is solved. The group led by the subject appears to be operating as a Think Tank and is mostly engaged in making policy submissions to government and other organisations on economic matters rather than acting as an academic research group whose aim is to notch up citations in academic journals. Whether they will be able to save the British economy from itself is another (off topic) matter. Passes on WP:Prof #7 and 1,500 Ghits for WP:Notability (people). Xxanthippe (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm genuinely puzzled by this. Since when do we count regular google hits? WP:BIO specifically disallows it. Where is the evidence of "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"? I'll repeat the point that a gnews search on her name produces precisely zero results. Where are the reliable sources for writing an article here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I invite Xxanthippe to strike or revise claims that are either untrue (head of department), unsupported (personal chair, substantial impact) or irrelevant (# of ghits). Are there any *actual* grounds for keeping this article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomoskedasticity, It's not said that she is the head of department, apparently she is Founder, Director of the Center for Computational Finance and Economics Agents at University of Essex,[4].--Zeroxis (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep refering to WP page about Agent-Based Computational Economics her paper "Advances in experimental and agent-based modelling" is being referred to, as this field is quite new, I guess her contribution to this field could be considered as notable.--Zeroxis (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Zeroxis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. The personal chair (this page, under "overview") at a well-regarded econ department is enough per WP:PROF #5: it indicates that others more expert in her subject area have judged her and found her work to be significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, there it is, personal chair -- in fact, there is the source that has been copied into the Wikipedia article here, the source for the copyvio and autobiography... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The source cited by David Epstein appears to show that she meets PROF#5 by being awarded a personal chair. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete, to save any more arguments on an overinflated discussion which has reached a conclusion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg W. Moore

The *best* reference is a trivial reference on a partisan blog. The article and sources (which are databases and listings) show a solid but non-notable government employee. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Autobiographical article not backed up by references supplied. If he was a professor, which university was it, and why has he lost the title professor? Martin451 (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the scientific community there are special, and very thorough peer-review processes to evaluate whether somebody is or is not a notable person. In proven cases - when the result is positive - the community nominates individuals to memberships in organizations which recognize the accomplishments. And - there is no higher recognition, except the Nobel Prize, than a membership in an academy of sciences. This way Dr. Greg W. Moore became a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences. This way also Dr. Greg W. Moore received a special recognition from the U.S. Senate, Committee (Democratic !) Chairman Sen. Bennett Johnston. This way also Dr. Greg W. Moore was recently included into the report issued (see the quote) by the U.S. Senate - this time led by a Republican (!) group. So - there is no better proof of objective/neutral recognition of Dr. Greg W. Moore by the community as it comes from BOTH the Democrats and Republicans. Dr. Moore was also so much involved in serious management of various activities within the community that he eventually was offered a very unique opportunity of leaving the academic community and joining the U.S. Government community as a scientific consultant which he did. So - he did not loose any titles - he simply changed the professional environment, which was a kind of "promotion", by his own choice. Greg W. Moore (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are talking here about an article titled "Greg W. Moore" - THIS is the subject of the discussion and not my person. Besides - almost all the data pieces were not, kind of, written by me but are an almost a copy of the statement and the report issued by the U.S. Senate - that's why it is not an autobiography - it is a quote from a public (and very high level) source/resource. It is also neutral and objective as "Greg W. Moore" received recognitions from BOTH sides - Democratic and Republican. Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, Google only has 33 results on "Greg W. Moore" (and I don't know which ones refer to him) and Google news has none.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is almost a copy of a statement from the US Senate, then surely it is a Copyright violation. Martin451 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Greg W. Moore is aka G.W. Gmurczyk (legal name change) - so you should Google G.W. Gmurczyk too - he generated a lot of papers and reports under the latter name (recognized already by the U.S. Senate and the New York Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Government). Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31 results for "G.W. Gmurczyk" on Google and none on Google news.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it 64 items total - quite a lot but still, with full respect, it is not Google which conducts thorough professional peer-review processes and decides on nominations to academies of sciences - it is the very professional community which does it - and they did. As I mentioned already - both the U.S. Senate and the New York Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Government recognize it. That's plenty - and I am saying that as a member of another notable organization not mentioned before - namely: Washington Editorial Review Board which is a U.S. Government interagency elite professional body. Greg W. Moore (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except not all those sites refer to you. For example, I don't think you're a reverend, and you're clearly not deceased. On a related note, a Google search for your name and the organizations that you mention only brings up your Wikipedia article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "And - there is no higher recognition, except the Nobel Prize, than a membership in an academy of sciences. This way Dr. Greg W. Moore became a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences." As near as I can tell from the New York Academy of Sciences website, all one has to do to become a member is pay them $108 (or less if one is a student). Deor (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not check all the items with the name Greg W. Moore but certainly ALL the 31 items with the earlier version of the name G.W. Gmurczyk are mine - there is no other person with the name G.W. Gmurczyk in the world. Re: the NYAS - you won't become a member unless you have a proven and recognized list of accomplishments. Again - instead of searching for info here and there - see the most recent statement and report just issued by the U.S. Senate which includes a summary of ALL recognized and reliable information all in one place/document. They already did the whole verification. Greg W. Moore (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be the only "G.W. Gmurzyk" in the world is quite a big claim, and not one of a proper scientist. If you really are as notable as you claim, why has someone else not written a neutral article about you? Martin451 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They already did - it is included in the summary report by the U.S. Senate (see Ref.#5). This article is merely a copy (almost) of it. Greg W. Moore (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. ref #5 is not a neutral wikipedia article. It is a quote from you (with a political agenda) with a short WP:Peacock bio. The article on wikipedia is your own work, which is not backed up by the sources which you have provided, not very good from a scientist. Martin451 (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons mentioned above in support of deletion. Ref #5 does not show that the US Senate reported anything about you, but that a Senate staffer added you into a committee report. That is different from being honored by the Senate, and besides, even being honored by the Senate does not in itself make one worthy of an encyclopedic article. The New York Academy of Sciences has 25,000 members according to its article, and surely they are all not worthy of Wikipedia articles. I am usually sympathetic to keeping articles of professors and scientists, but the article says nothing about any of your papers and you assert other reasons of importance for you as a subject, none of which qualify for a Wikipedia article from what I have seen so far. The first words of the article say it all: there are many technology consultants to the federal government and that simply does not impart notability.--Gloriamarie (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious conflict of interest as an autobiography. That said, I still don't think notability has been established. Using big words and mentions of scientific concepts doesn't make up for it. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Getting hired by the fed does not make someone notable, what you do does. Even though govt. websites are considered reliable sources, the mentions in here don't show me notability. I also have serious concerns about the WP:COI issue involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails basic WP:N - not enough secondary sources to prove his notability. Also fails WP:PROF by almost any measure - not a full professor or department chair, no extensive list of publications or teaching credentials. Furthermore fails WP:FRINGE - advocate of a non-notable fringe theory. Membership in the New York Academy or name-dropping Congressional reports do not prove notability. No ability to verify any of this information from ordinary Internet searches. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Disclosure: I was a former student member of the New York Academy. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Person not notable.LouriePieterse (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The significance of "senior member" in AIAA seems to be roughly on par with NYAS (see above), i.e. not notable. It is evidently a membership upgrade one earns for having been a member in good standing for at least 8 years. Documentation is here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable, and haranguing every delete commenter is not helping your cause, Mr Moore. ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Greg just tried to remove the AFD template off the article as well as the autobiography tag.[5]--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report Somebody at Wikipedia who has access to the right tools has removed a large portion of the discussion which happened yesterday afternoon. As ttonyb1 just confirmed it even the history tool does not show the removal nor who did it so - somebody did it at the deep level within the system. Greg W. Moore (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I indicated in the user's talk page, "I think you [Moore] are clearly mistaken. Wikipedia history is not edited except in extreme cases where there are user issues. In those cases the entry is not removed only the actual text the entry refers to. No one has an incentive nor the time to request this type of change to your talk page history." ttonyb1 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article of questionable reliability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Can it be snowy if there is one person objecting? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable individual. — Jake Wartenberg 04:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST FROM THE AUTHOR: GREG W. MOORE

PLEASE DELETE THE ARTICLE "GREG W. MOORE" FROM THE WIKIPEDIA RESOURCES. REASON: EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL, LOW QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS. THANKS!

Unfortunately your own Wikipedia contributors have badly violated your own rules - namely: one of them keeps promoting his own political agenda (see records of his modifications he did to the article by adding the name Inhofe) by suggesting that the very article and the subject of the article are completely biased politically which completely contradicts the truth as the subject of the article was highly evaluated throughout his career by both parties equally. Even more - that same Minority report just issued, quoated Greg W. Moore as a person who claims there is no evidence on Global Warming to support either side - neither Warming alarmists nor deniers. This way your contributors completely distort the truth and paint the subject of the article in a way he has absolutely no connection with. In other words - your contributors are highly unprofessional, biased, and clearly vandalize Wikipedia by violating its own rules. That is why please remove the article from such a unprofessional environment. Thanks. Greg W. Moore (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose own agenda? What modifications? If an editor is acting out of line, go to WP:AN/I. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is one very notable Gregory W Moore, who has worked on theoretical physics. T Scopus shows 75 paper, and the citation counts are 429,221, 204, 172 , 155 , 117, etc. The most cited paper is "onabeuons in the fractional quantum hall effect" by Moore, G. , Read, N Nuclear Physics B Volume 360, Issue 2-3, 1991, Pages 362-396 . I don't think that the person we are discussing here, though. As for this GW Moore, I cannot find a full CV, so it is hard to tell. Does anyone actually have one available DGG (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythili Kumar

Not sure this meets the general notability guideline for biographies. No sources, only one mainspace page linking in (a list), couldn't really find anything reliable, substantial, or notability-indicating online at a cursory glance. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google News search appears to indicate likely notability, but I don't have time to go through the potential sources at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went through Phil's search results and picked out a few that were more about her and less about the performances of her troupe. There seems to be plenty of coverage of both. So I think she passes WP:BIO based on the sources I listed as references in her article (primarily from the SJ Merc), but I think she also passes WP:CREATIVE based on the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (also in SF Chron, LA Times) of her dance pieces. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N and WP:ENT. SJ Merc '98, SJ Merc '91, LA Times '95, SJ Merc '90, SF Chronicle '97, The Hindu '04. There are a lot more, but this is sufficient to establish notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per David Eppstein and Spaceman7Spiff. Meets WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would not pass high standard of W:Prof. May pass other WP:N. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think WP:PROF is relevant. She's a dance teacher, not an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gentile

Non Notable. No disrespect intended, but Dr. Gentile is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. The bloat of wikipedia entries among my speciality seems to be more vanity entries or part of marketing strategiesDroliver (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find an assertion of notability that met our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mention in Vogue and a cameo on tv doesn't get it. I'm sure he's very qualified, but that's his job. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything to back claims on page, and its only a cameo if you're famous in the first place. Second, article contains patently wrong promotional material (the part about being one of only 13 dual board certified surgeons). Fuzbaby (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Biophys (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just a promotion. No WP:RS mentions the subject; fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Breeding

Non-notable psychologist. One self published book, and 3 published by a very small niche publisher. Article created as anti-psychiatry coatrack. Ridernyc (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable FE college teacher. Suspect that this is an anti-ECT coatrack. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable scientologist who once taught at a community college and is, surprise!, opposed to mainstream psychiatry. Delete this biography and remove the related material from the Anti-psychiatry article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazoovirtuoso (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was originally wondering how everyone can be so sure that the article has been created on the basis of anti-psychiatry, since there are many mainstream people opposed to electroshock therapy these days and the article doesn't have a talk page yet. When looking at the anti-psychiatry article, it describes Breeding this way: "a controversial social critic of psychiatric practices who is closely allied with the Church of Scientology through its Citizens Commission for Human Rights." If he's so controversial, it seems there would be sources discussing these controversies and perhaps he does meet criteria for an article of his own. I suspect that he's not notable on any front since I couldn't find sources saying anything about him other than he received a Scientology award, but if so, the content of the linking article needs to be changed to reflect that.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

was not going to bring this up here but the article was created by a person who has a long history of pro-scientology, anti-psychiatry edits. Ridernyc (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient third-party sources here to demonstrate notability. Robofish (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles K. Herman

Delete. NonNotable non notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Herman is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. Droliver (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is the national research prize he won in 1998? If it's a notable prize, I would say he qualifies based on that.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well considering he was a medical student at the time, I call B.S. Honestly, those kind of descriptors are part & parcel of physicians bios to kind of self inflate for marketing to prospective patients. Droliver (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to back up his claims of accomplishment on his page. The medical center where he is chair of plastic surgery isn't even large enough to have its own wikipage, either. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS for author:"Charles K. Herman" gives 42 hits max cites 5. Does not make WP:Prof notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Some local stories in refs, but no secondary source analysis of contributions. There are thousands of surgeons with similar publications and promotional web sites, but they don't use Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Sommer

Fails WP:AUTHOR (lacks recognition and wide citation by peers, recognized work or body of work, no indication of some new concept or theory), WP:PROFESSOR (No indication of any significant awards or significant society elections. There is some impact outside of academia with his fiction book but not what I'd call significant.), and WP:BIO (lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources). Google Scholar search brings up only 2 citations not authored by Sommer. Google news brings up a single hit, surprisingly low for an author. Not finding many reviews for the fiction book either. RadioFan (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The academic book is just a reprint of the theses--only 76 p. long; the papers are cited 6 times total--not nearly a notable academic yet; the single fiction book is held in zero libraries according to WorldCat, and I do not see any reviews. The Tower books sales rank is an unexplained anomaly. DGG (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His novel appears to be published through a vanity press: searching the internet reveals that there are two companies known as Tate Publishing. The one described in our Tate Publishing article is a reputable art publisher, but does not publish fiction. The other one requires authors to pay for their books to be published, not the model for any reputable publisher. So I don't think his writing passes WP:CREATIVE. Additionally, there is no evidence (citations etc) that his academic work has achieved any impact let alone enough of one to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the publisher is not exactly a vanity publisher in the same way as the worst of them, but claims to actually be selective. [6] I still have my strong doubts about anything they publish, but there does some to be a slight difference from the usual. The number of staff indicates they must actually be doing some work vbesides printing the books. [7]. DGG (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From their general information: "most unknown authors who fall into the single-digit percentage of authors receiving contracts from Tate Publishing will have a refundable, author-investment contract". This is a nice way of saying that authors pay to publish, which is the very definition of a vanity press. And they have been called out by name as a vanity press e.g. here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - adjuncts almost always fail WP:PROF. Publication of a thesis, by itself, is not enough; otherwise every grad student would be notable. I'd like to see a lot more to pass WP:CREATE. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To all of the above substantive reasons we can add: (1) Some of the notability claim here is actually WP:CRYSTAL "It is anticipated that the release of the prequel to The Manufactured Identity, The Grand Delusion, will be released in 2010". (2) Claims of notability with respect to science/medicine do not hold up. In particular, parts of his personal website (linked from article) imply he's an expert on Angelman syndrome, but he has evidently not authored a single peer-reviewed paper on this subject. Other areas of his notability claim may have similar problems. The layout of his website suggests it's primarily a vehicle to sell his novel. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Jamet

Non-notable. A few interviews on TV and contributions to collective books are a staple for a schloar. Delated of fr: by speedy deletion. Bokken | 木刀 11:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF, non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionnal remark : the article has been restored and re-deleted on fr: following a request by Jean-François himself. I happen to know him and told him what was happening. It seems the article was made by a relative who misinterpreted the notability guildelines on fr. I wonder if it could be grounds for a speedy deletion here. Here his him asking for the deletion. He also requested the debate being blanked out in order to avoid referencing by search engines. Bokken | 木刀 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteAccording to the full CV at [8], only 6 actual papers in journals, none covered by WoS, but it does a really lousy job on European social science in non-english journals. Scopus should do better, but it's down. I'll check later. The significance of the Schuman policy papers is unclear. They are not in WoS. DGG (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Others have not found enough notabilty. Also, I give weight to the subject's wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Seems to be of extremely marginal notability per our guidelines, and given that the subject requested deletion on the French Wiki (I'm in favor of generally honoring requests from marginally notable figures to delete their BLPs) I think this should be deleted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zimmer

Assistant professor with no evidence of any unusually high academic impact (such as highly cited papers) that would allow a pass of WP:PROF #1 at this early stage of his career. I don't think the GQ and Eagle Eye contributions are enough for WP:PROF #7, and he clearly does not pass the other criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Abductive (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. DGG (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:ACADEMIC and barely even makes an attempt to argue for any sort of notability. This is yet another article that was prodded and then deprodded by one of the many socks of a banned user -- should never even have gotten as far as AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Hughes

Previously prodded as "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Academics and educators – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability" and deprodded without any real reason given other than to force an AFD, so here it is. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure I see why it's up for deletion. It needs sources, but a quick Google search reveals that he's got plenty of exposure and is published through Simon & Schuster. It's a candidate for improvement, not deletion, in my view. J L G 3 9 2 6 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a ref to his S&S book, '85, a novel. I know that doesn't fulfill notability in terms of independent coverage in reliable sources, but it's something. Plus, I think this is a grey-area case where the person clearly has some claim to recognition, even if not covered by sources discoverable via Google News... J L G 3 9 2 6 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~his Three Days As the Crow Flies has its own article and~~(not) the first 5 pages of Google searches include a page in "comiclopedia", a write-up of '85 on grahicnovelreporter, a stub biography as Simon & Schuster author, Marvel comics database, Video interview on Loutshelter Blog, review on '85 at bookreporters, short review of '85 on prohiphop - not my scene, but appears to satisfy WP:BIO. Enki H. (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Enki, the novel has its own article, which does not even mention his graphic adaptation. But probably makes it as illustator of the graphic version & other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Christians

Assistant professor with no evidence of any unusually high academic impact (such as highly cited papers) that would allow a pass of WP:PROF #1 at this early stage of her career, and who clearly does not pass the other criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder, would change my mind if she could be shown to pass WP:PROF or the GNG. Abductive (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced article of a published academic. Beltline (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This user is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppet of banned User:Azviz -- if the close is close please check the status of this editor at that time. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:PROF, you'll discover that "published academic" is not a sufficient criterion for keeping an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF, lacks impact, lacks significant coverage. Maybe notable in the future but not today.--RadioFan (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ACADEMIC. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content shows a successful career, but no evidence of notability. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly not notable, unless some of the papers are extremely important, and there is no indication of this. It is exceedingly rare that someone who is still an assitant professor will have achieved enough professional recognition to meet WP:PROF. It was unrealistic to mark this article for rescue. DGG (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows only 1 peer-reviewed publication (Christians AD, Columbia J. Law Soc. Prob. 1999) which has been cited 4 times. (Oddly, this publication is NOT listed in the article, though it does appear on her CV.) Note that the other papers listed as "peer-reviewed publications", may not actually qualify in the academic sense. For example, "Tax Treaties for..." seems to be some sort of conference paper: Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 05-10. Perhaps someone closer to the legal profession could weigh-in on these papers. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Individual does not appear notable. rmosler (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Bernroider

Non-notable scientist with a plethora of fringe/pseudoscience views, and no independent sources. Abductive (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cites at GScholar are rather low, indicating he hasn't had a big influence on his field. GNews finds 1 story about a person by this name's work, but a rough translation seems to indicate it is not an independent source and probably is a different person anyway since there is no mention of bird studies in our article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a non-notable fringist to me. No particularly notable work, no real mention in the media... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. FRINGE sources don't add up to reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fringe sources are indeed not valid for WP:Prof notability, but may be so for notability more generally. In this case they probably aren't. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Could we please have a more respectful tone for this particular deletion discussion? Sure, maybe the guy isn't qualified for an article but there's no reason to insult and pass judgment on the man. Many scientists disagree on various aspects of science.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I have been disrespectful; I agree that great care is needed when discussing living persons. Sadly this convention is not always observed, for example here. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Mickey

Non-notable academic, deprodded. Abductive (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Academic unless the book is more notable than I was able to quickly gleam from google. Shadowjams (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Simply working at a University doesn't make one notable.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bye bye! Way too many academics slipping under the line these days. Hairhorn (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minimal cites at GScholar and no reliable source coverage that I've seen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor whose book has not yet been published; no other evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One book, not yet published even. NOT NOW, to borrow a phrase from WP:RFA DGG (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaahin Filizadeh

Non-notabl Canadian academic. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable, low ranking academic. Hairhorn (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as individual fails WP:ACADEMIC. DreamGuy (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Assistant professor with a record that does not stand out among other assistant professors; few citations in Google scholar. Actually holding an NSERC chair might be grounds for keeping, but being "associated with" one is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant professor, was not a good choice for the ARS to attempt rescue. I see no actual evidence of holding a named chair: associated apparently means that one of the full professors in the department holds it, Attahiru Alfa--who might well qualify for an article. DGG (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real assertion of notability, and I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Thomas Foggin III

Non-notable academic. Deprodded after 7.24 days by an IP. Abductive (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Is their any significant contributions hes made that could make him stand out in WP:academic? Hes written 3 books apprently but does he have a larger list?, maybe some awards with some refs? If not I dont see him meeting the criteria of wp academic Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't books. Abductive (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Should refer to them as publications instead. Though if had he written books he would probably would more notable. Anysense Im not seeing any more notability than a standard academic(nothing makes him stand out no awards, significant publications (how are they significant for the ones listed?) etc. And those people arent given articles unless they meet WP:academic which he doesnt seem too. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My thinking exactly. Abductive (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minimal cites at GScholar , which is usually the best way to decide if an academic is notable or not. No press coverage or forms of reliable source coverage that I've seen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of meeting WP:ACADEMIC. Deprod was ~~most likely~~ invalid as the IP is ~~undoubtedly~~ the latest sock of banned serial deprodder User:Azviz. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. as non-notable - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H. Beau Baez

Previously prodded by User:Abductive with reasoning "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: H. Beau Baez – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." and I agree. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both general notability guidelines and WP:PROF particularly. Drawn Some (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. I have done several Google News/Scholar searches and have been unable to find any sources to prove that Baez passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder, I feel that this person is not notable. Abductive (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. One hit on Google Scholar, with zero citations. Zero hits on WorldCat. Three hits on Google News, all minor mentions in news articles related to other subjects. Perhaps notability will come in the future, but now is not even close.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete. Despite appearances to the contrary, subject has no evident peer-reviewed legal research work (per WoS) – his papers appear in publications that are not mainstream law journals. For example, the Seattle University Law Review appears to be some kind of student journal: "The journal’s writing and editing assignments give student members opportunities to improve their writing skills and research techniques" (from their web page) and the NLA Review is the quarterly news & general interest bulletin of the National Lawyer's Association. Also, filing of an Amicus curiae brief is in no way notable – this is a routine procedure done quite frequently. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Grivoyannis

An obviously popular teaching professor, but not-notable by the standards of WP:PROF. Abductive (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to have published several books. It would be helpful if prodders on these pages would do the citation searches themselves rather than leave them to others. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I am aware that the subject published a study guide to one of his classes, and an in-house research monograph. I reject your presumption of bad faith nominations. Abductive (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No presumption of bad faith was made by me. My comment applies to all prodders. What were the results of your citation searches? They will help other editors to assess the AfD more effectively. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I use the {{prod-nn}} template, which has links to those Google searches. Maybe the AfD template should include those links as well. Sorry for over-reacting. Abductive (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete~~Delete~~. Seems to be a good professor, but I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Citation impact seems to be low. ~~Zero hits on WorldCat~~. News coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I expanded the search on WorldCat and found out that he has one book, Current issues in monetary policy in the United States and Japan, currently in close to 250 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Not bad, but taken alone it is still not enough for notability under WP:PROF criterion #1. I also did a Google search with the book’s title and the word “syllabus”, and got no hits, suggesting that the subject does not meet WP:PROF criterion #4 either. Changed my recommendation to a “weak delete” though, given the WorldCat holdings.

Delete, appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC and other standards. DreamGuy (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability as well as WP:PROF. Drawn Some (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletehis books are in almost no libraries. His textbook is self-published. DGG (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence in Google scholar of the heavy citations that would indicate a pass of WP:PROF #1, and he doesn't seem to pass any of the other criteria. His article reads a lot like a cv, and the relatively high number of positions and the adjunct nature of some of those positions leads me to suppose that he held them more as a teacher than as a researcher. The article notes some involvement in local politics but not at a level that would justify an article independently of his academic accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor E Reviglio

Contested prod from last October with no reason given. Non-notable doctor, and article is written like a resume rather than an article. Matt (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some simple cleanup on the page. It certainly still needs work, but the primary reason for nominating it for deletion (reads like a resume) is basically taken care of now. I understand the objection, but not the reasoning that because an article "reads like a resume" is a reason for deletion. Ω (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of impressive research, but nothing notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indocation of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article looks better now, but no notability has been established through significant coverage/peer reviewed research etc Corpx (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The clean-up definitely helped, but it didn't lend any more credibility as far as inclusion. Reading over WP:BIO and WP:BLP, I'm not seeing anything particular that sets this doctor apart from his colleagues. I didn't see anything online about his supposed research (and if he made breakthroughs in his field, I would definitely see a stronger reason to keep). However, if anyone else can come up with more to back up his importance in the field, I would welcome the article being kept and further refined. →^Jog_Con← 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if the prodder would do the citation search needed to asses notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A recent Ph.D. with a research profile that does not stand out. His best-cited paper is a case report on a single instance of keratitis after keratomileusis, which does not stand out among nearly 170 papers on similar cases.[9][10]. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2009 (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.

Academics and educators Proposed deletions

Alan Shapiro (education reformer) (via WP:PROD on 22 June 2009)
Humayun Abbas (via WP:PROD on 22 June 2009)
Ashok D B Vaidya (via WP:PROD on 22 June 2009)
William J. Kelleher (via WP:PROD on 22 June 2009)
Daniel Mann (lawyer) (via WP:PROD on 22 June 2009)
Kimi Conrad (via WP:PROD on 22 June 2009)
~~Benjamin Kamins (via WP:PROD on 22 June 2009)~~
Esau Jenkins (via WP:PROD on 21 June 2009)
Edward G. Lengel (via WP:PROD on 21 June 2009)
~~Maurice Séguin (via WP:PROD on 21 June 2009)~~
~~Michael Salda (via WP:PROD on 20 June 2009)~~
~~John M Brooks (via WP:PROD on 20 June 2009)~~
~~Patricia Goff (via WP:PROD on 20 June 2009)~~
~~Sheri Markose (via WP:PROD on 20 June 2009)~~
Peter B. Sunderland (via WP:PROD on 20 June 2009)
~~Erol Gelenbe (via WP:PROD on 19 June 2009)~~
~~Neil D. Mathur (via WP:PROD on 19 June 2009)~~