Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hugsyrup (talk | contribs) at 16:44, 19 February 2020 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahra Razavi. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This listing is for biographical articles on academics. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles in general and WP:PROF 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
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.


Purge page cache watch


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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahra Razavi

Shahra Razavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources provided are mostly staff/contributor profile pages - not independent or reliable, plus one article written by the subject, so not independent. My own search turns up a few mentions in reliable sources, but only where she provides a quote as part of an article about a different topic - none of the articles are about her so there is no depth of coverage. Appears to fail WP:GNG and also WP:AUTHOR despite having a few published works to her name as there is no indication that she is regarded as an important figure, widely cited, or her works are well-known or have attracted any critical attention. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (article creator) The amount of WP:BEFORE carried out here could literally have been no more than 15 minutes, since the article was nominated for deletion 20 minutes after creation (how many of the items listed at WP:GDBN were carried out in those 15 minutes?). She is a senior UN official, director of a department of the ILO - there are only 9 department directors. She is a global expert in the field of gender and development as attested by her holding the directorship of the Progress of the World's Women report and publications in leading academic journals. The reference in the article from the World Bank is not a staff page but an expert recognition page, she has never worked at the World Bank. She holds a position well-above an equivalent full-professor rank at a university. Board member of international academic associations....all of which is revealed from a genuine review of the subject. A prod here would have been quite reasonable, AfD is simply inappropriate. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 minutes is more than adequate to carry out a thorough WP:BEFORE. In fact I doubt it took me even half that time to read the four sources in the article and conduct the basic searches required. I appreciate it’s not pleasant having your work nominated for deletion but I do wish people would focus on making a clear, policy-based case for keep, rather than attacking the behaviour of delete nominators - it’s not productive. Anyway, the World Bank source is not an ‘expert recognition page’, it’s a speaker profile - in no way a reliable source and highly likely to have been provided by Razavi herself. Nothing else that you have said indicates passing the GNGs. Hugsyrup 20:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been round here long enough that I take nothing personal about anything to do with this encyclopaedia. What I am concerned about is the general overuse of AfD in lieu of basic editing processes. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that any form of adequate BEFORE can be done in 15 minutes (or less as claimed) here. I think applying commonsense rather than an abridged AfD guidebook is a far more useful mechanism - especially when subjects cross category boundaries. So, the subject is not simply an academic (although aspects of her work are academic), but having been a board member of the International Association for Feminist Economics and an editorial board member of Feminist Economics would indicate that multiple aspects of WP:ACADEMIC are met. The subject is an international civil servant, so aspects of WP:POLITICIAN are relevant, ie holding an international office, but I accept that some may not find that categorisation conclusive. However, out of the 36,000 odd international professional staff of the UN (which is not all UN staff, that number is much larger, but the highest category of all UN staff), she sits on a grade (D1/D2) that less than 7% have obtained - so sits within a highly significant category within the most significant category of UN staff. Regarding the source discussed, whether or not it is a speaker profile, it is from the World Bank - she has never worked for the World Bank, so it is independent. Furthermore, the vast majority of work published by the UN is secondary source (the IPCC is the best example of this) - it is the only acceptable way to work amongst the constituents; it's not unreasonable to treat the UN agencies as RS.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the source discussed, whether or not it is a speaker profile, it is from the World Bank - she has never worked for the World Bank, so it is independent this is a complete mischaracterisation of what independence means. She may not have worked there, but she spoke at one of their events [1] hence, naturally, why she has a speaker profile. A speaker profile is, almost by its definition, intended to promote the speaker or at least portray them in a positive light. They are often supplied by the speaker themselves, and are more akin to a press release than a substantial article about the individual. They are the furthest thing from independent, and no one can seriously believe that this is an 'independent, reliable source covering the subject in depth.' Hugsyrup 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Goldsztajn's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above rationale. Additionally, I did some WP:BEFORE myself and added a few more links. I also found numerous academic books from major university presses citing Razavi [1][2][3][4][5][6] It definitely looks like you could have, and should have, taken a bit more time.

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=5cRvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=shahra+razavi&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjstKy07N7nAhXNhXIEHdqPAmk4FBDoATAGegQIBxAC#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
  2. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=v8tPlht9lyAC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT83&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PT83#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
  3. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=w6ROBAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA17&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
  4. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=dg0ABwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA445&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA445#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
  5. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=5cRvAAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA178&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
  6. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ovbVLZ2G6pMC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA251&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
— Preceding unsigned comment added by IphisOfCrete (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't assume that because I didn't add things, I didn't find them. Being cited in a few books is not evidence of notability per se, and there is no clear agreement on how many cites are required to meet WP:ACADEMIC. The other sources you added are yet more examples of articles about other topics that simply quote Razavi. If you're going to attack me for an alleged lack of WP:BEFORE, it would be nice to at least show an understanding of what constitutes an acceptable source. Hugsyrup 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's break down some metrics. She has been cited in a lot more than a "few books" but I intentionally highlighted citations from major academic publications which address the very same topics that Razavi researches, ie women's rights, economic developments & gender equity, etc. The sources I added are actually quite relevant if you read Criterion 7 for WP:NACADEMIC which states that "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". Other sources in the article discuss Razavi's work instead of her personal biography, but for notability purposes that actually seems preferable. The thrust of this should be to determine whether she can be considered an authority in her field, and whether her work has made a broad impact.
Worldcat shows that she has 5,226 library holdings, which is significant for a scholar in the humanities.[1] By contrast, Jordan Peterson (a very well known author and professor, though I'm personally not a fan) has 4,796.[2] I think this is a good litmus test for her notability as an academic. Further, she has an h-index of 14, while the average full professor in sociology has a 3.7 and the average full economics professor has a 7.6. Now h-index is not good as a standalone metric because it can be misleading across different fields , and can be influenced by a wide range of variables. However, I think this lines up fairly well with the rest of the information available. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-no96039545
  2. ^ https://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n98080203
  • Keep per above , for her academic works Alex-h (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the above point that she meets WP:ACADEMIC through Criteria 7 (“The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.”) but for different reasons than listed above. As already said, “Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.” I personally don’t think academic book citations count as “outside academia” explicitly, so here are a list of conventional media that have quoted her (and her UN academic work) as an academic expert, in the area of women & labor/economics:
  1. CNN Money
  2. Al Jazeera
  3. Devex
  4. Stuff.co.nz
  5. CNN Indonesia
  6. Women in the World
  7. Thomson Reuters Foundation
  8. Bretton Woods Project
  9. Reuters
  10. The Independent
Her working in a head research position in a United Nations branch has led her to having substantial impact outside academia, and to being quoted frequently as an academic expert (inside and outside of academia). I think this, along with her past and current UN research positions, and along with her long list of published academic work and references in other academic books (shown above and through an easy google books or google scholar search) is more than enough to establish notability (even if someone doesn't think any of these individually is notable enough on its own). WP:ACADEMIC notability also overrides the idea that "none of the articles are about her so there is no depth of coverage," because this type of notability is "measured by their academic achievements." Most of the articles you can find online that mention her are about her work & research.
(Also, I want to point out that she is sometimes referred to as "Shahrashoub Razavi" professionally, since I have a found some older UN press and articles referring to her that way.) Whisperjanes (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above points and in line with fulfilling WP:ACADEMIC through Criteria 7. Edited that Ravazi was an invited contributor to a Japan's journal on welfare policies discussion; Ravazi's analysis as UNRISD officer[※ 1] on care giving sectors among six Asian countries binds topics by Japanese researchers[※ 2], evoking a long term discussion.[※ 3]

References

  1. ^ In the Special issue: International comparison of care, accessed 23 February 2020, pdf ISSN 1344-3062 (in Japanese).
  2. ^ Contribution by Japanese researchers around Ravazi's article, ISSN 1344-3062 (in Japanese).
  3. ^ Emiko Ochiai; Leo Aoi Hosoya. "Transformation of the intimate and the public in Asian modernity", translated from Japanese; OCLC 984803155.

--Omotecho (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (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. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okwueze Malachy Ikechukwu

Okwueze Malachy Ikechukwu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Nigerian lawyer. There are some sources that mention him like 1, but it is not enough to establish notability. Also the tone of the article is very promotional. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable BonkHindrance (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2020 (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 Move to Cho Min academic credentials scandal. There is a clear consensus that Cho Min herself is not notable, although the scandal is. Since we're split on whether this is better covered in its own article or as a section in the article about Cho Kuk, I'll move this for now, without prejudice against a merge discussion on the talk page as the article gets reworked. – bradv🍁 15:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Min

Cho Min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article needs to be scrutinized, in particular with regard to WP:BLP, whether its subject has independent of her father encyclopedic notability. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Neiltonks, PC78, Finnusertop, Christian140, who participated alongside Koraskadi and myself in a relevant merge discussion that had gone stale before this AfD was opened. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2020 (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. MBisanz talk 21:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asjad Raza Khan

Asjad Raza Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable Islamic scholar. I think the real successeor of Akhtar Raza Khan is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. We generally only keep the grand mufti of a country/state. Two news stories is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This man made national news by becoming the Barelvi Islamic Chief Justice in India. That is head of a sect to which the majority of India’s Muslims belong. Additional sources at [1], [2], [3] and [4]. @Bearian: can you tell me the basis for saying we generally only keep the Grand Mufti of a country? I’ve seen numerous contributions at AfD saying that Christian bishops are generally notable, though canons, monsignors, deacons are not unless by GNG. that’s a very different standard to ‘one guy per country’. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 07:06, 21 February 2020 (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 draftify. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi

Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable Islamist from India. Fails even WP:GNG. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 19:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 19:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Aaqib Anjum Aafi here. I request you elders here that please move the page to Draft. I would like to work on it. I'm concerned with biographical studies of Indian Deobandi scholars, and as well writing a 7-volume biographical encyclopedia about them. The page isn't qualified to be kept on mainspace. It must be deleted. The subject of the page though is notable under: Islamic Scholar, and educationist. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2020 (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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sheldon (writer)

Lee Sheldon (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources in the article since 2017 at least, and my online search could only find first-person sources (inc interviews, biographies) rather than independent secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system(err0r?)(.log) 08:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dream Focus - however WP:ENTERTAINER says clearly at the top under Basic Criteria that “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources...Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.” Therefore this subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to people talking about themselves. Nothing against primary sources of the entertainment media credits since there is no reason to doubt that information as valid. Anyway: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. is met. They can be notable if they meet the BASIC GNG criteria OR if they meet a subject specific guideline listed below that. Dream Focus 23:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus it also says about additional criteria such as this that “meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.” In any case, he is a scriptwriter and not an actor and so falls under WP:AUTHOR which says that “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). As writer on one episode, he fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers Weekly [2] reviewed one of his books. Tagging this for Rescue assistance to see what else can be found. Dream Focus 19:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 19:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC) t[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 12 February 2020 (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 Move to draft. Even the "keep" opinions admit a significant rewrite is needed before this is ready for mainspace, what with gems of prose such as "Balaja Abdurrahmanov was a broad-based scientist. He was truly a legendary man, a great scientist, a personality and always stood his ground." As to notability there is no consensus at this time. Sandstein 20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balaja Abdurrahmanov

Balaja Abdurrahmanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Something off here. Great and famous as he is made out here, does not pop on G-Books or Scholar. Inflated? Hyperbolick (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - it's hard to tell what we have going on here. One thing is clear - the language is either a poor translation, or just poor. There are no inline citations, just citations pertaining to each section. I say this should be taken to the Draft/sandbox space until it is ready. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 20 February 2020 (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. Sandstein 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Barry Bergman

Abby Barry Bergman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: could this article be redirected to one about the book which seems to meet WP:NBOOK? TJMSmith (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If some non-COI editor cares enough about the subject to make an article about the book, sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another trawl looking for sources reveals that his 1998 work was also cited in "No limits to teach(er)" but how?, The Duties, Responsibilities, and Challenges of Opening a New Elementary School and Elementary Principals' Perspectives on Opening New Schools in a Large Urban School District, among others. I am not sure how "wide" the "widely cited by peers" has to be for WP:AUTHOR but he does get a lot of mentions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Weak delete. While I think that he barely scrapes over the bar of notability, two exhaustive searches for online sources give little detail, even from trivial mentions. There is so little information that we are probably close to repeating the "about the author" section of his own book. For me this is a case of an article that would be useful to Wikipedia, if we had the reliable sources to take us beyond a list of his works. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:56, 12 February 2020 (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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Beere

AfDs for this article:
Jackie Beere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No decent evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza: Can you show me one decent citation about her that's from a reliable source? --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Our article is somewhat promotional and should, if kept, be cut back. And I'm not at all convinced that OBEs and headmasters are automatically notable. But I found four reviews of her books, making a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR. The most colorful of the four is in The Guardian, which describes her Perfect Lesson as "A cynical, stupid, and deeply misguided bag of tips that is destined to make you a worse teacher." [3] But bad reviews are still reviews. I can't read [4] but it looks reliable enough. The other two are [5] and [6]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a CBE or upwards makes you notable, but not an OBE on its own. Head teachers need to have attracted public attention. Happy to withdraw if someone can introduce some external sources. Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews above. TJMSmith (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real accomplishments, this is basically a run of the mill educator. The certifications are fringe at best. Bad writing can be notable, but in a marginal case like this, it's a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would love a bit more feedback. Anyone able to find any sources that help establish GNG? Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be inching towards a consensus to delete but we aren't there yet. Giving this another week in the hope for some clarity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2020 (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 no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold M. Brathwaite

Harold M. Brathwaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an educator, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to get over WP:GNG. The notability claims here are that he was director of education of a local school board and that he won an award which is not important enough to confer an instant free pass over WP:ANYBIO in the absence of much better sourcing than this -- but the only reference present here at all is a WordPress blog, not a reliable or notability-building source. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of those are primary sources or blogs, not GNG-building media coverage — and the only two that are actual media reportage are both short blurbs in a suburban hyperlocal community weekly, which is not sufficient to confer a GNG pass all by itself if it's the best media coverage that can be found. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two" — it also considers depth, geographic range and context, not just number. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that any of those sources are blogs, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. Which ones? Are you using some strange definition of blog different from what I would expect? The sources currently in the article include two newspaper articles, a biography published by the University of West Indies as part of an event honoring him, and a brief biography of him and some other committee members published by the Ontario government. They would only be primary if we were using those sources to discuss the newspaper, the event, or the committee, none of which are actually mentioned in the article, so they are secondary. Also, there is absolutely nothing in WP:GNG about "geographic range": you are making up that part out of thin air. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Ontario government issuing backgrounder press releases on its own website, about its own self-administered award and its own self-appointed panel, are not notability-supporting sources — they aren't independent of the claims being made, but are self-published by a directly affiliated entity. A self-written biography on the self-published WordPress site of a gala he was directly affiliated with is not a notability-supporting source, for the same reasons. And "Barbados in Toronto" is a WordPress blog, not a reliable or notability-supporting source.
And the two sources that are actually newspaper articles are short blurbs in a suburban community hyperlocal, not a major daily newspaper — and we most certainly do have a rule that being able to show just one or two hits of purely local coverage, in purely local interest contexts that aren't "inherently" notable under our SNGs, do not add up to enough coverage to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from having to satisfy any SNGs. If all it took to get a person into Wikipedia on strictly GNG grounds even if they didn't pass any SNGs was to show that they had received two pieces of coverage in their hometown local media, then we would have to keep an article about every municipal councillor on earth, every school board trustee on earth, every garage band that ever won a high school battle of the bands competition, everybody who ever tried out for a high school football team despite having only four toes on their kicking foot, everybody who ever won a high school poetry contest, and my mother's neighbour who got into her local papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her yard.
We don't have a rule that local sources are entirely verboten, and I never said we did — but we certainly do have a rule that if a person has no "inherent" notability claim, and is relying solely on "media coverage exists = GNG" as their path to inclusion, then it does take a lot more than just one or two hits of purely local media coverage in purely local interest contexts to actually get them over that bar. An MP doesn't have to show non-local sources to be kept, for example, because he or she holds an inherently notable NPOL-passing role that guarantees an article — so it doesn't matter how local or non-local an MP's actual sources are, because that wouldn't impact their notability at all. But conversely, city councillors aren't all accepted as "inherently" notable, so to actually be notable enough for inclusion they have to show more than just purely local coverage to demonstrate that they're special notability cases of more than just local prominence. Local sourcing isn't nothing, but it isn't always enough in every context if it's all the subject can show. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tending towards delete (again); however, caution trumps my impulse; re-listing for more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is profiled in this book, ISBN: 9781906190064 (and he is featured in several others, if you search him on Google Scholar). In addition, he has a school named after him, and he has received the highest honor available in the province of Ontario. There are likely many newspaper mentions, if someone can access a database with them. Seems like a clear keep to me. Citrivescence (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system(err0r?)(.log) 09:40, 11 February 2020 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators&oldid=941609831"