Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

This listing is for biographical articles on academics. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles in general and WP:ACADEMIC for the widely-used notability standard for academics. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools for deletion debates about educational institutions.

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive 2

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

J. Chris Leach

J. Chris Leach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has multiple issues regarding NPOV and Notability. A major contributor to the article seems to be closely connected to the subject. DevSpenpai::talk 15:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DevSpenpai::talk 15:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Leaning keep. Not my area but he holds a named chair and Google Scholar profile shows four works with strong citations (227,212,190,127), suggesting the subject meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I note that David Eppstein removed a notability tag in July 2020 with an edit summary stating "rm notability tag; obvious pass of WP:PROF#C5". Espresso Addict (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. An endowed chair at a major university is a pass of WP:PROF#C5, even in a business school that finds endowments for many of its full professors. With four publications in triple-digit citation counts on Google Scholar, he also has a case for #C1. I trimmed some promotional wording surrounding his textbook coauthorship; I don't think it is good enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF#C4 because he was only added as a coauthor in the 7th edition, after the book had already become well-established. The material about the De Soto Initiative is also a little promotional in its wording but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - while virtually unsourced currently (the single source is now dead, but was active back in 2020), David Eppstein is spot on regarding meeting WP:NPROF, which is why it passed NPP back in 2020. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC).

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. ✗plicit 03:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Mujahidul Islam Selim

Mujahidul Islam Selim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable VP of a Bangladeshi University. All references are primary. Article does not meet WP:NBIO Whiteguru (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Education, and Bangladesh. Whiteguru (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep long-time CPB leader, political prisoner; frequent, multi-year appearances in the Bangladeshi press (English and Bangla). Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The cited sources (5 interviews without independent analysis and 2 photo captions) are, as the nominator says, primary, and lack the combination of independence and depth necessary to demonstrate notability. Sources better suited to demonstrating notability do exist, however, and could be mined for content.[1][2] --Worldbruce (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Former President and General Secretary of the Communist Party of Bangladesh. A national politician who has received widespread coverage in reliable mainstream news organizations. The nominator is misunderstanding the topic. He is not the vice president of some university. When he was a student he was the Vice President of Dhaka University Central Students' Union. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert W. McGee

Robert W. McGee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A new editor tagged this article for speedy deletion as "vandalism". I removed the CSD tag and thought it was better to consider this article at AFD. It is so superlative (a novelist! a professor! a champion martial artist!) that it reads like a hoax article. I found evidence of his academic articles that have been published but nothing about the 900 gold medals he has supposedly earned. If it matters, much of this same content is repeated in his Amazon profile. It's unusual for an academic bio to be such an over-the-top exaggeration, I mean, it sounds like there is a super hero teaching at Fayetteville State University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, Law, and Martial arts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete most of the sources are from his won works/self-published. Vanity spam, taken to a new level I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Not checked in detail but Google Scholar profile[3] suggests possible notability under WP:PROF, with top five citation counts of 268,242,205,167,164 and an h-index estimate of 56. There's a more sensible version in the history after what looks like IP vandalism in February. He's published on Trump's tax situation, which might explain things. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  That is the one thing I found evidence of, his publication record which is respectable for an academic. It's the rest of the content that made me skeptical about the entire article. I know of academics with a few honorary degrees but the dozens which it's claimed he has, teaching at a non-elite university, and the martial arts gold medals and the dozens of books he's written, AND being a lawyer make me doubt the truth of the bulk of the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'd probably have rolled the article back to the version prior to the IP additions on the assumption that the mess was just a prank originating from a student; that's pretty common for academics that continue to give lectures. But the self-citation issue that the unsigned comment notes below is concerning, particularly on top of the fact that the highest-cited article on his GS page is clearly not written by him (I excluded it above). Not going to argue for retention in the circumstances, unless someone can produce substantive clearly independent coverage of him/his works. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Robert McGee, here. Thank you for taking the time to read my Wikipedia page. Actually, I am an attorney (retired). I earned my law degree (JD) from Cleveland State University and passed the New York Bar exam. I also passed the CPA exam in Ohio. I actually do have 23 earned academic degrees. My first bachelor's degree is from Gannon University in Erie, PA. I also have 4 undergraduate degrees from Excelsior College (It was called University of the State of New York at the time), and 4 undergraduate degrees from Thomas A. Edison University. I have an MST (Master of Science in Taxation) from DePaul University in Chicago. Three of my doctorates are from universities in the United States - a JD from Cleveland State University and 2 PhDs from the Union Institute and University in Cincinnati. Six of my PhDs are from schools in England: University of Warwick, University of Bradford, Manchester Metropolitan University, University of Sunderland, University of the West of England and Leeds Beckett University (called Leeds Metropolitan University at the time). I also have a PhD from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, a DUniv from the University of Debrecen, Hungary (called Lajor Kussuth University at the time), a DSc from Tartu University in Estonia and a Dr. oec. from the University of Latvia. I am not listed in the Guinness Book of World Records because: [1] some people have more degrees, and [2] the Guinness Book no longer has a category for "Most earned academic degrees." I have approached Guinness several times, and each time I approached them I was told that Most Academic Degrees was not, and would not be a category because every university has its own standard for awarding academic degrees, and it is thus not a uniform standard of measurement. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: considering that the University of Debrecen was called Lajos Kossuth and not Lajor Kussuth, one might entertain some doubts if not to the veracity, then at least to the depth of the involvement there. I might not have a dozen PhDs, but I do know how to spell each of the universities whose names I had to spell dozens of times when submitting my dissertation and other paperwork.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    It was a typo. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:A532:876E:83C:C60B (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep The sheer amount of degrees is very impressive. All documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAmerican (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know of a notability standard by which the number of degrees held alone makes one notable, unless it's some Guinness world record type of thing. Having a ton of degrees, many of which are quite prone to repurposing (it was very common for Western scholars to get 'Soviet style PhDs', as the article describes them, by simply translating their Western PhD into the local language and taking a class in dialectical materialism to satisfy the educational requirement), is not in and of itself an indicator of notability.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: I am unfamiliar with the European system, but a degree is still a recognized earned degree. I am right now updating his page, and am listing all his earned degree's from non primary sources.BlackAmerican (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment my reality-check alarm is going off very loudly. Before being impressed by the citations, do check who is doing the citing. For example, for "The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice", which is his best, he has 268 citations but 73 are self-citations. By the time we reach "Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews", which is still one of his higher-cited articles, at 141, we find that 113 of these citations are self-citations! To reach a self-citation rate of 80% in a field that ought to be highly interesting (tax evasion) takes real talent and effort. I feel strongly that this article needs close examination by someone who's prepared to do the detective work and unravel what this person has actually done, and what's self-promotion, because he's clearly an utter expert at it. I'll admit a strong personal bias, to the extent that I don't feel I can judge him fairly (it's impossible to do anything well at the sheer speed he does things). But we're not here to assess his quality. He may have achieved notability by getting himself written about (by appropriately gullible secondary sources); the decision must be taken on secondary sources, and them alone. I'm really struggling because it's hard to google without being bogged down in a morass of his self-promotion and primary publication.

References

• Delete - if we peel back the self-promotion, what do we have? His Google Scholar record is dubious. The most cited article on the list is one from 1954 which he manifestly did not write. There are plenty of articles that appear in works edited by him but not written by him, which is not a 'publication' to be credited to one in any conceivable scientific sense. The articles all sound like rehashings of the same paper, and even though he has copious self-citations, his h-score is a respectable but not too high 23. Some of the entries on his Google Scholar are individual chapters of a monograph, so that the twenty-odd citations of the monograph accrue once per chapter, which is admittedly a clever trick to inflate one's citation count. According to the FSU website, he's not a named chair, which would not meet WP:NPROF. I have no doubts that he's a very interesting fellow, but just about everything about him is so tainted by self-promotion that even if there might be a justifiable case for notability, it is very, very hard to ascertain.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • • Maybe it is self promotion, but there is enough independent research to show he is somewhat notable.BlackAmerican (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Clearly passes WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV has Significant coverage, Reliable sources, and Independent of the subject. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete I am the user who originaly proposed the page for deletion. In general claims such as 900 medals and claims such as best selling novelist are unverefied or self verefied (read: false self promotion). The fact that guinness doesn't acknowledge his as the first in degrees held is also very suspect. Reverse search of the image in the page only yields the page itself(excluding alumni uses whom he probably gave the picture himself)! It is almoast definately photoshopped. Even if there is anything true under these layers upon layers of self published sources, it is doubtful it meets the notability deadlines. Even so, I believe we shouldn't take the risk and remove the page entirely. Inquisitor9800 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Response He isn't first in degree's, there is another individual, Michael Nicholson, who has more degrees. , , , BlackAmerican (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert McGee here. Thank you for taking the time to critique the content of this Wikipedia article. As the article states, several studies have ranked me #1 for both accounting ethics and business ethics scholarship. Those studies were published in refereed journals. One of those journals is the Journal of Business Ethics, which is an "A" journal. It is true that I have published many article and books over the years. Writing is a hobby of mine. I published my first article in 1975. I published my first book in 1978. It, and several others, were published by Harcourt Brace. I have also published with Prentice Hall, Springer, National Association of Accountants (now called the Institute of Management Accountants), Dow Jones-Irwin, Quorum Books, Greenwood Press, Kluwer, Praeger, Warren, Gorham & Lamont, the Foundation for Economic Education and a few academic presses. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert McGee here. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate me and my hobbies. I actually have won more than 900 gold medals in various martial arts. There are several factors that have enabled me to achieve this number of gold medals. I have competed in more than 200 martial arts tournaments. I tend to compete in many different events, not just sparring. Martial arts tournaments offer many different events, such as traditional, creative, extreme and musical weapons; traditional, creative, extreme and musical forms; hard style (Korean, Japanese), soft style (tai chi, etc.). During Covid, the various martial arts organizations that sponsor tournaments cancelled their "live" tournaments. Many of them started offering virtual tournaments. There are two kinds of virtual tournaments: [1] live Zoom tournaments, in which competitors perform their routines in front of a camera, and the judges score them in real time, and [2] tournaments in which the competitors submit videos of their performances, which are distributed to judges for evaluating and scoring. Because of Covid, I was able to compete in many more tournaments, and in many more events, than would have been possible under "normal" circumstances. I competed in my first tournament in the mid-1980s. I competed in my most recent tournament less than two weeks ago. At the age of 75 I continue to plug along, winning sometimes and losing other times. I have won world championships in several hard and soft martial arts. The photo that appears on my Wikipedia page was taken after I won 6 gold and 1 silver medal at a 2019 taekwondo world championship that was sponsored by the American Taekwondo Association [now called ATA Martial Arts] and its worldwide affiliates. It was not photo shopped. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert McGee here. Actually, I am a novelist, professor and martial artist. I have given some details in the comment section of this page. I have published a lot because writing is one of my hobbies. I have won many gold medals because martial arts is also one of my hobbies, and I happened to be in the right place at the right time, as I explain in some of the comments on this page. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

• Delete. Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable as a notability criterion, and he doesn't appear to pass any other WP:PROF criterion, so we're forced to fall back on WP:GNG. But excluding works by McGee rather than about him, and promotional pieces by his employer, it seems the only source meeting the criteria of GNG (independent, reliable, in-depth) is a single local newspaper profile [4]. That's not enough, and in view of the evident promotion here and the effort needed by other editors to keep the promotion down, I think it's not worth keeping this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert McGee here. Thank you for taking the time to critique my work. One thing you did not mention was my ranking by the Social Science Research Network WWW.SSRN.COM. As of today (May 11, 2022), it ranks me #6 in the world among accounting professors in the "Last 12 Months" category, and #2 in the world in the "All Time" category. In the Business Author category, it ranks me #68 in the world in the "Last 12 Months" category and #15 in the "All Time" category. In the Top Author category, it ranks me #304 in the "Last 12 Months" category and #31 in the "All Time" category, out of a database containing 856,002 authors, which places me rather high [31/856,002 = 0.0000362]. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment source analysis:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Bowen, Jessie (August 13, 2017). "2017 Who's Who in the Martial Arts". Lulu.com – via Google Books.		subjective	~	✘ No
Robert W. McGee". Amazon	self-written author entry	?		✘ No
Bowen, Jessie (August 13, 2017). "2017 Who's Who in the Martial Arts". Lulu.com – via Google Books.		subjective	~ one in a large who's who	✘ No
https://warwick.ac.uk/alumni/news-events/news/robert-mcgee/	article by alma mater			✘ No
https://www.clevelandstatemagazine.com/tenacious-mcgee/	article by alma mater (JD)	?		✘ No
https://www.uncfsu.edu/robert-mcgee-martial-arts-champ	article by school newspaper	?		✘ No
https://alumni.sunderland.ac.uk/Keep-Informed/WAYN/2000-2009/Robert-McGee	article by alma mater, with clear reflection on his degree, there is a clear interest in positive portrayal	?		✘ No
https://community.myunion.edu/alumni-spotlight-at-72-robert-w-mcgee-is-just-getting-started/	article by alma mater alumni newsletter	~ unclear		✘ No
https://www.gannon.edu/alumnispotlight.aspx?profile=81	article by alma mater	?		✘ No
https://www.excelsior.edu/article/robert-w-mcgee-bs-1976-as-1979-aa-1980-bs-1983/	article by alma mater	?	?	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=ILwDnwEACAAJ	~		does not cover the individual, just the fact that he has written this book	✘ No
Robert W. McGee and Walter Block. Academic Tenure: An Economic Critique, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 14, No. 2	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Robert W. McGee and Danny Lam, Hong Kong's Option to Secede	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Robert W. McGee, The Theory of Secession and Emerging Democracies: A Constitutional Solution	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Robert W. McGee, If Dwarf Tossing Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Toss Dwarfs: Is Dwarf Tossing a Victimless Crime	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Robert W. McGee and Yeomin Yoon, Technical Flaws in the Application of the U.S. Antidumping Laws: The Experience of U.S.-Korean Trade	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Richard A. Bernardi, Accounting Authors Publishing in Ethics Journals		?	only one of many covered	✘ No
Sabrin, Murray (April 1, 2002). "A Ranking of the Most Productive Business Ethics Scholars: A Five-Year Study".		?	only one of many covered	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would consider this to be very strongly in favour of deletion.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert McGee here. Everything in the Wikipedia page (as of May 11, 2022) is true. See my comments for explanations and elaborations. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: the concern isn't with the truth of your article, the concern is with your notability. Coming here and explaining the truth of the record is not going to make much of a difference. If there are reliable secondary sources we've missed, go add them. Otherwise, not much good generally comes from an article subject turning up for its discussion.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  McGee here. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, the Social Science Research Network ranks me rather highly in three categories. The SSRN is a reliable external source that contains more than 800,000 academics in its database. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  • A few comments.

  1. SSRN is a preprint server. It's gotten tidier in recent years, but there is some mindblowing stuff there.

  2. The ranking is the number of downloads of your papers on SSRN. You have over 500 papers, so a high rank would be pretty much to be expected. What a number of downloads does not do is make a person notable.

  3. The ranking is not a ranking of skill, prowess or reputation. Such lists don't make much sense anyway.

  Why do you so desperately want a Wikipedia page? You have lived an interesting, rich life with a lot of achievements. A Wikipedia page is neither an achievement nor a badge of honor. It's not a judgment on you or your accomplishments whether your page is deleted or not, and least of all is it the ultimate judgment of your worth.

  To borrow from Marcus Porcius Cato: I would much rather have men ask why I have no wiki page than why I have one.

  Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Very cute comments. Actually, I am not desperate to have a Wikipedia page. Someone else created it. I don't know who it was, but I suspect it was someone from the Union Institute and University. When I first saw it, I edited it a bit to get rid of some inaccuracies, then decided to add a few things. I will survive quite well weather I have a Wikipedia page or not. However, I do find it quite amusing that people with lesser credentials have Wikipedia pages. Go ahead and cancel me, if you like. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:A532:876E:83C:C60B (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I am the author of the article, and I have never met Robert. I just happened to see an article about him and wrote one.BlackAmerican (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for writing the article. It was a nice surprise. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:A041:5787:8E7F:13DD (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• comment Just wondering what is the difference between Robert McGee and [[5]] BlackAmerican (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  @BlackAmerican: The keep votes in the Bolger AfD were based on GNG via coverage in mainstream media sources. I don't see that here so far. See the sources table given by Ari T. Benchaim. (In contrast, the US News and World report and the Chronicle sources in the Bolger article are independent in-depth coverage from reliable sources.) In general WP:WHATABOUTX is an argument to advance with caution in deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, I just wanted to know the difference. I didn't see it.BlackAmerican (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Weak delete. The scholarly output looks like a wp:walled garden, and I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NPROF, nor much progress there. There would be a possible case for WP:BASIC based on number of degrees, but I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, as would be required. The best case I can see for notability is based on WP:NAUTHOR. However, the books I can find reviews for appear to mainly be edited volumes (or possibly just compilations/anthologies of pre-existing works) [6][7][8]; there's also a coauthored book with review [9]. I'd look for two authored books with two reviews each as a bare minimum for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Delete His martial arts championships are in senior age and (sometimes) belt limited divisons. ATA divides black belts by dan and runs tournaments only open to members, while there's no evidence that he's won anything that would show WP:MANOTE is met. I agree with the previous comments that he doesn't seem to meet any WP notability criteria, including WP:GNG. I also think he has accomplishments to be proud of, but nothing to clearly show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 01:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Anna Geddes

Anna Geddes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The notability is unclear. It seems much of her notability seems to derive from her marriage to Patrick Geddes, but of course notability is WP:NOT INHERITED. The references do not look like WP:SIGCOV to me. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Scotland. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Merge.XavierItzm (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable: has an entry in The New Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women published by Cambridge University Press Piecesofuk (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG and because the WP:NOTINHERITED essay states e.g. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG, and the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline states, e.g. That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). For this article, in addition to the biographical dictionary entry, there is also Walter Stephen, ed., Learning from the Lasses: Women of the Patrick Geddes Circle, Edinburgh: Luath Press, 2014, which includes in its description, "Several of the women profiled in this book wrote regularly to Anna Geddes, and she clearly held together much of what happened: exhibitions, summer schools, lecture series, musical evenings, in terms of organisation and hospitality."; her active and nontrivial participation is also discussed in Situated Knowledge and Visual Education: Patrick Geddes and Reclus's Geography (1886–1932). Journal of Geography, 2016, p. 1-17; there is also biographical information before and after she met Patrick Geddes in Romantic Ireland: From Tone to Gonne; Fresh Perspectives on Nineteenth-Century Ireland at 173; and she is described as "The valiant Anna Geddes introduced her husband to the practical side of housing questions, had much to do with his successes in Edinburgh Old Town" in this review, and there appear to be at least two more sources in French via GScholar where she is at least mentioned. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, per inclusion in The New Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women. In addition to the sources found by Beccaynr, the first page of hits in WL gives a book review of Tanya Cheadle, Sexual Progressives: Reimagining Intimacy in Scotland, 1880–1914. By: Lynch, Charlie, Scottish Historical Review, 00369241, Apr2021, Vol. 100, Issue 1, and presumably coverage in the original book. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, per the New Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women entry; and per Beccaynr's excellent analysis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, Beccaynr provides compelling evidence for Anna Geddes' notability. She appears to have been an equal partner in much of the social reform work undertaken with her husband. Additions references: Romantic Ireland From Tone to Gonne; Fresh Perspectives on Nineteenth-Century Ireland, and Designing the Modern City Urbanism Since 1850.LornaMCampbell (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: From the above and recent improvements to the article, this is certainly a person of historical interest. We need to reinforce interest in women who have appeared only in articles about their spouses or male partners.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG. An entry in The New Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women and an entire chapter about her in Learning from the Lasses is enough for WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED does not forbid articles about people connected to more-notable people, it requires only that we have in-depth coverage of the subject herself rather than passing mention of her in connection to the other person, and here clearly we do have that coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep as per the compelling arguments placed by @Piecesofuk: and @Beccaynr:. WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't prohibit a person close to a famous person to be notable on his or her own merit or notability metrics. Cirton (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - She is notable for more than just being Patrick Geddes' wife and has been covered in works including those cited above. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

William James Maloney

William James Maloney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:GNG is definitely not met, and I can't see that WP:NPROF is met, either. The only independent sources are two pieces in The Journal News – the rest is his own books and articles. He is also not notable per WP:NAUTHOR. He is listed in the article as a "co-author" of The ADA Practical Guide to Substance Use Disorders and Safe Prescribing but in fact he is the co-author of one chapter in that publication; his Medical Lives of History's Famous People has no reviews I can find; and his remaining four books are from a vanity publisher (Anaphora Literary Press), and are also not reviewed in any independent publication. bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. He does not seem to have a lot of academic reputation, definitely not enough for WP:SCHOLAR. I have entertained the possibility of WP:NAUTHOR for his two major publications. One, The ADA Practical Guide etc., might be notable, but he has co-written a single chapter in a pretty large collection, it's not exactly a monograph that would substantiate his expertise. Medical Lives was published by Bentham, which is pretty much a borderline vanity press. Overall, I find neither WP:SCHOLAR, nor WP:NAUTHOR substantiates notability. Ergo delete.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ernestine Fu

Ernestine Fu (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 notability. Could use expansion, but otherwise the only thing notable about this person was appearing on Forbes 30 Under 30 a decade ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nswix (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I think she's notable, one mention in Forbes, that doesn't look like and advertorial in GNews and one in a peer-reviewed journal, [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - article needs some work but alongside reliable sources such as 1 and 2 already on the article, it's easy to find more sources for example Business Insider 3 and 4. Proquest gives lots of hits eg The importance of being earnest in The Business Times and also she is now apparently an adjunct professor 5. Mujinga (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  saw this comment thread and found a few more reliable sources and more recent news/highlights that I contributed to the article Hjd555 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• I note that that adjunct professor position has resulted in few citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking at that google scholar I think there's another E Fu who is a scientist and the citations got rolled together. But this Fu doesn't need to pass NSCHOLAR becuase she passes GNG already. I just meant our article should include her current position. Mujinga (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. A one-time media blitz for a student entrepreneur does not add up to long-term notability, and her subsequent career as a capitalist and part-time academic does not appear notable at all, neither under WP:GNG for the business work nor under WP:PROF for the academic side. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete The first block of refs seems to be mostly alumni news but no real secondary coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. She appears generally notable per references such as the Vanity Fair article and others. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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 redirect to Jon Ossoff. this is a complex discussion. However after re-reading the discussion and the sub thread that led to the reversion of the NAC, I find myself in the same place as the original close. There is a clear consensus here that Kramer's notability is intricately tied with that of her husband and no indication she'd have this coverage if not for her work with her husband's campaign and his subsequent role. Whether Cruz or any non-first lady political spouse should have an article doesn't require the same closing here nor should this close as a redirect be a referendum on any other political spouse who may have a notable career. Star Mississippi 16:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Alisha Kramer

Alisha Kramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Completely run-of-the-mill physician resident happens to be married to a U.S. senator. Notability is not inherited. KidAd • SPEAK 17:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nom, seems like a regular doctor. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG - WP:INVALIDBIO says That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A), and WP:GNG seems supported by sustained and in-depth coverage, e.g. Who is Alisha Kramer? Jon Ossoff’s fiancee (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2017), Alisha Kramer Has Jon Ossoff's Full Support (Bustle, 2017), Dem candidate for Ga. House seat engaged to longtime girlfriend (The Hill, 2017), Democratic candidate for Georgia House seat Jon Ossoff engaged (The Washington Post, 2017), Who is Alisha Kramer? Meet the Jewish doctor married to Jon Ossoff (The Forward, 2021), Jon Ossoff’s wife Alisha Kramer missed his historic win to work in hospital (The Independent, 2021), Sen. Jon Ossoff and Wife Dr. Alisha Kramer Welcome Their First Child: 'Totally in Love' (People, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. and Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.. My my estimation, the Independent article is the only one that addresses Kramer past a trivial mention. KidAd • SPEAK 23:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think the two "Who Is Alisha Kramer?" sources are clearly more than trivial mentions because the articles focus on her as the topic directly and in detail, similar to the other articles with her name in the headlines. The Hill and WaPo sources also report on her story, with her biographical details included, so these do not seem like trivial mentions of her. WP:BASIC also states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and this guideline seems to help support notability because of the combined depth available in the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect, a counterfactual analysis (would this person be notable if she weren't married to Jon Ossoff?) is very clearly no. WP:NOT INHERITED applies here. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Jon Ossoff per WP:NOT INHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO. The example given in the latter, Jason Allen Alexander, is instructive. While some sources can be found which expound on the subject, he is only notable for being briefly married to Britney Spears. Another good example of this is Robert Ashton Jr., a thoracic surgeon who, while being borderline noteworthy himself, is only really notable for being the late husband of Jennifer Ashton. If the question was asked, Would this article's subject have achieved an article if not for being married to Ossoff? the answer is no. StonyBrook _babble 00:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Britney Spears was married to Alexander for 55 hours, so perhaps he has not been the subject of sustained and in-depth coverage similar to what Kramer has received on a state and national level for her biography and career - WP:GNG determines notability for each BLP subject, per the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline and the WP:NOT INHERITED essay. Beccaynr (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You quoted from INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); But you left out the next 2 sentences: relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. Now granted, I guess it depends on how we read that semicolon, which is used to link related sentences. I understand it to mean that if the significant coverage comes only as a result of the relationship (as in our case) then it gets cancelled out. To me, that is the only reading that makes sense, for otherwise it goes against the principle stated hitherto. The guideline's authors were probably thinking of a case such as Robert John "Mutt" Lange who, while clearly outshined by Shania Twain still remains super-notable on his own. And while you offered a good retort to the Alexander case, what would you say in the Ashton case, another doctor married for a long time and subject to reliable sources only due to his spouse [Add: and yet has no article of his own]? Had he not been married to Jennifer, would his life achievements and death have been notable? I think not. StonyBrook _babble 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the sources are always the key consideration - the WP:NOTINHERITED essay also says, The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. I was not able to quickly find an example from my AfD history, but I recall a discussion about a wife of an ambassador where I !voted delete because sustained and in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources did not appear to exist. However, that type of article seems like a good example of an WP:INVALIDBIO with notability only asserted due to the relationship. From my view, the semicolon in the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline is not a caveat that disqualifies significant coverage if it exists, because of the word "unless" in the part of the sentence that precedes it. Beccaynr (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In reference to the NOTINHERITED quote above, and for that matter, the INVALIDBIO quote, I think it is fair to presume that GNG and significant coverage in these cases refers to sources that cover the subject on their own merit, with no mention of how they were only noticed due to the relationship they had with the notable family member. Having to depend on sources which heavily mention this connection (as we see in this case) seems to defeat the whole premise of the aforementioned guideline/essays. This reasoning fits with Alexander, Ashton and Lange (who besides for being a record producer, is also divorced and on his own) while this article is the anomaly. Adding: Even the Lange article depends a lot on Shania sources, but there are others: https://www.economist.com/prospero/2020/07/23/for-back-in-black-the-secret-of-success-was-mutt-lange But more to the point, there is no way that those articles could ever be merged. StonyBrook _babble 03:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think if the guideline and essay did not prioritize WP:GNG, and instead was used to disregard coverage of anyone covered primarily due to their relationship with a more-famous person (despite both the guideline and essay implying this coverage should not be disregarded) we might lose the Doug Emhoff article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Emhoff is not a good reason to keep this article. In WP:NOTINHERITED we read, Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. (emphasis mine). It is obvious that First Gentleman carries as much weight as First Lady — it even redirects there. We don't attribute the same weight to senatorial or gubernatorial spouses. Iris Weinshall has an article because she is a public servant, nothing at all to do with Chuck Schumer. StonyBrook _babble 16:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think attempts to rely on perceived technicalities to override WP:GNG are not helpful for this discussion, and I have expressed my view about WP:GNG as well as I can, so I do not plan to continue participating in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep; meets WP:GNG as in Beccaynr's long list of non-trivial articles from perfectly respectable sources that are very much about the subject. --GRuban (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. If someone is only discussed in the context of their relationship with someone else, and in the absence of very substantial, sustained, encyclopedic biographical coverage, they should not have a standalone article. The content present in the sources does not support an individual claim to notability, and the purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to document the unremarkable education and career of everyone related to a famous person. Being able to write a couple paragraphs of basic background info -- something that could be done for just about anyone in a professional field -- doesn't mean anything if there is nothing noteworthy to report beyond that. We regularly redirect nonfamous people to their wiki-notable spouses (e.g. Barry Nobles to Caroline Buchanan), this is perfectly reasonable here too. JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The WP:AADD essay suggests we avoid certain types of arguments in favor of deletion, such as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (i.e. The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article) and subjective importance (i.e. A common misconception about notability is that importance or uniqueness equals notability), and I continue to think the guidelines ask us whether WP:GNG is sufficiently supported for this high-profile subject who has received sustained and in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources. Based on the available sources, she was directly featured in Ossoff's campaign and has been the focus of news coverage, and we have more than basic background information, because she has not been a trivial afterthought in the reporting. Beccaynr (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  You’ve made your opinion clear. Don’t WP:BLUDGEON the process. KidAd • SPEAK 16:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  As noted above, I was just commenting as you made this comment that I have no interest in engaging in wikilawyering and feel I have made my position as clear as I can. Beccaynr (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST means We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. It does not apply to, "We do not have an article on y because y is not notable, so we should not have an article on this because this is also not notable. If an article written about Robert Ashton Jr. were sent to AfD, I would !vote to delete, even though both he and Kramer are "high-profile" as you put it. And trying to correctly interpret the guidelines and apply them to articles is not "wikilawyering". StonyBrook _babble 16:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, she meets GNG. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and JoelleJay. The coverage here is trivial, and it ultimately falls back on her relationship with Jon Ossoff.-KH-1 (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect. I'm with JoelleJay on this one. I do think Beccaynr has found significant coverage of this person, but it's not an individual claim to notability - she has a greater than normal amount of press coverage compared to a non-famous person, because of her relationship to a famous person. The greater volume of press coverage hasn't really shown that she is an unusually notable person for any other reason. The press coverage exists mostly as a PR function for a politician, not because the press has noticed something notable she has done. -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Our article Barbara Bush is also solely due to significant coverage because of her relationship to husband and sons. Unlike what User:StonyBrook says about Heidi Cruz, below, our article about Barbara Bush clearly says she was not a politician, and stayed far away from campaigning. Yet clearly we need an article on her. Alisha Kramer hasn't gotten Barbara Bush levels of coverage, so doesn't need one of Barbara Bush's size, but she has gotten coverage, so does need an article. --GRuban (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• At the risk of repeating myself, I quoted above from WP:NOTINHERITED: Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. Bush was a First Lady, while Kramer is not. StonyBrook _babble 12:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Meh. We've also got Stanley Armour Dunham and Madelyn Dunham, only notable as the grandparents of a president, which I'm pretty sure is not a public position, Lolo Soetoro, only notable as stepfather of a president, likewise, Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, only notable as the mother of a president... pretty clearly WP:NOTINHERITED is subject to selective enforcement. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Whatever happened to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? But while we're at it, I think a case could be made to keep those articles. Being the rockstars that they are, there is a lot of public interest in presidential relatives, especially, but not only, recent ones (see Billy Carter). But a line has to be drawn somewhere. StonyBrook _babble 13:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment as creator No different than the likes of Heidi Cruz, a notable woman in her own way but all of that attention comes from being married to a Senator or in this case the fact that they weren’t married. Kramer can be notable in her own right garnering reliable sources and the sources will still center coverage on being married to the youngest Senator. Nothing one can do about that but hope for slightly less lazy or sexist journalism practices. So, I can't understand using inherited notable here as a measure while people like John Lennon's non-notable aunt and uncle have articles too. We managed to make 2,000 words of prose here, not a stub. Trillfendi (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• After reading Heidi Cruz (and the AfD discussion), I am not entirely sure that article should have been kept as a standalone either. Be that as it may, there is still a big difference between these two articles. Cruz, the wife of a senator who was also a major presidential candidate, is also something of a politician herself, campaigning extensively for her husband, and securing positions for herself during the Bush presidency. Kramer is not a politician, and her husband is not a presidential candidate, so no comparison there. As far as Mimi Smith goes, don't even try comparing Ossoff to John Lennon—they are not even in the same universe. In addition, the Cruz and Smith content cannot be merged into their respective parent articles without creating balance issues, whereas our short article has no such obstacle. You said, Kramer can be notable in her own right garnering reliable sources and the sources will still center coverage on being married to the youngest Senator. Well, if the sources are centered on her being married to Ossoff, doesn't it follow then that she is not notable in her own right? StonyBrook _babble 11:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If Heidi Cruz is notable for essentially taking leave of absence from her job to tag along on her husband's (I can't call it entirely unsuccessful because he did win a primary) campaign and use her platform to fundraise and occasionally make speeches about his character, I don't see how Kramer isn't notable for receiving more or less the same significant coverage for being in her husband's campaign. Not many resident physicians get international coverage with their name in the headline. Trillfendi (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete/redirect, no independent notability. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed this as redirect, with the following comment: The result was redirect to Jon Ossoff. No convincing refutation that the preponderance of reliable sources only cover the subject in the context of the their relationship to a notable politician. Per a talk page request, I am self-reverting and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Beccaynr asked for an explanation of my closure and following that asked for a relist and admin close. FWIW, this is the explanation I gave: "In terms of process, I emphasise, I have only looked at the discussion itself and drew a conclusion from that. WP:INVALIDBIO was a strong argument. But added to that, I think the counter-factual argument (would this person have an article not for their marriage?) gave the redirect argument substantially more weight. Neither the INVALIDBIO nor the counter-factual arguments were directly refuted by detailed source analysis (as against vague waves) which is what would have been required to counter-refute them (if possible). Further, the specific examples of other spouse-redirects were convincingly applied as similar in this case." While I reaffirm that opinion, as a NAC, I feel Beccaynr made a reasonable request on the basis of a different interpretation and the need for further discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree with Beccanyr's point about NAC, even though Goldsztajn seems to be on par with admins in regards to closing AfDs, even contentious ones. But in this edit, it appears that WP:CANVASSing has occurred. StonyBrook _babble 07:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment StonyBrook, it looks like I could have added more clearly neutral wording about seeking clarification on how to interpret the guideline. From my view, for a guideline independent of WP:GNG, such as WP:NPROF, examining similar AfDs can be helpful because notability is not necessarily determined by significant coverage. However, lining up WP:OSE for an article that should be assessed by WP:GNG (e.g. per WP:INVALIDBIO, i.e. "unless significant coverage exists" and WP:NOTINHERITED, i.e. "can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG") without examining whether significant coverage exists for each WP:OSE, appears to be a subjective and unhelpful exercise for assessing notability per our guidelines. A more detailed analysis of the sources may be helpful for determining whether WP:SIGCOV exists here, so I created a source assessment table that I think helps show there is significant coverage over time that supports a standalone article:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Who is Alisha Kramer? Jon Ossoff’s fiancee (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 2017)	"We have requested an interview with Kramer, but for now, here's what we can glean from social media and our own reporting"		Begins with her education, starting in kindergarten, includes college, studying abroad and later research trips, and current study of medicine. Includes brief background about her parents. Includes reason for current residence and impact on Ossoff. Also notes college Ultimate Frisbee, including writing.	✔ Yes
Alisha Kramer Has Jon Ossoff's Full Support (Bustle, Apr. 2017)		Editorial Standards, e.g. "If a BDG article is sponsored content or produced by the BDG branded content team — and is therefore not produced by the BDG editorial team — it is clearly labeled as such."	~ secondary context includes, "After The New Yorker reported that Ossoff doesn't live in the district he is running to represent because he is living with his girlfriend outside district lines, there have been a lot of questions about Ossoff's girlfriend, Alisha Kramer." Discusses the length of their relationship, her previous education and study abroad, her writing for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, current education, and includes commentary: "I for one find it refreshing to see that a male politician is publicly acknowledging that women don't have to give up their own careers to support their partner's aspirations."	~ Partial
Dem candidate for Ga. House seat engaged to longtime girlfriend (The Hill, May 2017)			~ includes "Because of his girlfriend’s prominent role in the campaign, Ossoff has faced direct questions about when the longtime couple plans to tie the knot." Includes reference to CNN interview with Ossoff that included a focus on her. Also notes length of their relationship, where she grew up and attended and attends school.	~ Partial
Democratic candidate for Georgia House seat Jon Ossoff engaged (The Washington Post, May 2017)			~ Also notes April CNN interview with Ossoff that included a focus on Kramer, and states "Kramer has been a steady presence throughout Ossoff's campaign."	~ Partial
Who is Alisha Kramer? Meet the Jewish doctor married to Jon Ossoff (The Forward, Jan. 2021)			Begins with high school education, includes college, two years of work at "a Washington, D.C. think tank", then medical school. Notes and quotes her 2019 testimony at the "Georgia State Senate in opposition to the state’s new restrictions on abortion." Includes her role during Ossoff's campaign, e.g. "During the campaign, in which health care and responses to the coronavirus pandemic have been topics of contention, she’s conducted online town halls alongside Ossoff — filming this one after finishing an overnight shift at the hospital." Discusses political impacts of 2017 residence, CNN interview, engagement, her inclusion as a focus of a National Republican Senatorial Committee "online attack". Also notes she was working on election night 2021, "Because it’s 2021, and that’s what a political spouse does."	✔ Yes
Jon Ossoff’s wife Alisha Kramer missed his historic win to work in hospital (The Independent (Jan. 2021)			~ In addition to noting her working on election night, also notes, "Dr Kramer has featured heavily in ads for the Ossoff campaign as an authority on Covid." Discusses her education, testimony at the Georgia State Senate, her personal experience with Covid-19.	~ Partial
Sen. Jon Ossoff and Wife Dr. Alisha Kramer Welcome Their First Child: 'Totally in Love' (People, Dec. 2021)			~ She does not appear to be considered trivial as a parent to their child, including in the headline and quotes from Ossoff, Sen. Warnock, and Sen. Merkley.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Beccaynr (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm still firmly in favor of a redirect. The AJC article explicitly regurgitates details from her LinkedIn and a blog profile in one of its routine, formulaic "Who is X, husband/wife of Y?" special interest plugs. Here's an equally-detailed one about Angela Akins, wife of Sergio Garcia; another one titled "Who is Noor Mateen, wife of the Orlando mass shooter?"; and "Who is Derek Bottoms, husband of Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms?"; "Who is Alicia Etheredge? 5 things to know about Bobby Brown's wife"; and "Who is Craig Coyne? What to know about Barbara Bush's new husband"; "Who is Mary Beth Smart, Georgia football coach Kirby Smart’s wife?"; and "Who is Lauren Hashian? 5 things to know about Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson’s wife"; and "Who is Angie Macuga, wife of Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank?". All of these are, at most, redirects to their actually-famous spouse. This is not in-depth coverage supporting independent notability, it's mundane trivia scraped from the subject's own social media. The article in Forward is of the same journalistic caliber and style (and one of many such "Meet X, [Jewish] husband/wife of Y" articles in its "Schmooze" section), and to an even greater extent focuses on her relationship with Ossoff rather than her achievements. What little it has to say about her specifically is essentially redundant with what is found in the AJC.

Kramer just has no independent claim to notability; it would not be DUE to include anything more than "an OB/GYN physician" in the personal section of Ossoff's page because she is not known for anything outside their relationship. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think what you did can fairly be described as canvassing. As for this source table, I find it convincing evidence that, as JoelleJay has said above, she has no independent claim to notability. She is married to a politician, but is otherwise a normal doctor - one barely out of medical school. If we discount "is wife of x" as a notability claim, we're left with her career (not much yet - she's only been an MD for four years), or her independent media appearances (none in this chart). She's well-positioned to become notable in the future, but right now what she's known for is helping to get her husband elected. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment One reason I created the source assessment table was to expand on my previous comment about her high-profile role in the campaign, which multiple independent and reliable sources noted, including her role in town halls and campaign ads. She also was a topic in The New Yorker and CNN, and there is commentary about the 'worthy of notice' elements of her role, including the residence issue while she was in medical school and how it was perceived (and also used in a political 'attack'), as well as her career independent of Ossoff, e.g. "Because it’s 2021, and that's what a political spouse does." The sources do not appear to consider her a 'normal' doctor, or a 'normal' political spouse, and these unusual aspects have received coverage over time, with in-depth biographical information that we look for when building BLPs. Beccaynr (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment A little history lesson. The February 2016 version of WP:INHERIT read: Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. (emphasis mine) Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability." Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. For instance, being married to the Governor of Arkansas does not make the spouse notable, whereas being married to the President of the United States typically does, after 1932 at least. (emphasis mine) Being the fifth cousin of a President of the United States does not make a person notable (unless the fifth cousin in question goes on to become President himself). Then along came a sockpuppet account that opened a discussion contesting this wording at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 13 § Political spouses (and relatives of Celebrities), at the conclusion of which it was decided to take this wording out. That same sockpuppet account later went on to use this new wording in the Heidi Cruz AfD discussion to great effect, getting the article kept, when I am not so sure that it should have been. So, in contrast to the above accusation of "wikilawyering", my contention is that the correct wording was "jumbled" unnecessarily, resulting in the current misunderstandings. In short, I would be in favor of reinstating the original wording, or at the very least interpreting the essay in a way that reflects the original wording, with the result that this article gets redirected. StonyBrook _babble 18:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Even under a stricter standard that is not currently supported by consensus in an essay nor reflected in the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline, it seems clear Kramer is considered notable "in her own right" because of the reporting focused on her, her high-profile role in Ossoff's campaign, as well as her career and education (including as it relates to his campaign, not only because of it, and not simply 'culled from her social media'). From my view, we need to assess the sources, and avoid subjective determinations of whether an individual is important enough to warrant an article.

  If WP:GNG is supported, and there is no policy basis to conclude it is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, then there does not appear to be a valid basis in the policies or guidelines to delete or redirect. I used the term 'wikilawyering' to describe my impression of what seems like an attempt to override the GNG by requiring subjective assessments of importance, because that seems to undermine the underlying principles and language of the guidelines.

  WP:GNG notability is determined by the sources and whether there is independent and reliable significant coverage over time. There appears to be no guideline that allows us to discount significant coverage because of a relationship with a notable individual. WP:INVALIDBIO tells us to delete or redirect when an article asserts notability based only on the relationship, when significant coverage does not exist. Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• ... it seems clear Kramer is considered notable "in her own right" because of the reporting focused on her, her high-profile role in Ossoff's campaign, as well as her career and education (including as it relates to his campaign, not only because of it ... On the contrary; it is very clear that no one would have taken any notice of this person, her career or education had it not been for her husband, as you yourself seem to admit. As far as the guideline/essay is concerned, consensus can change, including through regular editing. As it stands now in this AfD, the supermajority opinion is that the article subject needs to be independently notable, or, as you put it, "notable 'in her own right'". If the matter of the guideline/essay were to be brought up at the talk page, Village Pump, RfC or similar, with inclusion of the details regarding the shady process in which the language was changed, I dare say that it would be rolled back to the previous version. If that would not be the case, then WP:INVALID and WP:INHERENT might as well be scrapped entirely, in favor of a free-for-all inclusion of all political spouses. Being that these people are public individuals, bits of coverage can be scraped together about any of them. StonyBrook _babble 21:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  I do not wish to continue going around in what feels like circles at this point, so I only want to clarify that it seems clear to me (and others in this discussion) that "no one would have taken any notice of this person... had it not been for her husband" is not a reason to discount significant coverage, per the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline, which specifically explains that notability of a subject based on a relationship with a notable individual is valid if the subject has received significant coverage. Per the guideline, as well as the current version of the related essay, we do not create articles simply because someone is related to a notable individual, because for most people related to notable individuals, significant coverage is required. Beccaynr (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The coverage of her (entirely routine and expected) role in Ossoff's campaign/career can easily be mentioned in a couple sentences on Ossoff's page. That is to say, basically everything about her that is considered "worthy of note" can more justifiably be considered coverage of her husband (like his residency issues, or commentary on how long they dated). The only things that are left are clearly not encyclopedic (standard activities of the average early-career physician), and those basic details are quite explicitly scraped directly from her/her husband's social media and run in tabloid-esque article series. We could make just as strong a case for every congressperson's spouse and any adult children who took part in their campaign; in fact, we could use that level of coverage to justify articles on every political candidate. If Ossoff hadn't been elected but she had still received the same coverage, would we have an article on her? No, obviously not: because her only claim to notability is inherited through her husband's fame, not through her involvement in his campaign or her own MD work. JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I beginning to wonder if we've got enough for a minyan, yet. :) Being serious though, I've not seen anything new added since the relisting which would cause me to change my view that led me to make my earlier close. However, I wanted to add one point: potentially another way to look at this issue is through WP:CFORK; this is a content fork of Ossoff and we do not have satisfactory grounds to justify WP:SPINOFF. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Coverture has been abolished in the United States, and the sources focusing on Kramer would create an WP:UNDUE weight problem per WP:SPINOFF because they offer enough detail and depth, including about her independence from her husband. If she had not been a medical student, she would not received the earlier coverage, and if she had not been a doctor, she would not have had the high-profile role she had in his campaign. The coverage is not trivial, nor tabloid or scraped from his or her social media, and the volume and depth of the coverage focusing on her as an independent person is significant. Beccaynr (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• The first word of your first sentence indicates to me that you are missing the entire point of the discussion. This AfD is not about which gender is superior to the other. It is about which spouse is deserving of an encyclopedia article and which one is not. You also wrote ... if she had not been a doctor, she would not have had the high-profile role she had in his campaign. What does being a doctor, or being any other kind of professional for that matter, have to do with being a good campaigner for your spouse? About Bryon Noem the insurance salesman we read, In a TV ad released during his wife’s run for governor in 2018, Bryon Noem said, “The thing about Kristi I admire the most is her work ethic. It doesn’t matter what she’s doing; if she’s fixing fence, saddling a horse, or working in Congress, nobody will outwork her. She doesn’t quit until she’s done, and that’s the way she’s always been. Bryon the "high profile campaigner" doesn't get an article, even if he would be a resident physician. StonyBrook _babble 10:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  I apologize if my reference to coverture (e.g. the lack of legal independence from a husband) is understood as anything other than a comment on the only issue I have tried to focus on during this discussion, which is the WP:GNG and whether there is significant coverage, as required by WP:INVALIDBIO for an independent article. I also tried to respond to the subjective "she is run-of-the-mill in my personal opinion, so I will not count the independent and reliable sources supporting GNG" and "she is a wife with no independence from her husband in my personal opinion, so I will not count the independent and reliable sources supporting GNG" parts of the discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The AJC article explicitly says it took info on her global health career from her LinkedIn and her blog bio, the same way it cites facebook posts and tweets for coverage of all the other non-notable spouses it "profiles". This isn't some hard-hitting journalism where they interviewed her or researched the impact she had and then wrote up their own independent commentary; they literally just restate basic factoids from her social media. Any coverage mentioning her being a med student was strictly in the context of her husband's residency; there was nothing notable about what she was doing at Emory. Same goes for her medical career: she could be in literally any profession or no profession at all and would get equivalent coverage for being the partner of a politician.

Also, the article as it stands now is entirely imbalanced, presenting her relationship with Ossoff as if it's a side note to her "notability" rather than the sole reason for it. Would she have gotten any coverage whatsoever for her medical work or her involvement in his campaigns if she was not with Ossoff? Absolutely not, and that should be the deciding factor for whether she is independently notable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The AJC article, as quoted in the source assessment table, says "We have requested an interview with Kramer, but for now, here's what we can glean from social media and our own reporting". That the article is imbalanced is not a reason for deletion, because it can be improved with the sources, and her relationship with Ossoff is not a disqualifier, per WP:INVALIDBIO. The guideline does not require so-called independent notability separate from the relationship, and permits someone who has received significant coverage to have their own article even if the coverage arises because of their relationship. She is a notable partner of a politician, due to the significant coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• You wrote, That the article is imbalanced is not a reason for deletion, because it can be improved with the sources. Yes, the imbalance can be improved with sources. However, not the kind that say "Kramer is a survivor of COVID-19" or "Kramer is an opponent of vaccine hesitancy". We would need the kind of sources that say "Kramer discovered the cure for cancer" or "Kramer is the 26th United States Secretary of Health and Human Services" (except, you know, WP:CRYSTAL). StonyBrook _babble 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW, I voted delete, but agree with Goldsztajn's closure as redirect.-KH-1 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect. WP:BLP1E: This person testified for Georgia's bill. Cover it within the context of the bill's article or within Ossoff's article. All coverage in this Kramer article is written in context of her connection with Ossoff, not independent of it. Our coverage strives to be proportionate to that of reliable sources. czar 14:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Marcel J. Melançon

Marcel J. Melançon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Currently fails WP:SIGCOV, but potentially notable. Can find much about him at all. Been on the cat:nn list for more than 10 years. So could he be an emeritus professor by now? scope_creep^Talk 18:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment His work seems to have been cited/critically discussed several times in French GScholar, if not the individual, the book certainly is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: fascinatingly low web footprint. Here's a list of his books (as of 2005): [11]. And did you notice that he's also an artist? [12]. So maybe a WP:GNG pass through Quebec newspapers, if anyone's interested in digging through proquest for them. -- asilvering (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Need some book review to pass WP:NAUTHOR or some additional references to show he is notable, for the article. scope_creep^Talk 05:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware. You'll notice I didn't vote keep. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Looking at google scholar it didn't look to me like there were enough citations to meet WP:NPROF. My search didn't find reviews of his books to show WP:NAUTHOR is met. I also didn't see significant independent coverage that meets the GNG. I found several sources listing his works, but they were either from his publisher and/or the university he was teaching.Sandals2 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I found one published review including a co-edited volume by the subject among four reviewed books, JSTOR 236496, not enough for WP:AUTHOR. His book on Camus is well-cited for philosophy, but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I didn't find evidence of other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep - although he's only an associate professor, he work on the ethics of testing is very much at the cutting edge of bioethics. I have taught this topic in my AP Biology class. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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. Star Mississippi 23:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Mohsen Naghavi

Mohsen Naghavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Google Scholar does show him as one of the authors in several dozen papers with hundreds or thousands of citations each. However, he is one of the several hundred researchers part of the Global Burden of Disease study, and each of these dozens of highly cited papers lists every possibly relevant one of them and thus having several hundred authors each, or, in some specialized topics, dozens of authors each.

According to his CV, he is currently head of the University of Washington's institute for health metrics and evaluation , which runs this and similar projects and is there included on all of their papers. This does not mean he has any special academic or scientific responsibility for any or all of them, any more than the Dean of the School would have if he insisted on putting his name on everything the school produced.

In this situation the ordinary WP:PROF guidelines fail. He might have been notable as a research before being an administrator, but this is not shown; our standards for being a notable administrator discuss only being president of a n institution or head of an independent school.

I am not saying an adequate article would be impossible, but this is not. I will gladly withdraw the afd is someone wishes to clarify the role(s), and can find good 3rd party truly independent references for his importance as an administrator that are more than the usual PR.

We've had a number of similar papers in the physical sciences for people who are just one of a group --usually I would have no hesitation in rejecting them as non-notable , but he might possibly be in a more important actual position than just member DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Iran. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. He has huge citations for publications with many authors, as the nomination states. But even just looking at first-author papers he has citation counts of 3424 ("Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death"), 540 ("The burden of disease and injury in Iran 2003"), 469 ("Algorithms for enhancing public health utility of national causes-of-death data"), 456 ("Global, regional, and national burden of suicide mortality 1990 to 2016"), etc. I think this is enough to demonstrate a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP and Expand. He is widely interviewed by several major publications including The Guardian, HuffPost, WebMD, CNN, BBC etc. Moreover he has tons of The Lancet papers.
  

The article should be re-written properly.--_{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strong keep, there is WP:SIGCOV both as an academic and as a public intellectual. I find it satisfies WP:SCHOLAR unambiguously.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Per User:David Eppstein. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. At a cursory glance, this might look like an article that should be easy to discard but the references unearthed as above are solid. It's a keeper. -The Gnome (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

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. being in the news for a current event does not establish academic notability. Nothing indicates Orsini achives that through any other channels Star Mississippi 01:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)
• Articles for deletion/Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) (2nd nomination)

Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating on behalf of 85.211.232.197. IP placed deletion template on page using edit summary of "this Italian professor has no biography on the Italian wikipedia and he is not a relevant voice to be added". I waited a while to see if they would open a discussion, but they didn't, so I offered on their talk page to do it for them and they asked if I could.

I don't have an opinion either way on if it should or shouldn't be deleted, but for a bit of background, this article was deleted back in 2016 due to a lack of notability, though things may (or may not) have changed recently. He has made some, er, "controversial" comments on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and has got some attention for those, but I'm not too sure that it allows him to get past WP:BLP1E, (although, on the other hand, there has been quite a bit of attention on him).

Again, I don't have an opinion on it either way, so my part of the nomination shouldn't be taken as a delete. (Note: The multiple speedy deletions of this article under the local equivalents of G2,G3, G11 and G12 from it.wiki seems to have got some media attention.[13][14][15][16][17]) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: He is notable. Even years ago, checking the sources, you could have noticed how his book tranlsated into English was a cited on journals, his professional career increased even further. When you manage even before reaching notability for more "pop" reasons to be cited in sources in at least three languages (Italian, English, German), there is not really a lot of doubt. The spike of attention now is an additional coating on the cake of notability, with more sources in English, Russian and Italian. All international or national news publishers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  I beg to disagree. there are many books on left-wing terrorism in Italy after WWII, and Orsini's has not made a particular impact. He is a mid-career academic, with reasonable credentials, but certainly not somebody who would attract any wide interest, especially from non-Italian readers. His only claim to fame is his stance on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, and that does not justify an article on him. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  it's in the sources in the page... you can't disagree with sources, not very wiki.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  BTW, I can add more sources about the media attention of the deletion on itwiki. I usually don't in these cases because it make itwikipedia sometimes look bad, but if you want more proof of generic notability we can put it there, it just reinforces the relevance. He did not need that, he is known internationally for his work (the book about Red Brigades) and the issue with Rai3 and his contract. That's already enough by enwiki standard.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hello Alexmar, just to clarify, the deletions on it.wiki were speedy deletions as it had met the local equivalents of speedy deletion criteria G2, G3, G11 or G12 (it seems to have been deleted at least 6 or 7 times, probably more), not because of a lack of notability, like when it was deleted from here in 2016. Can you possibly give some sources that help establish notability? I'm not questioning their existence, but it would help the discussion move toward a conclusion if you provided some. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, using deletions on another wiki as a proof is methodologically wrong if the core aspect treated there are not sources and the topic. So maybe you should point out first why citing deletions for formal reasons is important in a discussion based on content. Also, it's not correct to ask me for sources of notability like the ones in the articles are not enough, this is not something who should be done implicitly or under the umbrella of a neutrality that based on the fact you add the reasons for the deletions and not the IP, it's not strong here.

  First, write down precisely why you (not the IP) think that the current academic and general sources in so many languages over the years are not enough. Not as general concept but as your personal position. At this point, I can add you even more sources about the aspects in the artice and - why not- also about the deletion procedures. Of course, when you are cited everywhere on national newspapers when you are deleted, that means you are notable. Which means that the correct thing to do for a Wiki is to write the article. Even if the wiki has a high standard, with these academic sources it's almost impossible to deny notability. If you do so, you won't have 6-7 formal deletions in a row, every expert user knows that. Even the general public nowadays knows that, like those who write to me in private asking to why I am not writing this article, which at a certain point I do.

  So please write down, why do you think I should add also 4-5 national national sources about itwikipedia that proves Orsini is notable also because of this aspect. Or just add them yourself, you already add sentences to the article--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Alexmar983: Sorry, my comment seems to have been a bit open to interpretation, and you seem to have interpreted it differently to how I intended it.

  For goodness sake, I try to help an IP to do something that they were having trouble doing on their own, and now here we are.

  You've somewhat put me in a position where it is best to make my actual position on this debate clear.

  Keep: I suppose that might surprise you? Anyway, next time I see an IP mess up when trying to nominate a page for deletion in good faith, I'll just ignore it. This has been far more trouble than it's worth. I'll steer clear of that page too in future. I'm also not going to contribute any further to this discussion here, as this can only go downhill. Good day/evening/afternoon/night/morning. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also, it might not be clear because it's not in the article yet ("yet" because it's written so far on weak sources, or they are not accessible and it's just in some google previews, or it can be inferred directly from his statements) but just so you get a more in-depth context besides some citations usually extrapolated by media: Orsini comes from the left, not the right. He showed in the past for example a quite strong pro-immigration stance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  That Orsini comes from the left does not seem relevant to this discussion. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Adding strong sentence hinting in one direction without stressing this concept, means it's up to me to balance the article now. So it's relevant, beacuse unbalanced articles have bigger chance to be deleted.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment by author: BTW, should we also cat=S (Society topics) to this deletion procedure? If I have to enlarge the article citing also the impact on national newspapers of Orsini's article deletion that means it's a social topic as well, including all the international debate about the position of Italian pundits on this geopolitical topic (see sources). This kinda goes beyond the person. Also the themes addressed by him are in the field of sociology, they are used as sources even here for these topic, editors who write about these issues might have a qualified opinion why the author of the sources needs a contextualization. So cat=S is a correct tag as well --Alexmar983 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• [Keep]: NO, don't delete Professor Alessandro Orsini's page, please. (not signed comment by IP 80.183.58.139, move here)

• Comment by author: I point out that sourced information is now removed from the article with undo. This sort of behaviour is the kind that should not occur during a deletion procedure. It would have been better to discuss in the talk page, than start a AfD. I am not very comfortable here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Before the Russian invasion in Ukraine, Alessandro Orsini was an unknown professor whose main field of research was the left-wing terrorism in Italy. As stated by someone else already, his works have not made a particular impact on the public debate in Italy or in the academic world on this topic. He became known to the Italian public for his controversial statements on the war in Ukraine and other recent statement (like Hitler didn't want to start the II world world and children were happy during the fascism period).

Also this page cannot be used as Alessandro Orsini CV. Also I find quite bizarre that Alexmar983 wrote that Orsini 'became one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows', considering he started to appear frequently as a guest in different Italian talk-shows just two months ago.

The page in the Italian wikipedia of Alessandro Orsini is still a draft. If the Wikipedia English version will be kept, this page will be added mainly for the controversial statements of the person rather than for his academic contributions. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I wrote something that is in the source: "è diventato uno dei volti più noti dei talk show italiani che approfondiscono il tema del conflitto." Not bizzare at all, and indirectly proven by the fuzz of the deletion of its page. And tha academic contribution were enough in 2021 to prove relevance in the field. See the discussion about the book and the source in German of 2019.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The article says "Orsini has become one of the best-known faces in the Italian talk shows covering the topic of the conflict (war in Ukraine)" and instead you wrote "has become one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows'. Plus there is a difference between an article from a newspaper and a page in an online encyclopedia like wikipedia. This sentence will be valid after the end of the conflict when Orsini will not be invited anymore as a guest?

Anyway, I want to stress again that Alessandro Orsini was an unknown academic, before the war in Ukraine and his controversial statements. His published works in his specialised field never made an impact and this page cannot be used as a personal CV. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

volto noto and Il più discusso ospite di talk show televisivi del momento ... you have to express the concept somehow that he is really known. People recognizes his face, which is what notability means. So don't undo in these cases. Discuss, ask for more sources, put a template in ns0. It's clear that you will keep inserting or make me insert more and more sources that will prove the notability about this aspect (which is already enough per se to keep, per notability guidelines). Which proves to me that we should have not helped an IP to open an AfD, but teach them to discuss in the talk page about the content first. I will add both sources in the next days, please agree on a formulation that will fit in your opinion at the end of the conflict. it has been two months that newspaper about every single sentence he days, so...

Anyway, you already stressed your position. I can't do anything that reminding you the sources, start on those not on what you think in general. Also, if you think this page has a CV style, that should have been a suggestion for the motivation of the AfD, although it can be disproved quite easily. It does not focus very much on the publications and academic positions.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You didn't use the source correctly, citing the sentence partially. And the new links you have mentioned now, they say respectively 'known face' and 'the most discussed talk show guest at the moment'. You should also add the English translation (for non Italian speakers), if you write something in a language different than English.

Regarding the source, it is fair to use it correctly and not reporting the sentence omitting some parts that can change the meaning of it.

Also as an IP, I have the right to contribute to Wikipedia and to discuss regarding an AfD.

This biography page of Alessandro Orsini has not been approved on the Wikipedia Italian, where actually the person is known. Exactly why should this page have relevance in the English version?

I also find contradictory that you say that this page has not been built as a CV, when creating and writing this page you have added even the personal Facebook page of Alessandro Orsini. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I keep thinking that this a discussion related to editing so should have been started teaching you how to edit and discuss in the talk page of the article before opening AfD. Especially this strange contradictory AfD where somebody might keep it but open it to express what you might think, which now seems something else. You needed to gain more expertise, maybe opening a AfD later.

Having a FB link that does not prove the article is a CV, and you are really exaggerating this aspect. it was evaluated by many users on the way before you in many weeks and nobody defined it a CV, because it is not. Also you don't know yet how to read the history of a page. I did not add any FB link, I am very tolerant considering nowadays social media are closer to a personal webpage, so would be a Twitter profile. I add these things all the time also on Wikidata, but I usually don't care about those here.

Beware: someone else would have started to point out that accusing me of putting something I did not put is a bad-faith attempt. You are just not expert, which is a shame and it would have been better, since this is probably notable, to have this discussion in the talk page so you could have been trained.

Also, you can be an IP or a user, but you lacked some literacy. I just hoped you could become a more trained editor before this opening. It's not wise to put a newbie with starting editing skills and limited knowledge of guidelines in AfD, one of the most time-consuming process sometimes. For examples, in theory now we have to focus on the content in ns0 and here, and this is not good for the article. Normally, poorly-edited deletion attempts can be removed and not-so-expert users can learn a little bit more. Here I have to train you in good faith but since you think this is confrontational, you accuse me. That's not fair.

Normal users can use on-line translators, it's really simple. I prefer everybody to do that themselves so they can use a third party service and it is not up to me because someone will accuse me of not translating correctly (I know...). I found bizarre to be lectured about sources since I am the one who had to move the discussion on them, you were more inclined to very generic statements. Another source: il professore più controverso della Tv... you can't be the most controversial if people do not compare to all the other ones, so it means you are known. In this case they made a specific dedicated article just about him.

This "unknown academic" was known on his own. I was improving that part before we ended up here. But also "pop" notability is ok, they are all some notability. However, a contradiction in this discussion is that according to you, dear British IP friend, his presence on the media is transient and this is an encylopedia, so we should not stress too much about how notable he is because of mass media and disregard this part. Yet, if a newspaper extrapolates a quote from the guy and makes an article about it, which is occurring a lot recently, that quote is the most transient thing you can find as a source, but it can be stuffed in the article according to you, and you do so. So in other words, this adding of sources implicitly recognized the notabilty because of press coverage. So... why are we here debating about the opposite? You should not add more of those, you should remove them all. Do you see this?

In the end, I am a decent person, with a name and a surname, who edited an article of a notable figure based on old and new and academic and general sources, in many languages. I don't want to spend a week to balance a cherry-picking of sources instead of adding more academic ones, which is what I would have done probably.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It is quite distasteful that you checked my IP to see where I have been writing from and you have addressed me as 'dear British friend' (ironically). You have already stressed enough how illiterate I am on Wikipedia! Ok, that's fine!

But even adding irrelevant award (Cimitile Prize without even a website page related to the award) to the page of Alessandro Orsini, it doesn't change the fact this person has become known only for his recent controversial statements and not for his academic contribution! 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It was kinda necessary in view of a long and complex AfD, see comment here. It's more distasteful IMHO to constantly look for accusations, but personal tastes I guess.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete:Alessandro Orsini does not fulfil any of the notability criteria for academics, as defined by Wikipedia. He has become known to the public not through his academic achievements, but through his statements in talk-shows, that do not represent independent reliable secondary sources. His research has not had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He has won no major international prizes, etc. Essentially he has not fulfilled ANY of the notability criteria for academics. He is not even widely cited, his h-index is very low.Morningbastet (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

he was known to the public also because of a scandal about promotions, this is part that could have been enlarged. That's also why there is an article in German citing him as relevant in his field, for example. Than he became known for the end of the contract in late February, than for the deletion of the article on itWikipedia, than again for every minor statements he says as it is now. But you can combine the last three as a unicum (a big one). Also the criteria are respected in points 1 (significant impact is the book about Red Brigades), 2 (the awards are national), maybe 5 (he was chair of a specific institution of the University until yesterday, that basically existed because of him). That's why I never enlarged with pleasure the "controversies" part, it's transient and people overthink about it ignoring the rest. Although all combined, the stuff of the press coverage kinda prove also point 7. At this point someone will criticize all of them, but it's more fair than citing generically they are not met at all. You need to demolish all four of them to prove he is not relevant as an academic. Which you will maybe, but I have met researchers here with much limited impact. That's why years ago the page was almost kept.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alexmar983 Being "known to the public because of a scandal about promotions" has nothing to do with academic notability. There need to be multiple independent articles from independent sources to support academic notability. Luiss University does not have a high ranking internationally, and Associate professorship is far from being equal with fame, in the absence of multiple independent sources of some weight that state his notability in the field. This article is likely a promotion/advertisement. The chair at Luiss was terminated and Luiss issued a statement distancing itself from the controversial statements of Orsini. Notability, not lack of notability, must be proven. This article only reports the controversies, which did not occur in an academic setting, but in Italian TV talk shows that have nothing to do with academic settings. The Orsini biographical article on Italian Wikipedia has been deleted, this means that for a researcher that has done essentially all of his training in Italy, he does not even merit notability in Italy. In the anglophone world he is even less well known. Several of the sources cited in the article have not been validated as independent reliable sources with a good reputation for soundness and journalistic rigorous. At most, the name of Orsini could marginally deserve to be mentioned only in an article listing controversies on Italian TV talk shows, about the different proposals of responses/policies concerning the war waged by Russia on Ukraine. But he certainly not a notable academic, he simply does not fulfil the criteria.Morningbastet (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I am already out of this so don't ping me. BTW "only the controversies" is too much. Probably when I was looking for academic sources and inserting them I was aomewhere else... Seen many times: someone stuff the articles with controversies and later someone else act as if it's the only thing there. And than if you talk about open aspect (academic relevance), the subject shift on the "controversies", and vice versa. Very unhealthy.

Also, the part about deletion on itwiki is wrong. Even national newspaper reported it as done for formal reasons not related to the content because many many people found it quite bizarre. Besides that, using itwikipedia, which has higher threshold of notability and is usually criticized for that, to detect relevance in Italy is poor method (not the first time these things occur, may I remind you the Aranzulla case?). Using a wiki in general is poor method, such a disregard for sources. May I remind you also that we come from a 10-years scandal of hr.wiki about political aspects? That's why it would be wise to stick to the sources.

I wonder how many people will reappear in this AfD after many weeks or months of inactivity just to state such "stretched" interpretations of reality. How many of them will be anonymous? I won't know, I am out of here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Also you should stop writing that Wikipedia Italian has blocked the publication of Alessandro Orsini page. Here some reliable news sources that prove your claims are untrue:

https://www.tpi.it/cronaca/wikipedia-cancella-biografia-professor-orsini-perche-non-ha-senso-parlare-censura-20220319881084/

https://www.bufale.net/scompare-alessandro-orsini-da-wikipedia-il-motivo-ufficiale-non-compreso-dai-complottisti/ 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

what are you talking about? He never said anything that is false. Alexmar983 correctly claimed that it.wikipedia is controversial related to notability and should never be used to assess it. For example, may I remind you recently the deletion of Vladimiro Giacché's article?

Also, you pointed out with third-party sources that even the very selective Italian wikipedia could not disproof the notability of Orsini.

—193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I checked IP because, as I predicted, IPs were going to be actively involved here (nobody wants to use their name of such public figure) and it's the only way to get an idea if you are no check-user to know who's who because they might change. For example 193.207.xx probably added a source in the article, but with a different ending (193.207.210.18). Interestingly, it looks like the two IPs who were against the notability are from UK and Sweden, all the other pro-keep IPs seem to be Italian. There might be exceptions later, just a curious fact.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: As pointed out by Morningbastet, Orsini does not fulfill any of Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics. I've been hesitating for a couple of days because he has arguably been "notable" in Italian mass media (mainly talk shows and tabloids) since March, for expressing views on topics outside of his academic specialty. But this seems to be a fallacy known as WP:ITSINTHENEWS. The only way I see him still being of public interest half a year from now is if he pivots from academia to politics (there is talk of that), in which case a Wikipedia page might be warranted under "politician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.195.49.49 (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. Something that is temporarily in the news is not worth to be in an encyclopedia, but this is not the case. There was in-depth coverage, and an evolution of sources. this one point out for example clearly not only that Orsini is worth a dedicated article on a national magazine but also states the Orsini was already on TV before 2022. this other source involving Orsini dates back to 2007. It's a little bit nuanced than an explosion of interest after February. That's why I was very skeptical about enlarging the 2022 section and I think I was right.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep absolutely. Notable and relevant nationally Italian as a professor and essayist for the awards won and the dissemination of his books https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2004077618/ https://scholar.google.it/citations?user=sUFtCR0AAAAJ&hl=it, as well as a television personality for his countless appearances on Italian TV and for the prominence given by the sources to his statements and controversies related to his positions policies, which is also treated by international not Italian speaking sources https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/stellenvergabe-an-italiens-hochschulen-ein-echtes-100.html https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/italien-luigi-di-maio-putin-russland-1.5562597 https://www.lopinion.fr/international/la-fascination-interessee-de-la-television-italienne-pour-les-opinions-pro-poutine?_amp=true .176.247.12.196 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Has yet failed to make a mark on WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC).

  Only 424 cites on GS, as yet is far too low to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC).

• Keep even the very rigid Italian Wikipedia cannot disproof the notability of Orsini. They are debating when (not if) to move it right now!

Discussing about recent information is unpractical, considering the coverage in older and more stable sources. Orsini did not just appear only now on newspaper, he was already cited in the past. All these details are however too recent and controversial. For example here orsini is very critical of the reconstruction of the closure of the department given by newspapers, so it's the sort of critical topic that should be taken with calm later.

The first part, the one which was enlarged before the AfD was opened, was the most useful one, it's strange to "help" pushing in this territory, IMHO.

The English version of its book about Italian Red Brigades is massively cited in theliterature It's probably woth an article per se.

That's why he fulfills the general guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics)—193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The 'rigid' Italian Wikipedia? The page has not yet been approved. Full stop.

To support the fact that Orsini's book is 'massively' cited (according to whom?) you literally posted a link to a post from Orsini Facebook personal page. And regarding the other link (which is to Google scholar) and you restrict the research to 'scientific articles', the result for citations is just 1 (ONE). I am speechless about your misleading comment. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

GS is not restricted to only scientific articles. See his profile there. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC).

Also I want to point out that the 424 citation on Google Scholar are referring to two different people named 'Alessandro Orsini'. And most of them have been published not by the sociologist, but a researcher in pediatric neurology.85.211.232.197 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP said in the literature, not "in the academic literature". Also, as a person who created with another user the Wikidata items of these people to avoid confusion, and I hope a decent expert of bibliometry, I remind you that citations are not potatoes, they vary per sector. I agree that the book about the Red Brigades, which also shows more citations under its Italian titles and was debated over the years, it's probably worth an article per se.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the Facebook link was never used to proved the citations by the IP, it's there to remind that recent news-related information should not be "stuffed" in an article, they are controversial and unstable. I agree with that, there were plenty of sources on the way and available way more stable, but someone really wanted to go this way. In any case, if there are sources entirely dedicated to Orsini, as a whole (that is, in-depth coverage), they seem to be ignored even if recent.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I live in Italy. Everyone I know, in my circle of friends and acquaintances, knows Alessandro Orsini. In 2018, not everyone knew him, but he gave a speech in the Italian National Parliament (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6k4B_h4Gkc). Therefore, there's no reasonable doubt about him deserving to appear on the Italian wikipedia; but there may be reasonable doubts about the Italian wikipedia deserving to have a page on him, given the way they are dealing with the issue of the final approval of his page [18]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto cassone (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment by author: I am here again because I have just connected the itwikipedia article on Wikidata. So I was curious to read here how it was going. Now, itwikipedia can do whatever they want (maybe they will put it back on the draft? The consensus for the move was however pretty clear)... as you can imagine from some comments here, the whole story turned out to be already a discrete disaster of communication during the last weeks, but it's wrong in general to use other versions to evaluate notability.Maybe now this aspect will be very much appreciated, who knows...

In any case few people with a name and a surname will ever make a public statement that Orsini is not notable here in Italy. Even agreeing on high standards of notability, this person was on the national and academic sources already years ago and there are so many sources of different types over the years that you cannot possibly get consensus for the deletion, which is something it should have been explained to people with limited competence instead of pushing for AfD.

I might say, I disagree with the concept discussed on itwikipedia that the page should not have been published because of possible tensions despite being notable. From a practical point of view, the page can be handled. For example, here it remained for circa two weeks, no big deal. Experts users approved, it was there to be enlarged... Only the AfD attracted the noise and made impossible to discuss properly about the content. Personally, I won't do as well. too much bile, there at least three clearly false accusations in this procedure.

At least we are lucky this AfD did not arrive on national newspapers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. I note that, further to discussion on this point above, Italian Wikipedia has now promoted this subject to article space. I view their collection of activities as sufficient to merit inclusion here, also. BD2412 T 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alexmar983 can you stop bludgeoning the discussion please. You don't need to write long screeds to everyone as it discourages participation in the discussion. Also it's irrelevant what has happened on IT. The only issue is do they pass GNG, is this BLP1E and is PROF met? Can we focus further discussion down to this please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment by author: I was away from here from nine days. That looks like a considerable amnount of time. In the meantime, I see people commenting every issue including reporting false accusations, but nobody cared. That looks like bludgeoning but wasn't it a problem at all? it.wikipedia was not relevant but why stating it to the only person who said so and not to the people who used it for days?

I know that not writing or writing again after nine days would have made no difference in the result, but I think a reader should notice this as well because I will not pay the price for everyone. I know it's easier that way, to blame just one person, but it's not correct. The problem was opening the AfD so rapidly. As usual, I am out, I was only here because I connected the itwiki version--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

sorry if I deleted the text by mistake a few days ago, I write again my opinion. Keep per WP:GNG: there is significant coverage of secondary reliable sources which started more than a decade ago. I would like also to point out that this AfD was strange: people tried a lot to talk about an AfD procedure on another wiki, but later it was reminded to ignore that fact when the article was published there. --176.200.60.24 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree with the others saying that he ultimately became famous in Italy because of his strong controversies on Russian conflict, not much for his academics studies --Broncoviz (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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. Comments, but no clear consensus and no indication one is forthcoming after two relists with no input. No issue with a renom at a time you think it will engender discussion Star Mississippi 01:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Abu-Abdullah Adelabu

Abu-Abdullah Adelabu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the sources for this article that I'm able to check appear to be either websites associated with the subject of the article or sources that don't mention the subject of the article at all. I haven't been able to check the newspaper sources provided, but I have been unsuccessful in locating other reliable sources that establish the notability of this person. This article in its current state clearly does not hold up to WP:BLP standards of sourcing, and I see no evidence that this article can be improved significantly, or that its subject is even notable. On a tangential note, the user who created this article added mentions of this person on several other pages, e.g. Ghana Empire, that seem to fail verification. For example, I have been unable to find any reference to a work by Adelabu titled The Ghana World: A Pride for the Continent that predates its addition to the Ghana Empire page in 2012; all mentions of it seem to be copying Wikipedia. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Nigeria. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment — I think it only needs to be cleaned up. Deleting is not cleaning up. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm perfectly open to it being cleaned up instead of deleted, but to do that, we'd need reliable sources. What reliable sources are available to us here? Ornithopsis (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Is Sunni Islam a school of philosophy? Why is it listed as such in the article. If this article does not get deleted, please someone knowledgeable in this area should change the infobox parameter to something more appropriate, like ideology or something.HandsomeBoy (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

• Comment Hmm, content aside this is some pretty fishy citation. The "Aljazeera" citation links to "WorldDefenseReview", and half the cites are to alleged newspaper mentions, but without either links or page numbers - it is hardly set up for ready verification. Leaning weak delete due to notability not being clearly established in coverage by reliable, secondary sources. A news search only turns up two trivial mentions. I was just beaten to this by the closer ... not sure if this close is correct. Surely an OP vote to delete with two neutral comments is still a lean toward delete? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Nadir Ali Khan

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nadir Ali Khan
• Articles for deletion/Nadir Ali Khan (2nd nomination)

Nadir Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has remained completely unsourced since the last 12 years. There is no coverage of the subject's death (at the least), even by Indian Muslim news portals. That said, this subject fails WP:GNG and there's no indication of any subjective criteria being met. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 12:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Islam, and India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 12:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Searched on google and found three Hindi sources about him. These sources published after his death, but these are written in detail about him.[19][20] [21]

IndaneLove (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not sure if the third source is a reliable one. All the three sources overlap with a lot of content. I do not feel these are helpful in getting WP:GNG passed. All those are published in a day or two. Likely the subject would be more discussed in nearby future, but currently, neither it passes GNG nor does it pass WP:NAUTHOR. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 18:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@User:TheAafi I am also not sure about third one. Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran are reliable sources.

IndaneLove (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@User:TheAafi found one more source of Aligarh Muslim University’s official website.[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndaneLove (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources don't establish notability. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 05:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Congrats, your AfD is the first in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete English-language results in search engine and Google Scholar are primarily about other people with the same name, and without an Urdu-language name or urwiki article we cannot search in Urdu. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  LaundryPizza03, I didn't get anything significant in Urdu-language as well during my WP:BEFORE search. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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. This discussion also shows that the page needs to be moved to Shaku Atre. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Shakuntala Atre

Shakuntala Atre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and most of the references are rather collateral. The overall notability is not substantiated by the article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Based on very low GS record, far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC).
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete- Her works has been used as reference in some books but there is very low overall coverage, a case of WP:N as well. I think unless we have more details regarding the Professor, I am not sure that this deserves a page of its own. RS6784 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. She appears to be better known as Shaku Atre, and she's also founder of The Atre Group. I think the most likely claim to notability would be via WP:NAUTHOR and her textbooks. pburka (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and New York. pburka (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional opportunity to find coverage under the name "Shaku Atre" as noted above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Not my area but leaning keep. Assuming the subject is indeed Shaku Atre, there's high citations for two books and an article in Google Scholar, perhaps sufficient to meet WP:PROF (977,310,168), though their other publications appear to have only modest citations. There's also a great many news/interviews hits in Proquest quoting the subject as an expert, going all the way back to the 1980s. Book reviews would be nice if anyone can track them down; ETA: WorldCat[23] shows Data base : structured techniques for design, performance, and management : with case studies (held in 770 libraries, 27 editions), Business intelligence roadmap : the complete project lifecycle for decision-support applications (462 libraries, 33 editions), Distributed databases, cooperative processing, and networking (168 libraries, 14 editions), Data base management systems for the eighties (94 libraries, 4 editions) as well as some other less widely held books. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

ETA: More indept coverage (from Proquest search, which has 183 hits for "Shaku Atre"): Stoltenberg, John. Turning Problems into Profits. Working Woman; New York Vol. 13, Iss. 5, (May 1988): 63 (can't access article but 4pp article, abstract reads "Janice Schooler, Trisha Garrity Warringer, Shaku Atre and Vicki C. McConnell each built businesses that teach employees how to use high-tech computer software and hardware.") Also five paragraphs in Radding, Alan. The Education of an Expert. Computerworld; Framingham Vol. 22, Iss. 18, (May 2, 1988): 74. [24] (long before she became a columnist there). Also Snyders, Jan. Create That Opportunity Infosystems; Wheaton Vol. 31, Iss. 10, (Oct 1984): 104. (one-page profile, can't access). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Espresso Addict: Publishing a couple of books is nowhere near enough to meet NPROF unless they can be showm to have made a major impact in the field. Can you please link to where you found these "high citations". My own search of gscholar turned up only two citations, both for the Spanish language version of her book. One of those is to a Master's thesis, which unlike a PhD, is not considered part of the peer reviewed corpus and hence not relevant for establishing notability. SpinningSpark 12:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: As I said above: GS search for "Shaku Atre".[25] Espresso Addict (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That certainly looks a lot better, but for me that is still not enough to get past NPROF. Even counting the iffy citations and publications, that only amounts to an h-index of 9, which is low. Nothing else has been offered with the in-depth coverage needed to pass GNG, but I'm less hostile to keeping this now and am open to persuasion. SpinningSpark 09:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take another look, Spinningspark, in the light of the coverage found by SusunW. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

SusunW's argument is not entirely logical. She says we should not be assessing Atre under PROF but then goes on to say she has written a lot of stuff and is cited a lot. That's an NPROF argument and still does not get past the guideline. To meet GNG we need independent, in-depth discussion of the subject. SusunW, in amongst a lot of irrelevant stuff, has offered an "about the author" blurb in one of her books, a similar thing in the agenda for a conference (almost certainly written by Atre herself), and an interview. None of that is considered independent. Still, if we had at the beginning what we have now I would probably not have commented on this AFD at all. I'm striking my delete to neutral. SpinningSpark 08:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually her writing and citation isn't an NPROF argument at all. It is an argument in favor of CREATIVE, #1 and #2, which I am clarifying for whoever closes this. And as for the non-independent sources, they're allowed as long as they are only descriptive statements of facts and notability has been verified by reliable secondary sources. In-depth discussion of the subject is not required to be contained in a single source, but rather can be combined from information in multiple sources, which is what we have here. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Neutral. Fails NPROF - very low citations, no evidence of any substantial impact, and holds only a minor professorship. SpinningSpark 12:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Changing to neutral per abpve discussion. SpinningSpark 08:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: There is detailed coverage of Shaku Atre here [26]. Google Scholar does show some high citation counts for some textbooks. I haven't found any reviews in JSTOR. TJMSmith (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The newspaper article is useful: "wrote one of the first books on managing databases", which sold 150,000 copies, translated into 3 languages, used as university textbook. Also mentions (in future tense) her writing a column in Computerworld. I couldn't find anything on JSTOR either; not sure where computing textbooks were reviewed in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep; first, per Espresso Addict, as an early and - by sales - influential author on databases which, let us remember, were obscure and in their infancy in 1980 - so, a pioneer in this field; and then, second, 25-years or more of exposure as a columnist and as a repeatedly cited database expert in mainstream trade publications, for which see https://archive.org/search.php?query=Shaku%20Atre&sin=TXT and, especially, https://archive.org/search.php?query=according%20to%20Shaku%20Atre&sin=TXT --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the further discoveries mentioned above but the article needs to be expanded.--Ipigott (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep as per comment of @Ipigott, and draft would be a good option rather then delete. Fade258 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, the logic of this nomination makes no sense to me. Why are we examining an "adjunct professor" as an academic? The very nature of that title infers that she lectures because of expertise and work in another sphere. Clearly that field is business development and clearly specifically in the use of technology in business. So, 1) do we have evidence of a claim to verified notability. Yes, the clip TJMSmith found says she was a pioneer in database management and wrote an influential book about it. Her definition of business intelligence is cited in numerous publications in a variety of languages.[27],[28],[29],[30], she apparently developed a system for analyzing data (not my area of expertise)[31] and she was often referred to as a consulting expert.[32] While at IBM, she was a referee for the selection of articles to be peer reviewed, i.e. indicates she was an expert in the field.[33] 2) Is there sufficient media over time to confirm that we can create a reasonably complete and detailed biography? Yes, and she meets at the very least WP:BASIC and probably also WP:CREATIVE. Besides sources cited above:[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40]. Obviously a lot more out there under Shaku Atre and that should probably be the title of the article. SusunW (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that we should move to the name the subject has worked under. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Atre is quoted in her capacity as an expert on DB business news fairly often, but unfortunately these are largely in publications that are not independent of her. These include Computerworld, where she has written multiple articles since 1982, and DBMS, where she has been an editor. Any magazine advertising the Atre Group also cannot be considered independent, which would eliminate all Computerworld citations (ads started appearing in at least 1983, and some of her "articles" there are actually contained within "special advertising supplements"; her group later seems to have even partnered with the magazine). I would honestly be skeptical of any trade mag, since "expert consultancy" in those is a widespread marketing tool and her group explicitly notes it contributes writers/experts to them. But counting those, her opinion is cited nontrivially in around four magazines:

Software Magazine, MIS Week, Infosystems, and Network World.

However, despite the case for NPROF C7 being rather weak, she does appear to meet GNG through her profile in Working Woman and the interview in Infosystems, which provides just enough independent commentary to count. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: As a matter of transparency, I should note I was brought here by an arguably non-neutral alert at WiR. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for those JoelleJay. I'm working the sources shown on this page into the article, though discussing her "12-step approach" to analysis and planning is beyond my abilities and expertise. If anyone wants to take a crack this and this could be used. Do you want to add your info or should I come back to it tomorrow and try to work those in? SusunW (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW, it takes me about three hours two write a paragraph summarizing even things I am extremely familiar with (hello, PhD dissertation...), so I'd say even if I tried tonight to incorporate info from those sources into the article you'd probably do a quicker and more competent job starting tomorrow. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on it. SusunW (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've done what I can do. Hopefully someone with a better grasp of technology than me can discuss her works. When this closes we definitely need to change the title to Shaku Atre to comply with WP:commonname. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:GNG rather than WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

David R. Elmaleh

David R. Elmaleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

dubious notability, virtually no hits on Google Scholar, created by an SPA with an interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 23:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• keep - (I have connection with Elmaleh) David R. Elmaleh is an associate Professor at Harvard Medical School at Harvard University He has developed a number of drugs that are in use in man or in late stage of clinical trials. He is a co-author on over 130 publications (You can see his publications at ResearchGate) and an inventor on 140 of issued and pending patents (see list at Justia or at Google).

Please see this article about his work: Building Successful Businesses from Science-based Discovery - A Leadership Dialogue with DAVID ELMALEH, Mcgill.ca / Desautels Faculty of Management.

This article comply with the specific notability guideline for academics (WP:PROF):

1. Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work - citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.
2. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

thanks - Ovedc (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

where is the full disclosure ? User:ovedc was paid by David R. Elmaleh, you can see in the Hebrew wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:14f:1f7:cd15::327d:73cf (talk • contribs) 13:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Well of course you !voted keep, you get paid to do so. -FASTILY 05:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Patents are not an indicator of notability whatsoever. The "article about his work" is a recap of a McGill University symposium that Elmaleh participated in located on McGill's website and written by their communications department. Wikipedia is not a resume or CV service. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

keep - I vote to keep as David Elmaleh meets the standards for academics, as his work is highly cited and influential. VeritasOM (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC) — VeritasOM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete most of his hits are press-releases or his name on patents. Almost vanity spam. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Interesting, Veritas is a novice editor, with a very few contributions, all of them afd, almost always vote for keep, scarce knowledge (in his field, the number of citations are meager, tiny), maybe he is a SP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:80:94D3:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  says the "person" hiding behind in IP address. Regardless, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY in my eyes Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 01:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• keep - (I have connection with Elmaleh) Prof. Elmaleh is a scientist, inventor and entrepreneur and an associate Professor at Harvard Medical School at Harvard University. He has many patents (justia, google) that some of them used at over a million PET imaging procedures (as Study Director). You can see article about him at Globes: From Musrara to Harvard: The serial entrepreneur who wants to beat Alzheimer's (In Hebrew). Ovedc (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • You are only allowed to !vote once. And in your case, as a declared paid contributor, I would suggest !voting not at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - He has invented drugs which is notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject has a moderate number of citations in a higher citation field, mostly as middle author on fairly highly coauthored papers. It looks WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for an (apparently terminal) associate professor, and I'm not seeing it as adding up to WP:NPROF. The Globes.co.il found by a COIed editor above is a start towards GNG and WP:BASIC, but I'm not seeing it as passing it by itself. The article is not in great shape, and with marginal-at-best notability, WP:TNT may apply. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, what he has done is very credentialed and his article is well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.37 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC) — 207.102.255.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. Star Mississippi 15:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Boris Maciejovsky

Boris Maciejovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Business, Economics, and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Faulty nomination statement appears to examine only WP:GNG, the wrong notability criterion, and then claim without support that this examination applies to WP:PROF. But it doesn't. And the article doesn't appear particularly promotional to me; it reports neutrally on the subject's career milestones and research topics, as most articles on academics do, and includes some minor awards that I might not have included (the Raymond S. Nickerson Award is merely a best paper award, and I would not usually list a teaching award from the subject's employer), but that could be down to the preferences or inexperience of the article creator. Maciejovsky's citation record appears to pass WP:PROF#C1, but I'm putting it down as a weak keep because I think this is a high-citation field. The awards are insufficient for #C2 but we only need one criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: Regarding notability, there is, of course, room for subjectivity; however, it seems that the profile of the academic meets the bar of "week keep," as outlined by David Eppstein. The academic and his work are featured in independent and objective sources, his teaching is evaluated publicly (ratemyprofessor), his work is moderately highly cited (google scholar), and his network is firmly established with other researchers (and their wikipedia pages). Notability for academics is met, for instance, by WP:PROF#C1. "The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure," which the article subject meets, as he was granted tenure at an R1 institution. The TED talk is also something that is rare and impactful (6,900 views on youtube) Gooseberry487 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Gooseberry487 is the article creator. TedX talks are legion, and 6,900 views for a YT video is nothing special. Edwardx (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

    The deletion process states that 'everyone including you [the article creator] is welcome to contribute to the discussion.' Gooseberry487 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  • The weak keep above is by me, not Spiderone. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you! Fixed it. Gooseberry487 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep: I disagree. The article is well researched and provides ample sources of notability. It′s in alignment with thousands of articles on impactful academics. VeritasOM (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The only activity for this account has been to vote in this AfD. The repeated use of "impactful" suggests that this may be a sock of the article creator, Gooseberry487. Edwardx (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  Since you mentioned me, allow me to clearly state that I neither wrote nor encouraged the vote above. Thanks Gooseberry487 (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. The citations in Google Scholar appear strong: nine works over 100 citations -- even in a citation-heavy field -- seems adequate to meet WP:PROF to me. Also, while the creator does not appear to have edited very widely, the article was accepted by the AfC process. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, if improved the citations are high enough, and are mostly in very good journals. ( not merely the minimal ">100" -- they are 331, 324, 216, 212, 204, 124, 107......) But many of the claimed academic appointments are appointments are as a post doc or fellow, not as a member of the faculty. An article that avoids specifying this does not give me the impression of being competently written, especially because it omits the details of the citations, which is the strongest part, as we judge WP:PROF. I would normally say, return to draft, but it's been extensively edited since its been there. I would not have approved it at AfC, because as is obvious from this nomination, it does not make the notability clear enough. So, given the actual underlying notability, I am in process of rewriting according to our usual standards. I'll finish that tomorrow this time--i cant work any further tonight. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as the article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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

• Arye L. Hillman (via WP:PROD on 11 May 2022)
• Robert Ranquet (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2022)
• Jeff Hammerbacher (via WP:PROD on 9 May 2022)
• Michael Bell-Smith (via WP:PROD on 8 May 2022)
• Sarah Bolton (physicist) (via WP:PROD on 8 May 2022)
• Maya Prabhu (via WP:PROD on 7 May 2022)