Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:45, 24 June 2010

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academics and educators. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles and WP:PROF for the widely-used notability standard for academics.

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

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 no consensus. Original close was "The result was delete. Since sources have not been provided the delete arguments have not been refuted Spartaz Humbug! 11:02 pm, Today (UTC+3)" but on a second look after a nudge on my talk page I think I got this wrong so I'm reclosing as no-consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bletsas

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

I can't see anything in the article that meets notability guidelines. (borderline importance asserted). I also can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Some gnews hits are foreign-language, so if significant coverage can be demonstrated there, I will be happy to withdraw. Beloved Freak 10:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When his name Michail Bletsas is search for on GS it gives some hits, but not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Appears to be basically a systems administrator at MIT; the highest degree held is M.Sc., not a PhD. A few publications with a few citations, but falls far short of passing WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I completely rewrote the article, based on reliable sources. I don't think he passes WP:PROF, and I don't think being a sysadmin at MIT is enough to be notable. But he has collected a fair amount of press for his work at One Laptop Per Child and for networking Patmos, and was keynote speaker at several conferences. So I think he squeaks by on WP:GNG grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Networking an island with a population of 2,984? Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's a founder of a large publicly listed company, and an important member of the One Laptop Per Child project. That's good enough for me. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This claim that he co-founded Velti is only supported by a COI press release. Abductive (reasoning) 20:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur, he may not be well known but the company is. It's enough for me. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator - well done to the work put in by David Eppstein, it's much better. I'm not completely convinced that the subject meets notability guidelines, but my stance is now neutral.--Beloved Freak 17:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article makes refereces to TWO Michail Bletsas's go to the Director of Computing at MIT's webpage and you'll see it makes NO MENTION of One Laptop per child, I retract my previous comment in favour of deletion. I only just realised this. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 04:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two different people both named Michail Bletsas, both of whom have worked closely with Nicholas Negroponte (founder of both OLPC and the Media lab at MIT where MB is director of computing)? That seems an unlikely coincidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The One Laptop per Child article reveals no mention of Michael Bletsas, and shows that the actual power behind it is Nicholas Negroponte. Many other people are mentioned in that article, but not Michael Bletsas. Abductive (reasoning) 19:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are you doing reading our Wikipedia article and trying to use it as a source? Read the sources listed on Bletsas' article instead. They mention him, prominently. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The CCNC blurb about him is not reliable; he likely wrote it. Velti.com does not mention him; [1]. Being a speaker at some conferences doesn't mean much to me. Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The CCNC blurb is used only to source factual material about Bletsas, so it's not relevant for a discussion of his notability. He appears to no longer be associated with Velti—when I edited the article, I removed an assertion that he was on its board of directors—so why should they still mention him? And you're entitled to your opinion, of course. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Check the MIT Michail Bletsas' web page and you'll see no mention of OLPC, in fact the Wikipedia article itself makes reference to both of them as though they were one person, check OLPC's webpage and you'll find it doesn't make a mention about Bletsas being the MIT Director of Computing and frankly the OLPC Bletsas is far more notable. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This reference I added to the article recently has both MIT and OLPC in one page. Softarch Jon (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Source you linked is not very notable or verifiable for that matter. http://web.media.mit.edu/~mbletsas/ Here read that. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 06:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The real deal is that many millions of people have had some success in their careers and received some mention in the press. But encyclopedia articles are supposed to tell the reader something above and beyond a CV and a scrapbook. Knowledge of Michael Bletsas is not necessary to an understanding of any other topic. Without context and a claim of notability these sorts of articles must be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per my above comments, neither of the Michail/Michael Bletsas have that much notability among the community, I've only heard one mention of them on the news, sure the OLPC founder has some standing among the community his notability is still next-to-nothing... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No "neither" here: this is one and the same person; see my remark above. Softarch Jon (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is discussed in a number of sources. Sufficient publicity to make him of interest to read about. The article has nearly dozen references. Softarch Jon (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Go to the official MIT edu website: http://web.media.mit.edu/~mbletsas/ no mention of OLPC whatsoever, if it were of importance it would be listed. I haven't found any information about MIT on OLPC either. So there are 2 of them and both are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fridae'sDoom (talk • contribs)
- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're very stubborn, but I don't see the point of it here when there's so much other evidence that they're one person. Also, this web page is a primary source and we should be using secondary sources when possible. Also also, according to archive.org, he hasn't updated his MIT web page since 2006. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Acknowledged, however, we still lack some reliable sources. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 03:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Pagnotta

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

An assistant professor who appears not to meet our standards for notability of academics. Google Scholar only lists a handful of citations to his work and there is no claim made in the article or in his university bio of passing the guideline on any other count. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to really say about this--I haven't found any evidence he meets WP:PROF.Prezbo (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This GScholar search returns only four hits, most of which are working papers. Only an assistant professor. Clearly falls short of [[WP:PROF]. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have the citation record to pass WP:PROF #1 and there is no evidence of passing any of the other criteria either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a vanity entry and the individual does not meet WP:PROF.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPA-created and basically WP:PROMOTION, as many early-in-career academic pages are. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Bakan

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Be in Nepean (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Be in Nepean (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant numbers of GScholar and GBook hits, including high cite numbers on the scholar site. Refs need to be added, but apparently meets WP:PROF. GregJackP (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GregJackP above. Seems to have published a respectable body of work, which seems more than enough for WP:PROF. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professor at a research university with a host of publications that in turn have been cited widely (see this GScholar search). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maren Bennewitz

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

Not notable per Wikipedia:BIO. ---- A. L. M. 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself doesn't assert any notability beyond being involved in a team that won a robotics competition, which doesn't pass WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NOTINHERITED. I also couldn't find any additional coverage of her though a Google search; very little coverage of the NimbRo robot itself. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As with another case now in AfD, Cyrill Stachniss, she has a few highly-cited publications but they're all with her more-notable advisor Wolfram Burgard, so there's no way to tell whether her own contribution is having enough of the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrill Stachniss

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

Not notable enough per Wikipedia:BIO. ---- A. L. M. 13:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS indicates that this person participated in a few well-cited projects under his advisor, Wolfram Burgard, but that he's not yet notable independent of his advisor. Essentially, he's an early-in-career academic (grad in '06) who has a (low) h-index of 4, commensurate with what you'd expect for his career stage. His website indicates he's still a post-doc (under same advisor). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. His work has attracted a substantial level of citation but there is no way to disentangle his contribution from that of his more notable advisor. A classical example of someone on a successful academic career trajectory but whose article was created too soon in his career, before he has had a real chance to distinguish himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Ehrcke

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

Speedy and prod declined. Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC and does not pass WP:BIO. The only verifiable claim to notability is being President of the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association; that is significantly short of what would be required to satisfy Criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC. Almost nothing in GScholar and GNews, and no other evidence of significant coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
actually no prod was declined, my prod was a blp prod that was "satisfied" by a reference. So you could also try a normal prod too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom has it right – only claim to notability is head of a teacher's union local and this is way short of established standards. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per substantial reasoning of the nom. Claritas § 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of the substantial news coverage that might allow someone at this level to be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madhurendra Kumar Singh

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

Non notable aspirant for political office -all substantial links are about other members of his family Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reading the article closely he holds no political post to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN and no extensive coverage either [2]. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just went through all the links, half of them are dead and the rest merely establish that he stood and lost in an election. However this could be redirected to the article about his father with a brief mention of his unsuccessful political activities included there. Valenciano (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Grode

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Worked with some notable people, but this doesn't of itself confer notability. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If for no other reason, qualifies under the alternative standard at Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor".--Technopat (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article currently needs de-hyping, but that's not an AfD issue.--Technopat (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the alternative standard also says "When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average". The subject of this article is an adjunct professor, according to the references cited, and so appears to fail both standards for WP:ACADEMIC. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and the only stories about him I can find in Google news are a few nearly-trivial ones about shuffles among entertainment executives. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly not notable as an academic: only an adjunct professor, with no evidence to indicate passing WP:PROF. No evidence of significant specific coverage to show passing WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:PROF. He does technically meet the criteria "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" in the literal sense that 50% of academics meet this criteria, but I think the spirit of the criteria is that he is significantly more notable than the average college prof, which Professor Grode doesn't appear to be. That's subjective, of course--just one wikiman's opinion Vartanza (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Doesn't meet notability standards. The page is just self-hype. Simply having claimed (un-sourced)to have worked with famous people doesn't get you a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.137.89 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Lens

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

A non-notable individual writing an article to promote himself. It seems as if this plastic surgeon uses Wikipedia as a free advertising site. There's nothing about him, and he hasn't edited anything else than this article to brag about himself. Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator overstates his case, using rather aggressive language which is really not necessary here. Remember that WP:BLP applies across namespaces, including the AfD pages; there is no need for disparaging comments about the subject and it is also not clear if this is indeed a WP:AUTO case. The nominator neglected to notify the article's creator about this AfD, which I have now done. Although the article does not mention it, the subject holds a PhD, in addition to his medical professional degrees, and appears to be a bona fide researcher. GoogleScholar[3] does show one well-cited paper (with 147 citations), but the citations fairly quickly taper of after that, for an H-index of about 10. That's respectable but not enough to demonstrate academic notability, especially in medicine. There is nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:ACADEMIC (no significant academic awards, journal editorships, etc). Similarly, nothing to indicate passing WP:BIO. Overall, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, "truly non-notable" is a bit redundant and I removed it. I thought to notify the creator, but saw that his last edit was two years ago so I doubt he'll return, but thank you for notifying him. As for holding a PhD and having published cited papers, I don't think that's enough for notability. If it were, I'd have my own article here as would many many more - and I'm just as "truly non-notable" myself. :-) Jeppiz (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He doesn't seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC but there's an outside chance of passing WP:GNG instead — I found several hits for his name in Google news archive [4]. The reason I'm going for a weak delete rather than a weak keep, given this evidence, is that the hits I found did not seem to be very high quality or anything we could use as a source about him: they consisted of articles in tabloids such as the Daily Mail and breathless publicity pieces in cosmetics magazines. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Zizzi

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

A seemingly non-notable physicist, whose article is filled with unsubstantiated peacock language and contains no actual sources about her. Although some of her works have attracted double-digit citations (enough to qualify her as a serious academic rather than a purely fringe scientist) this is still far below the standard of WP:PROF #1, nor does she seem to pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria. Google news archive finds nothing about her. Our article was recently prodded and unprodded, both by anonymous editors. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wow theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citability in GScholar and WebOfScience is fairly small, nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h index of 6. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. And WoS h-index of 5. Agree. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Laserna

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

I can't find significant coverage for this person. Fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROFESSOR. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject seems to be an expert and respected authority in the field of sociological and economic research in the South America. I found only brief biographical mentions about him [5], [6], [7], but a large number of publications and citations at Google Books, Google Scholar, WorldCat indicate the importance of this scientist. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely quoted in major media as an expert, not just in his own language but in the Christian Science Monitor [8], Boston Globe [9] [10], New York Times [11], Newsweek [12], and BBC News [13]. These aren't nontrivial sources about him but I think they indicate a pass of WP:PROF #7. The article we have is short and factual and although it is currently unsourced the sorts of things it says look like they should be easily sourceable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets notablilty by all the sources given above; WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dewritech (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the references provided above.--Technopat (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to close this "keep" as that is the consensus but seeing that the article is currently unsourced (but sourcable), I recommend that it be userfied or incubated and then moved back into mainspace when sourced. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Academics and educators Proposed deletions

Alex Pyron (via WP:PROD on 22 June 2010)
Zhe Chen (via WP:PROD on 22 June 2010)
Ezra B.W. Zubrow (via WP:PROD on 21 June 2010)
Tarek Mikdashi (via WP:PROD on 21 June 2010)
~~Vere Claiborne Chappell (via WP:PROD on 21 June 2010)~~
Subhasis Banarjee (via WP:PROD on 19 June 2010)
David R. Hawkins (via WP:PROD on 18 June 2010)
Naup Waup (via WP:PROD on 17 June 2010)
~~Iris Cahn (via WP:PROD on 17 June 2010)~~
Joseph A. Davis (via WP:PROD on 16 June 2010)
~~Paul Baines (via WP:PROD on 16 June 2010)~~

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marko Lens}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paola Zizzi}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur A. Stein}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Luther Schofill, Jr.}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Laserna}}