Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

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

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators

Akshata Krishnamurthy

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

Page does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC, reads more like a self-promotional page, and focuses more on what the subject's projects have achieved rather than the subject themselves. Tammy0507 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per half agreement with nom. Although we can rewrite the article, if NACADEMIC is not met, there is no point Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting when a user's first edit on Wikipedia is to nominate a page for deletion, as is the case here. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nileena Abraham

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

Despite winning an award - which many translators appear to win and that does not inherently make them eligible for a Wikipedia article – I am concerned that this subject does not meet WP:GNG. The citations are all primary or unreliable and I can't find any other reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant way.

Please assume good faith in this nomination. It's nothing personal! Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would having been the Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji Professor of Bengali at the International School of Dravidian Linguistics, Thiruvananthapuram count as a named chair for the purposes of meeting WP:PROF? Also is the Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M considered completely unreliable? (Although the Google Books link given is incorrect, the subject does appear on pp. 7–8.[1]) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it very odd for someone with only Master's degrees to hold a C5-qualifying named chair. And the school isn't even notable itself! JoelleJay (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi Indjejikian

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

Nominating on behalf of IP editors stating that they are the subject. The nomination rationales given are "this article is about me and was published and edited without my consent and I would like it removed", "article about me without my consent, non controversial to delete", & "this page is about me and I am uncomfortable with it being posted. Deletion should be non controversial." [No personal opinion offered at this time.] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Professor Indjejikian has confirmed by e-mail that he requests deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keep. The subject is not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics), at least not to my eyes, comparing his publication record to other economists at https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.hindex.html. and seeing no awards/editorships/named professorships. I must have been blind, because the subject clearly holds a named professorship as mentioned below. ~~I don't see any book reviews for Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. either. But I think the deletion should be without predjudice - if the subject is deemed notable in the future, bring the page back.~~ Qflib (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is being the Robert L. Dixon Collegiate Professor of Accounting not a named professorship? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I don't know how I missed that. Let me look more carefully. Qflib (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes, it definitely counts. I'm so embarrassed. Changing my vote to keep. See https://michiganross.umich.edu/faculty-research/faculty-excellence/named-professorships . Qflib (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. There are thousands of named professorships across the country, at every University. A named professorship does not mean they are notable- just that a donor liked their research or teaching. A named professorship is not a reason to determine someone as notable. 2603:6080:A201:34CE:B04D:2FF2:54C4:1C39 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This person has 3900 citations per Gscholar and seems to have done development work in models/theories in accounting... I'm not sure if that is a large or small number of citations for their field of work. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source I mentioned above, he's not even in the top thousand economists in terms of his h-index, which is 24. Qflib (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a number of highly cited research papers dating to the 1990s, before the post-internet citation inflation: 734, 425, 408, with three further >=200 (all but one of these dates to the 1990s), and a total of thirteen papers with >=100 citations in GS.[2] Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think he's doing good work, but is that enough for C1 of NPROF? He's no Michael C. Jensen. Qflib (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the comment above and the comment below my query above, this individual does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I'm saying tentative because I recognize the h-index concerns, and might change my mind on that basis. But I'm saying keep for now, first, because WP:PROF does indeed presume notability for full professors with named chairs, and second, because I don't really understand why the IP editor/page subject is saying that they want to have the page deleted. Normally, we do not allow page subjects to dictate our content unless unless there is something that violates the WP:BLP policy. In this case, the page appears to be entirely a positive reflection on the page subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Delete. I am basing this on the confirmation that the actual page subject really does want deletion, as well as on the fact that notability under the SNG is not a slam-dunk. Although the subject has a named chair, I think that the impact of his scholarly work is sufficiently borderline, given for example the h-index, that he is at best borderline-notable, and in such an instance, I don't want to insist on keeping the page against his wishes. (And even if notability means that we can keep the page, it doesn't mean that we must keep the page.) I think that the BLP-related concerns of a requested delete should outweigh the encyclopedic value of covering someone of only borderline interest to readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to need better evidence than IP editors geolocating to a completely different part of the US to treat this as a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. In any case, that sort of request should only tilt the balance when we cannot come to a consensus on whether the subject meets our notability criteria. In this case, with a named chair at a major university, he unambiguously passes WP:PROF#C5, and I think his citation record [3] is also good enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein Prof. Indjejikian has now confirmed by e-mail that he requests deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the rest of my comment stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE even though subject probably passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Even if NPROF is met, his notability is too borderline to overcome his request. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Juola

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

Does not meet WP:N standards. WP:BLP1E may be applicable Djibooty (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Computing, Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to J. K. Rowling#Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith where a brief, sourced mention is likely appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve. As "Joseph A. Lauritis, C.S.Sp Endowed Chair in Teaching and Technology", he pretty clearly meets WP:PROF criterion 5. He's also won a Fullbright Fellowship, which (my instinct is) is enough for criterion 2. The Rowling stuff certainly helps, too. (Here is a profile in the Chronicle of Higher Education, for example.) And he's authored several books, so he may meet WP:AUTHOR, but I've not looked closely. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hewa S. Khalid

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

As far as I can see, there isn't a single secondary reliable source independent from the subject to count towards the subject's wikinotability (actually, most if not all of the sources were created by the subject). Can't find a passing criteria from WP:NACADEMIC nor any significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iraq. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also an apparent WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and it was previously tagged as such before its prompt removal by the article creator. Aintabli (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not believe that the subject meets WP:PROF at this time per GS profile,[4] though perhaps someone more familiar with Kurdish studies could comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[5] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [6][7]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elio García-Austt

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

Fails WP:BIO - no independent, reliable source I could find in my WP:BEFORE talks about him in detail. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are plenty of independent reliable sources in GS, but I doubt of there are enough of them. Is GNG or POLITICIAN passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
He's a scientist/doctor, so I'm not sure what you are asking about WP:POLITICIAN, did you comment on the wrong AfD by mistake? In case you didn't, what do mean by "GS" - the only things that come up on Google are his own papers, not other people talking about him which is required per WP:BIO (and a lack of the special circumstances outlined at WP:ACADEMIC)? Thank you! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just saw that it's mentioned in the (entirely unsourced) article that he was a member of the Parliament of Uruguay - but I can't find any RS to back this up so I don't think WP:POLITICIAN is met, unless someone else can find an RS to back this (which would meet WP:POLITICIAN. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire page in wiki is based on this - https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Elio_Garc%C3%ADa-Austt.html Mike, the regular nose job (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike! The bottom of that page says "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Elio_García-Austt". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia.", so actually that page is just a mirror site for the (completed unsourced) Wikipedia article. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Spain, Chile, and Uruguay. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at GS where you will find a little. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Georges-Claude_Guilbert

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Georges-Claude Guilbert (2nd nomination)

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

does not fit criteria for academic relevance and possibility of self promotion Paul John Dedalus (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 15 years ago, I tagged this stub in the hope that someone would find better sources and fix the issues, yet here we are. Edits over the past 15 years haven’t improved it much. There are sometimes the subjects of articles from the 2000s that end up becoming notable – think of an alderman in 2007 elected to Congress in 2016 – but this isn’t the case here. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A professor at a French university. That is all and while it's certainly a praise worthy achievement, Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
(I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[8]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Gertoux

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

I accepted this at AFC after requesting the create protection was lifted in mainspace. I now have strong doubts that Gertoux has anything other than faux-notability, and believe that I was in error.
I have subsequently, with consensus, removed undue weight from thge article. However, I am struggling to check and verify references in the detail required. At AFC I needed simply to accept based on what I believed was a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. It has done that - there was no immediate deletion process.
Now I am looking in greater detail I have found that it has an impenetrable referencing scheme, which often links in a tortuous manner to Gertoux's own works. Quotations in the references often do not match the alleged fact that is cited. Some I have removed. However, when studied in detail, each references appears susceptible to challenge in some manner.
My conclusion is that this is a WP:SOAPBOX and a WP:COATRACK for the ideas and concepts attributed to Gertoux. Furthermore that he fails WP:BIO, WP:NPROF, and WP:GNG.
If deleted it should again be salted 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Religion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His only claim to fame is not finishing his PhD, and accusing his professors of the "great French academic conspiracy against fundamentalism". The reason for not allowing him to continue his PhD wasn't his religious affiliation, but his insistence to peddle WP:FRINGE fundamentalist claims in his dissertation. Because which church he attends in his leisure time is not relevant to getting a PhD. Belonging to a tiny religious movement could be frowned upon, but it is ultimately a private matter which does not concern writing a dissertation. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, being personally a fundamentalist does not concern the university: that's what he is during his leisure time. Writing a fundamentalist dissertation does concern the university. MIVILUDES is more of an organized whistleblower than an organization exercising political or juridical power. E.g. when I was a Christian fundamentalist I managed to get a BSc from the University of Amsterdam, which is considered a bastion of atheism by many. When a professor wrote to him that he is a fundamentalist, the professor meant that his dissertation is fundamentalist. Otherwise, French professors don't tell him which church he should attend. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability of the article subject is essentially a coatrack for endorsing the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton preferred by Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (3rd nomination).--Jeffro77 Talk 05:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeffro77 I am grateful. I was unable to see the prior article(s) when I reviewed this since I do not have admin goggles. While they might or might not have changed my acceptance they would have meant that I would have made an even more detailed study than I did. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion of theological orthophony

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment on JWs coatrack presumption: Since the 19th century, Bible Students have used the form Jehovah in their worship and in general in their movement, and since 1931 they have been using the name Jehovah's Witnesses for their denomination for almost a century, I do not believe that they need Gertoux's support to justify the inclusion and use of the term Jehovah, or that they are interested in it because I typed in the web search engine and found that the JWs cite George Wesley Buchanan, Everett Fox,[9] and dozens, but never Gertoux. Regarding pronunciation, JWs have always affirmed:

that the form Yahweh is the form most accepted by scholars
that there are other pronunciations such as Iao (i.e. 4Q120) or Yaho, and others, and it is not possible to know the original pronunciation
that they use Jehovah because it is well known and familiar
that it is possible to use the pronunciation of an individual's choice
JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen in their publications

Even Gertoux claims that he limits the Yehowah pronunciation only to the 1st century CE,[10] because going further back is a mythical rather than a scientific quest. So can Gertoux give support to the JWs, to use the pronunciation proposed by him, when the JWs do not need it? Reference has been made to soapbox and coatrack, which is not clearly what this is about, or, how to prove that it is? Although there is no clear relationship in the coatrack and soapbox, I can well think that researchers who have also attracted attention in these contexts are relevant, JWs are a fairly large community. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that JWs have been using the form Jehovah for a long time has no bearing on an attempt to make their (and similar groups') views appear more legitimate by a purportedly independent scholar presenting that view as 'mainstream'. The assertion that "JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen [sic] in their publications" is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah. (The denomination's Watchtower Library uses Yahweh a total of 732 times compared to Jehovah appearing 360,095 times.) See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Gerard Gertoux.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to: "is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah", this it is not true [11]. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is straying outside the point, the objection is also wrong. The 1 January 1982 issue of The Watchtower referenced above (on page 9) quotes The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (which uses Yahweh), and then alludes to that quoted form again (the only times Yahweh appears in that issue) before suggesting Jehovah as the preferred alternative on that page and then in more detail on page 14. That issue of the magazine uses the form Jehovah 83 times. This also goes to the reliability of the editor cherry-picking sources to push the narrative about the 'correct' pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More irrelevant material on the rejected thesis

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment on the doctoral thesis rejected: it is interesting that his doctoral supervisor worked for 3 years and developed the thesis for the defense. The other reporters had also accepted it. At the last moment Gertoux changed his thesis, only to have it rejected? Then his next doctoral supervisor and again the same reporters who already knew the thesis would accept it again for transfer, and then tell him that they could not accept it? Obviously the rejection was not because of its content. Anyone in France knows about the treatment of minority groups. On the other hand, people with no doctorate, no master's degree or even no bachelor's degree have become top academics: Freeman Dyson, Louis Smullin, Walter Russell Mead, Andrew Casson, William Gillan Waddell, Jack Edmonds, John Strugnell, etc. so a rejected dissertation would not be an obstacle to the existence of a WP article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can unfortunately not build upon your personal opinions about the topic, or what you "obviously" find to be true, only on opinions and analysis presented in reliable, secondary sources. Therefore, please provide such sources. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gertoux's book The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story has been included among the references of articles in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity and the Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγυκλοπαίδεια (ΜΟΧΕ). Some reviews of two Gertoux's books:
- Winedt, Marlon (2004). Lind, Sarah (ed.). "Biblical Studies § OT § Gérard Gertoux. 2002. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story. University Press of America. Translated from the French Un historique du nom divin. Un Nom Encens (L'Harmattan, 1999)". TIC Talk. Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation Information Clearinghouse. 57. United Bible Societies.
- Lee, Won W. (2003-10-09). "Notes on Recent Publications § The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. by Gerard Gertoux". Religious Studies Review. 29 (3): 267–316. doi:10.1111/j.1748-0922.2003.tb00391.x. ISSN 0319-485X. OCLC 909876699.
- Gee, John (June 2004). "Gertoux, Gérard. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002. Pp. 328. Paper. $47.00. ISBN 0761822046". Review of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature. ISSN 1099-0321.
- Sion, Brigitte (2000-04-07). "Un historique du nom divin: un nom encens, par Gérard Gertoux (1999)". Revue Juive de Genève. LouvreBible: 24.
- "7789 Gertoux, Gérard. Un historique du nom divin : Un nom encens / Gérard Gertoux. Paris : L'Harmattan, 2001, c1999. - 222p. : ill., facsims., 22cm. ISBN 273840616". קרית ספר: רבעון לביבליוגרפיה של בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים. 71 (3–4). Jerusalem: בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים: 705. 2001.

One version of The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story is stored in 130 libraries according to Worldcat. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic speculation re an editor's identity

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment - Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk · contribs) has been at this for many years, and first started editing in June 2011 after Seeker02421 (talk · contribs) was blocked in March of the same year. ~~It is likely that they are the same person~~.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem argument. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not ad hominem at all. Block evasion is a breach of policy.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On examination of the two editing styles, it is more likely that this was a form of collusion rather than one person evading a block.--Jeffro77 Talk 21:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The substantial amount of extraneous comment about some mythical being named (probably) Jehovah is not germane to this discussion and distracts and detracts from the pure policy based discussion on whether Gerard Gertoux ought to be kept of deleted. It is pure blether, dancing very close to bludgeoning. This discussion is not about a mythical being. It is about the deletion or retention of the article. Since I am the nominator I do not feel I ought to be the one to collapse it. "Soneone else" should be, after mature reflection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I am unfamiliar with studies of the Tetragrammaton, nor biblical studies in general, judging by WP:PROF...

Gertoux does not appear to be or have been a fellow of a major scholarly society with a prestige comparable to the Royal Society, nor has he ever assumed the highest-level office of a scholarly journal or a major institution of research.
In other words, if Gertoux's most notable work, which this article seems to suggest was the proposal of an alternative theory of the ancient vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, has not had a significant impact on related fields of studies or outside of academia, then this article should be deleted & salted per WP:NACADEMIC.
While I have little knowledge on the subject to determine whether the scholarly sources citied are sufficient enough to invoke criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC, I would like to note that the wiki pages of at least four cited academics: Pierre Villard, Claude Obsomer, Thomas Römer, Max Reisel, were all created by @Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco. Again, I am not arguing that these articles are WP:COATRACKs; they may very well meet WP:GNG independently of Gertoux.

00101984hjw (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Draft:Presence of Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint also appears to be a soapy one-sided piece about use of the Tetragrammaton. The page draws significantly on the opinions of Frank E. Shaw. No points for guessing who wrote the article for him.--Jeffro77 Talk 04:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Gertoux has had a remarkable influence for his Tetragramaton studies in the academy, as commented on by many scholars in independent and secondary, or even tertiary sources in an encyclopedia (not if it is necessary to bring an avalanche of citations and comments to his work, but there are some on the discussion page Talk:Gerard Gertoux#Requires editing#Scholars' opinions). I have read of only two who have written that they disagree with Gertoux Tetragrammaton's thesis (unfortunately one is self-published and the other person does not deepen his critique). In this sense Wikipedia:GNG is fulfilled. Gertoux does not object that only Yehowah is the ancient pronunciation, but rather that it was one of those used in the first century CE, among which there was probably also Yahweh and Yaho. Most scholars would not abandon the Yahweh form for Gertoux's argument, but agree that his study offers vision for research, and this has resulted in it being selected among reference works such as the encyclopedias mentioned above. D. N. Freedman said that Gertoux "probably solved the puzzle". Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes: Gertoux "has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a problem in their academic discipline".

As for the argument that the sources are not good, I advocate for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics: "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as 'academics' for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". In any case, the alleged problem of the sources could perhaps be solved by reworking, or cutting the main text.

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals: It is satisfied 1 for being recognized for his studies on the Tetragrammaton, it is satisfied 2 for "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", i.e. arguing that Yehowah was used in the 1st century, it is probably satisfied 3, for having 5 reviews (2 in French and 3 in English) of the same book, only in different language.

Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics: Gertoux is cited in Scopus, although he has no ID of his own, and his books are in 130 libraries according to WorldCat.

Although the sources claiming that Gertoux is a victim of discrimination are the human rights institutions (secondary sources and not Gertoux himself), I do not know if it applies Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, medicine, physics, etc., because the density of publication in the field is so much lower, and there are many fewer than 1% as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable person to be cited. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the coatrack: on the discussion page of the Gertoux article, reasons were expressed as to why it was presumed to be a Coatrack. However, since the deletion nomination, the editors have worked hard on the article and it has undergone drastic changes to address the alleged problem. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It remains a coatrack. A great deal of the original fluff and clutter and other extraneous material has been torn down, it is true. That does not remove the rationale for the nomination. There is a point where answering every point in a discussion becomes WP:BLUDGEON. You have been told about this on your talk page by me, and by an uninvolved editor, albeit that they told you after you had made this additional comment. The is a request, here, to cease and desist, while recognising that you will plough your own furrow. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closest approach to a notability claim made in all the above is that one book was recognized. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. (And the claim is not even very solid. The Religious Studies Review, for example, is a superficial notice.) No other relevant standard (WP:PROF or WP:GNG) is met either. Given the article's history, salt it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Timtrent, I initially also though that this can be salvaged as a short-ish biography on the grounds of WP:BASIC at least, but no. Not enough secondary coverage for a sensible encyclopedic biography.—Alalch E. 17:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per XOR'easter. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inman Harvey

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet standards of WP:NACADEMIC. Limited references, no significant expansion since last AFD in 2016, could not find more references.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I understand it, the nature of citations is that they are monotone increasing, so that once several qualified editors (Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, Vanamonde93) have opined that the subject passes WP:PROF on citation record, they keep on passing PROF indefinitely unless some sort of mistake in the editors' reasoning can be pointed to? One of the editors in the previous debate, and the only one to engage in detail with the PROF 1a claim, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Deliberately not linking to avoid canvassing. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, as the nominator does not seem minded to withdraw, that's a keep vote, especially given the below comment by David Eppstein, who is certainly qualified to judge Harvey's contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see nothing presented that might change my previous opinion that he passes WP:PROF#C1 by virtue of his highly-cited publications. Note that in the British system, his previous senior lecturer position is a regular-rank research and teaching faculty position somewhere between the US assistant and associate professor levels rather than (as it would be in the US) a teaching-only position. I suspect his current "visiting senior research fellow" position really means "retired but still active in research". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intimately familiar with the US system (and have not yet looked into Harvey at all), but "senior lecturer" in newer research universities (ie founded post-WW2, but not as a polytechnic) that do not use a Reader grade (such as the University of Sussex, I think?), can cover anything between what David Eppstein discusses and one step below department head (ie Reader) and would definitely imply a partly or predominantly research position. (I see our article mentions "principal lecturer" but I don't recall ever seeing that in use.) I agree that "visiting senior research fellow" position is essentially emeritus whatever position the subject held at the time of retirement. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "highly-cited publications" are mentioned, but only one publication is in the article now and it's been awhile since the first AFD. If there are many of them, where are they and why are they not within the article? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the GS profile. Certainly a few of the highest-cited could be added to the article, but I will defer to David Eppstein as to which are most important. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a matter of cleanup and expansion, that's fine. But it's been eight years since the last AFD. Again, if these are important somehow, why have they not been added during that time? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: if this was the first AfD I would vote Delete as it is a high citation field, with the caveat that a prior editor mentioned "ISAL awards" (which I cannot find so cannot verify). I think that if we previously decided a page (BLP) was notable we stick with that unless there was a clear error. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gramlich

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

I could only find one non-primary source talking about this person, so in addition to the other issues with the page I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Economics. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Subject holds a named chair at a major university, passing NPROF C5. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If consensus is that this named chair passes NPROF#C5, keep. However, I'm not fully convinced this chair at WSU passes. Specifically, Gramlich is the only person to have held this chair per the WSU Hoops Institute website. Personally, I'd lean towards delete unless other NPROF criteria (e.g. evidence of impact in the academic field) are shown in some capacity. Cyanochic (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The named chair part of PROF has been a bit muddied by the creation of a legion of, shall we say, second-tier named chairs, some of which I don't feel qualified to assess for prestige. Not my field but the GS profile is fairly healthy, with top citations 316, 204, 159, 148, 131 and a further two >100 (all fairly sparsely authored), but the h-index is only 17. Perhaps someone who knows more about citations in this field, and about chairs in the US, could weigh in? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve it, though gutting articles during an active AfD is often disruptive to the process. I don't agree that reviews in specialist journals don't count, surely they are the best way of assessing reception in the specific field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this article. I want to clarify that I have never touched it or asked anyone to edit it on my behalf. It is based on a page from a wiki for Shimer College, which was created without my knowledge or input, by an alum I have never met, who has no apparent familiarity with my writing. I agree that it is of very low quality, and if the community decides to delete it, I will understand. Adam Kotsko (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "Theory and Event" and "Philosophy in Review" citations above are critical reviews of his book. The rest is gravy. We have enough to pass author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have paged through all of the umpty-dozen revisions in the article history since the last AfD was closed in 2017. It does not appear that a cleanup tag (other than a sentence-level tag) was placed on the article at any point during that time. Even supposing that AfD was an appropriate way to address article quality issues (it isn't, not at all), if that's the actual concern then it's a little weird to go directly to AfD (again) without even asking for cleanup.
FWIW I do agree that the article has a WP:BLPSELFPUB #5 issue in its current state. That would seem best addressed through expansion -- but BLP is a serious matter and I am unlikely to be a participant in that work, so although I stand by the remainder of my comment I have stricken my "keep" above. -- Visviva (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection: draftify. Although there doesn't seem to be any serious question of article-worthiness, a BLPSELFPUB violation should not just hang out indefinitely in mainspace. The necessary expansion work can be done just as well in draftspace, if anyone is so inclined. -- Visviva (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No dispute that he passes NAUTHOR, draftification is pointless for any article that isn’t new. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say draftify. The article has potential, but leaving it out there the way it is now reflects poorly on the subject and Wikipedia. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have a WP:AUTHOR pass by way of multiple reviews of multiple books. I have trimmed the article into a more acceptable state. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Buddhism, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:

- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).

- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allllllice is a major contributor to the article.

The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Issaka Kriese

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

Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
And no, the fact that a smattering of campaign coverage happens to exist is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL -- every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely meaningless and unenforceable.
But there's no strong claim to preexisting notability here, and no particular evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test in and of itself -- even the campaign coverage is entirely a two-day blip of "presidential candidate announces running mate", with no evidence of substantial or sustained coverage for any other reason shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the election, but she isn't "inherently" notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Possible redirect to Nana Kwame Bediako where subject is already mentioned. I wouldn't object to adding a few words to characterise Kriese there. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

AfDs for this article:

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

My nom concerns from the first AfD discussion still hold. This subject fails WP:NPOL and still fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. From cursory search, nothing useful was found too. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I am concerned. There are no credible claims of significant/importance here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Albania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I can't find anything notable about the topic on the article nor online, and most news articles about them are months to years apart. Deuxde (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nisma Thurje as an alternative to deletion. The political party seems to be somewhat notable, but I'm not seeing much notability independent of that for Shabani. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any role that would confer an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is too dependent on primary sourcing, and not nearly enough on WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources, to claim that he would pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pass WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage LefterDalaka (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous reports in the Albanian media. euronews al shqiptarja Cna al Politico al telegrafi reporter al Τhere is no reliable Albanian journalistic website that does not host news and comments about him. He is certainly an important Albanian political figure whose article will be deleted only because there are no sources for him in English - LefterDalaka (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LefterDalaka, sources do not have to be in English. I looked through the sources provided in the article before !voting. I also looked through the ones you posted here, also. The Euronews and CNA do not appear to be independent of each other. All appear to be rather glancing coverage. I'm having trouble determining reliability of the publications, but I see some tabloid type concerns. What do you think the WP:THREE best sources for WP:SIGCOV are? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that Euronews and Cna are somehow linked. Do you know something I don't know?😊 Actually I brought these sources to highlight one's encyclopedic nature by combining them all together and not just one. Let's say he is a person who is included in the Barometer, he appears on TV channels on various issues, he is now the chairman of a party, in general he is a completely recognizable and influential person in Albania. LefterDalaka (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our sources do not have to be in English. They do, however, have to be substantive, meaning that they have to contain detailed coverage and analysis about him doing something noteworthy, and it isn't enough that sources can be found which just happen to have his name in them. For instance, an article "about" public opinion polling on his popularity or unpopularity does not support notability, and a very short blurb about him commenting on something that happened to somebody else does not support notability. He has to be the subject (not the speaker) of a reasonably long and detailed (not a short blurb) piece of coverage and analysis about him (not just featuring him giving a soundbite comment about somebody else) before that source starts to support notability, and even then there have to be several sources of that high calibre (not just one) before he's cleared the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not seeing anything here that would meet WP:PROF. No publications appearing on GS at all? With a PhD in 2020 would seem likely to be a case of too early career on that front. No opinion on press coverage in Albanian. Would be happy with redirect/slim merge to Nisma Thurje if no other source of notability emerges. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Josh Drake (via WP:PROD on 9 November 2024)