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

WP:DSPROF
WP:AFD/PROF

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators.

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[edit]

Peter D'Agostino[edit]

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

This entire article is just a resume. The creator of the article only had 3 edits from 15 years ago on this page. I searched for sources, and the results were mostly from Temple University itself where D'Agostino teaches. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Film, Visual arts, and Photography. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the sourcing is from either dead links or promotional material. Publications, citations, awards, etc. don't meet the WP:PROF notability standards. There's a chance that the books could meet WP:AUTH, but I was unable to find any independent reviews of the books listed in the article anywhere. I also tagged it with various cleanup templates, because regardless of the AFD outcome it needs a lot of work. nf utvol (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Mammolotti[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clear friend a ^💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Karlsson (musicologist)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCREATIVE. Clear friend a ^💬 22:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably meets WP:AUTHOR, I easily found several reviews of his 2013 book. Quickly added them, though several are paywalled. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to see more than one book for WP:AUTHOR but Royal Swedish Academy of Music might be a pass of WP:PROF#C3. It depends on whether it is for music scholarship (likely in his case) or performance (also prestigious but not really academic notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also ping Mscuthbert as our in-house music scholarship expert. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wuteh Vakunta[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. I can't find a Google Scholar for him; ResearchGate indicates he's only been cited 22 times (which seems too low to meet WP:NPROF). A search for sources only turns up profiles for him and sites hawking his books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Language, Poetry, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Although he does not seem to satisfy WP:NPROF, subject may possibly satisfy WP:AUTHOR (C3). I do see a few reviews of published works; not sure if there is enough, though. Qflib (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Malitz[edit]

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

Autobiography sourced only to a database entry. No publications found in MathSciNet or Google Scholar; no evidence of academic notability nor of notability for more than one thing. My prod saying all this was removed by User:Kvng with no justification for disputing it, and with a suggestion to instead merge to positive set theory. There was nothing to merge; everything in this article was already there. I removed it from the positive set theory article as well because it was unsourced and had no hope of being sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with proposal to delete. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per David Eppstein -- one thesis is not sufficient for WP:PROF notability unless it is cited so much as to become a classic of the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guy St. Clair[edit]

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

I have made mistakes with AfD regarding academics before, and I do apologise if I'm wrong for this. After searching Google though, this article is the first thing to come up, and other sources that may be about him (not the Australian one, for which there are a few obituaries) are personal blogs or thing by him. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did some digging and found that he has won several awards for his work in knowledge services, a branch of library science. I added these to the page. Satisfies WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- received the highest award (the "John Cotton Dana Award" of the Special_Libraries_Association) in librarianship from an organization that is over 100 years old, with 75 national and 55 regional chapters. I'll add the link to the organization's homepage, because the nominator was right to notice that the only current reference for the award is from a publicity blog post by his employer. With the award verified, this is a definite keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Forshee[edit]

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

Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show WP:SIGCOV; WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Gowen[edit]

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

No sources on the article, only a single promary external link Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Maryland, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Profile here in the NY Times [1] and mentions the award/prize won in 1978. I'd say he's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also appears to be featured in this book, but Gbooks blocks it due to copyright reasons in my country [2] Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oaktree; a profile in one of the US's largest newspapers is pretty damning to me. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is in my opinion poorly written and very poorly cited. But the subject seems notable for their performance career. Needs a serious rewrite, though. Qflib (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- solo recital features in the NYTimes is generally enough for classical music features (it also strongly suggests that there would have been much other coverage in the late 1970s in newspapers and magazines that don't have an easily searchable digital archive). Notability at one point in life is notability over the rest of the subject's life. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Stanaland[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:NPOL as a local politician and WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG; none of the handful of reliable, secondary, independent sources in the article (or in WP:BEFORE search) pass the WP:SIGCOV test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. I have added more secondary sourcing to back up previous claims, as well as more general information. I believe it covers significant coverage with sources such as Radio World and various newspapers outside the local area. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify as author. I believe there is enough to have it be notable, but I think that I have rushed the publishing of the article. There are newspaper archives I would like to look through, and I believe there should be enough there for it to go through the regular draft review process. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I can agree to that if there are additional sources to be found. Draftify as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced too heavily to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability — and what there is for proper reliable source coverage isn't enough to establish the permanent notability of a person whose notability claims are of purely local rather than nationalized significance. City councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show a volume and depth and range of media coverage that marks them out as special cases of much greater significance than most other city councillors, but the sourcing here isn't showing that. Bearcat (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles cited are largely from organizations connected to Stanaland or passing mentions. Being a city councilor does not inherently establish notability, and neither does serving as treasurer of a festival "among the ten largest Shakespeare festivals in the world." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk

I have a question about the sources connected to him, as I have removed some of the more promotional sources. Many of these sources talk about what he spoke about, and basic information. Would it be better to have a source that is specifically about him? The cited unlinked newspaper is, but it’s still more local. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources need to show "significant coverage," not merely be articles that include his name and facts about him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm leaning delete, but the head of Economics at Auburn University is a credible claim towards WP:PROF notability if the head was a full professor with a research career. I'm not finding that, hence the leaning towards delete, but if the author of the article can find sources citing the significance of Dr. Stanaland's research, that could move me towards a keep vote on academic grounds (it's not a WP:NPOL pass by a long shot, I'm afraid) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mscuthbert There are cases of him going on the University’s radio show to discuss economics related things- I haven’t had time to go through them all but he generally discusses the economy, and I know there is stuff on the price of gold. Still not sure how to include that Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His going on the radio wouldn't be evidence of notability; WP:INTERVIEWS are primary sources. It would need to be independent secondary sources documenting his effects as an academic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 source 18 covers a small bit about his research. Would it be like that in terms of coverage, because there are other mentions in newspapers about similar things. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 04:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would not, since it's a student paper; per WP:RSSM, student media can be considered as reliable to confirm information but not sufficiently independent to validate notability for their home institutions and affiliated parties. Here's an example, here's another of the kind of coverage that documents the impact of an academic's research. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purwati (internist)[edit]

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

Written with a promotional tune and does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, as the published research output is relatively modest, as is her academic career (Scopus H-index of 7; very few citations for 1st-author papers, total of 142). In terms of general notability, the coverage of her patent is not high by international standards, nor is there evidence of impact of the work (other than patent filing). FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Hello, I agree that the subject of this article has not yet gained international recognition. However, in Indonesia, he is regarded as a prominent stem cell expert who frequently garners attention from major, reputable Indonesian mass media.

He holds the distinction of being a MURI record holder for receiving the most Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the Stem Cell Field in 2022, a testament to his significant contributions. Despite the challenge of finding additional sources regarding the impact of his research, these achievements underscore his expertise and standing in the field.

He was partner of the COVID-19 Response Acceleration Task Force during Covid-19 pandemic to advancing research, particularly in investigating Drug and Stem Cell Combination Regimens in 2020. Furthermore, his expertise is actively leveraged by Universitas Airlangga and hospitals to enhance stem cell services.

In 2019, as stated in the article, she received national recognition, being listed as an 'Indonesian Young Scientist' by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education.

I remain guided by the notability criteria (Wikipedia:Notability). He is quite well-known in Indonesia despite not being internationally renowned. His notability has also been explained in the article through his career and achievements. Rahmatdenas (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

none of the sources looks reliable, with some being self-published, and the burden is on you to show that these sources are reliable, see WP:BURDEN. As far as resources goes, this might all be a hoax as work around stem cells and COVID is highly cited, and I cannot see anything that suggests that.

PS: you mean "she" not "he" FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign that she passes WP:NACADEMIC, her top research doesn't even cross 50 citations. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For certain her h-factors is low, and she has no major international awards to indicate peer recognition. What I also find disturbing is the mention of using STEM cell transplant for immuno diseases and some cancers as one of her patents. In fact I am pretty certain that these are either close to or already being trialed in the UK by others, perhaps elsewhere as well. There is no indication that she is involved in any of that, otherwise there would be mentions in the UK Grauniad or the New York Times in the sources. If you have the will local patents are easy, but I have seen some local ones which would never be enforceable internationally. Hence I end up being very unconvinced by both the article and it's defence. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Dolmetsch[edit]

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

WP:NOTLINKEDIN. The subject of the article fails several of our notability policies: there is no evidence of WP:INDEPTH coverage – all references are to publications where he was co-author, or to unrelated press releases about drugs that don't even mention the subject's name, not speaking about confirming his role or achievements. There is no evidence of compliance with any criteria listed under WP:NACADEMIC either. The listed awards are minor awards, none has an article (note: NIH Director's Pioneer Award is not an award honouring its recipients but a research initiative).

Worst: there are many unverified claims in the article: the subject, who left Novartis in 2020, is claimed to have been "involved in early successes in gene therapy, including (...) Zolgensma (...) and Hemgenix". However, Novartis was not involved in Zolgensma development – the drug was developed by a US startup Avexis which received marketing authorisation for it just before the subject left Novartis, while remaining a separate company from Novartis; whereas Hemgenix is not a success yet, as it's barely a year on the market with very little uptake from payers outside the US. Claims that Dolmetch contributed to their "successes" appear unfounded and entirely unsourced WP:PUFFERY.

Nearly every sentence needs one or more of {{citation needed}}, {{fails verification}}, or {{secondary source needed}}.

All in all, with lack of independent coverage, I don't think this coporate staff member fulfils our criteria of encyclopaedia-level notability. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primarily through role in Novartis over many years rather than through academic posts. His research output is high; unusually, for a mid-career scientist, has had an interview published in a peer-reviewed journal (Nature Medicine). While there might be concerns about particular claims, these can be resolved by normal editing. Scopus H-factor of 49 suggest significant impact. Klbrain (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Role in Novartis over many years? What policy would this be based on? Because there are tens of thousands of corporations in the world, perhaps hundreds of thousands of C-level executives, and he wasn't even C-level, so we'd need a policy if this was to be a notability criteria. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, also a few book listings found [3], mentions he was profiled in the NY Times in 2014, and here [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NYT profile is an interview, but is here: [5]. Allan Nonymous, also this [6] hits us the trifecta for WP:GNG. (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly per WP:PROF#C1 and the multiple first-author quadruple-digit-citation papers in his Google Scholar profile. The additional evidence linked above by Oaktree is also suggestive (although not yet definitive) of possible notability through WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two citations precisely, from 1997 and 1998 (so citations span 25+ years). Barely a dozen first-author articles, the last one from 2018. 65 publications indexed by PubMed[7] – a mediocre result for a late-career researcher. Sorry. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a paper from 2001. Just FYI, the threshold for citations is generally around 100, this is beyond that by an order of magnitude. A claim that he fails WP:NACADEMIC is thus pretty weak. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first-author citation counts I'm seeing on Google Scholar are: 2426 (1998), 2394 (1997), 1112 (2001), 358 (2011), 233 (1994), 209 (2003), etc. And many many more citations if you include all his papers, not only the first-author ones. That is a strong record, over a wide range of years. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:PROF#C1 which he clearly passes with 20+ papers that have 100+ citations. There isnt much more that needs to be said. --hroest 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article, seemingly created by the subject or someone very close to him, contains a lot of made-up claims and attempts to look more important. For instance, the author claims to have been Global Head of Neuroscience at Novartis. Actually, he wasn't[8] – he did not work for the Swiss pharmaceutical giant but for Novartis Institutes of BioMedical Research, a US-based biotechnology company (separate legally and structurally, even as wholly owned by Novartis). Different company, different post, different splendour, different country. I've updated the article, but a bad taste remained. Then, the article claims that the subject oversaw the development of gene therapies while in NIBR ("his team... helped bring several therapies to the clinic that included Zolgensma"). That again is misleading. Not only has NIBR never done any substantial work on the mentioned gene therapy (apart from internal consulting) but NIBR even does not carry out clinical development. The mentioned Zolgensma in particular was licensed by Novartis long after all its preclinical and much of clinical development was over.

After the subject joined NIBR, its neuroscience division indeed attempted to engage in clinical development – initially, it was clinical trials of branaplam. Yet the two trials they conducted not only failed but the first one was a disaster (children dying due to poor decision making, and no sensible data generated in 7 years) – to the extent that, to the best of my knowledge, Novartis recommended internally that NIBR no longer does clinical development again. The subject left NIBR shortly after.

That's not the end of problems with the article. The subject could not "curate the drug development pipeline that included... ofatumumab", the reason being that ofatumumab received marketing authorisation four years before the subject joined NIBR,[9] not mentioning that ofatumumab was discovered and had preclinical development done by the Danish company Genmab.

Unfortunately, I have no time to research other claims, however the sheer number of WP:PEACOCK/WP:PROMO statements constitutes a big red light for me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please be aware that this is WP:NOTCLEANUP and while the COI and the WP:PROMO statements are a problem, they are not grounds for deletion but rather grounds for improving the article. Feel free to improve the article and remove unsourced / unsubstantiated statements. I see that even some of the sourced statements use articles written by the subject itself as source which is obviously not an independent source. --hroest 16:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannes Röst Well, I added quite a few {{secondary source needed}} tags, but @Allan Nonymous removed all[10] of them[11]. However, I think we all know that being listed among co-authors on a paper is not same as "that's what he worked on", and isn't covered by WP:ABOUTSELF.

I know it's not WP:CLEANUP, however the sheer number of problems with the article is a good indicator whether the article is ready for mainspace. Note that it was created in draftspace, however the author did not submit it for review before moving it to mainspace. Had the article followed the normal route, we wouldn't be having such a discussion at AfD.

Draftifying is an option, too. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them under the assumption that being a co-author on a paper is an uncontroversial sign they worked on the subject. Any conclusions drawn from the research (i.e. the results/conclusions/implications of such research) would definitely require an independent source (likely a paper that cites and interprets the information or a review). If you disagree, feel free to add them back, I made the edits assuming this interpretation WP:ABOUTSELF was uncontroversial. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous I can only echo Maproom's comments posted at this link: Papers authored or co-authored by Dolmetsch don't help with [establishing that he is notable]. Because they are not about Dolmetch. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing two things here, WP:NOTABILITY (i.e. the policy used to establish whether a subject is notable) and WP:VERIFIABILITY (i.e. whether some content about a subject can belong in an article). These two policies have different standards based on the different aims they serve. My edits had nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY, and everything to do with WP:VERIFIABILITY, so have little bearing on the argument at hand here and probably better discussed on the talk page of this article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are linked. We can't establish notability – and this discussion is about the subject's notability – without being able to verify claims. If it turns out that a large number of claims are unsourced, or false as shown earlier – then editors might prefer to send the article back to draftspace. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per David Eppstein's logic. Incidentally, I have tried to tidy the article up a bit but it still needs removal of promotional language. Qflib (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello my name is Ricardo Dolmetsch. Someone brought to my attention that there was a wikipedia article about me and that there was a discussion about its content. I’m arriving a little late to the discussion but I thought I could shed some light on some of the issues that are being discussed. First I didn’t commission or approve this article. It was submitted by my mother who is a journalist in Colombia, without my consent or approval. My mom thinks I’m important but I don’t think that meets the criteria for notability in Wikipedia. There are many scientists who have records like mine so I leave it to you to decide whether to keep the page or take it down. The small group of people who need to know about me can usually find me online, so a Wikipedia entry is not absolutely essential.

In case you decide to keep the page I would like to clarify a few things for the record. My original name is Richard Carl Elciario Dolmetsch and I was born in Colombia but my scientific name since my graduate days has been Ricardo Dolmetsch because there were too many Richard’s in the department where I got my Ph.D. and Rick, Rich, Dick and Richard were taken.
I make no claim to having discovered or invented Zolgensma. Zolgensma is a gene therapy for SMA that was developed originally at Avexis which was purchased by Novartis who oversaw the registration of the drug. I was one of the Novartis scientists that proposed the purchase of Avexis. I was later the main contact between Avexis and Novartis research (which was called NIBR in those days) until it was discovered that the Avexis development team had committed fraud and Avexis was reorganized.
At the time of the Avexis purchase Novartis had about ten gene therapy projects in development in the neuroscience group which is one of the reasons that Novartis was interested in Avexis. The neuroscience gene therapy programs were initiated by a very bright recruit to our group and were quite advanced.
For about twenty years, the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (NIBR) was the research and early development arm of Novartis. It was in charge of the pipeline from discovery to Ph2 proof of concept clinical studies.
Branaplam was a small molecule splicing modulator developed for SMA. It was in active development at the time of the Avexis purchase. It’s not true that any children died because of executive decisions related to Branaplam. The program was put on hold by the FDA because there was a tox signal during development but the children that were being dosed continued to be dosed albeit at a lower dose. The program failed in a later trial for Huntington’s Disease because of toxicity observed in adult patients.
I was the global head of Neuroscience at NIBR which was the research and early development arm of Novartis. I was part of the Neuroscience leadership team which included a head of Neuroscience development and a head of Neuroscience Commercial. My leaving NIBR had nothing to do with Branaplam. I left Novartis in good standing to take a position at uniQure.
Ofatumumab was an approved drug that had been previously on the market in oncology. It was purchased by Novartis and developed for MS. I was part of the leadership team that worked on this program as I was part of the leadership team that worked on Erenumab (developed at Amgen) and Siponimod (developed at Novartis).

Ok that’s it. Thank you all so much for being such selfless editors of Wikipedia. It’s kind of amazing that we have this resource. I’m thinking I should join the effort and help you all. 24.2.241.30 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Ricardo[reply]

@24.2.241.30: Thanks for commenting here and clarifying, Ricardo. You'd be most welcome to register for an account and contribute your knowledge to the global encylopaedia.

The way you described your work is definitely more modest than the original writeup by the article author, as the issue I flagged was, essentially, with exagerrated claims not backed up by the few available sources. For instance, while you now described your role in the purchase of Avexis by Novartis, the article said that "your team [at NIBR] brought Zolgensma to the clinic", which I hope you agree is rather imprecise (and folks at Novartis Gene Therapies may be offended).

I'll see how to reword the article using based on other details that you provided. The scarcity of reliable independent sources is always a challenge.

Re. branaplam, I'm inclined to disagree on details, but this is perhaps not the place to discuss it.

Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Meck[edit]

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

Article without relevance and without accredited and reliable references not properly sourced, I do not see its encyclopedic notoriety GiladSeg (talk) 19:39, 9 May 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 May 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, California, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in poor shape, but this looks like a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1 to me: even in a high citation field, several papers with citation numbers in the thousands is solid. This is supported by an obituary [12] from a learned society, another [13] in an academic journal, and a special issue dedicated to the subject in the same journal [14]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for WP:PROF#C1 is strong, and separately the independent obituaries above make a case for WP:GNG notability. (The Duke Today obituary is also usable as an in-depth source but not independent enough for GNG.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, the case for #C1 is strong. Some of the web sources (I did my own search) are very strong, indicating peer recognition. Improve, of course, but AfD was a bit harsh.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per NPROF#1 without any doubt base on citations and h-index of 98 and possibly GNG. --hroest 12:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Ldm1954, @hroest This article is not seen as such, nor does it have an encyclopedic development. From my perspective, it seems more like a Curriculum Vitae that only focuses on highlighting the merits, awards and distinctions of Warren Meck, it does not indicate where he was born and what year he studied. Furthermore, the references are not so independent except for references from university institutions where you work and another one that is a blog, they are not independent sources. GiladSeg (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points, however this is WP:NOTCLEANUP. This discussion is to determine if the article subject is notable, and if so, then it should stay. You are welcome to improve the article, delete the fluff and the promotional content. Claims that are not supported by sources should be removed. --hroest 14:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: An article that meets all criteria for WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC. Aside from the lack of WP: BEFORE, the subject here was known for his enormous contributions to "Timing and Time perception" possibly a very basic ideology in Neurosciences. There are also sources that treated him independent, verifiably and significantly per WP:RS and WP:N. This shouldn't be here as I see it as a waste of time because I won't say WP:HEY; the article meets all that before nomination. Secondly, winning or being a Fellow of a notable high research institute is already a criterion for WP:ANYBIO. Per WP:NSCIENTIST, the h-index and series of publication in scholarly journals is enough to qualify a page. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Malik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is a notable actress. She hasn't done main roles but she has done supporting roles in dramas and her recent work in Mayi was noted[15]. In these she mentioned how she switched from teacher to host and then acting.[16] Her peronal life.[17](BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, Supporting roles are not enough to meet WP:NACTOR and the coverages you provided can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern[edit]

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad[edit]

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

After the cruft was removed, it seems there's nothing that supports WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No significant independent RS coverage that I could find. Only hits in WP:LIBRARY are his research papers and a quote in Men's Health about growth hormone therapy. His book is self-published and I couldn't find any reviews. That leaves us with WP:NPROF criteria. I think the research impact criterion is the only one that might apply, but I'm unfamiliar with the subject area so will leave that for others to evaluate. Jfire (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jfire, others, I do not see signs of significant academic impact here. I see on Google Scholar several papers with a moderate number of citations, but in a medium-to-higher citation field. (Even in a lower citation field, I'm generally looking for several papers with more citations than the highest cited one I see of his.) Awards listed in the article are all WP:MILL, as is membership on an editorial board. I was cursory in checking NAUTHOR and GNG, but did not quickly see a pass. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sadeghi-Nejad is one of the most notable experts in the field of pediatric endocrinology, globally, and his publications support that. A niche medical field does not have the same number of citations as more general research areas. In addition, the book Dreams of Persia is an important contribution to Persian-American culture and linguistic heritage. KatMaldon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — KatMaldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the discussion above and given his citation numbers, I'm not sure we're at notability. I don't find critical reviews of his books, so there wouldn't bee AUTHOR notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, History, Sports, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as NACADEMIC. I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references. His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar. It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I counted 14 reviews of his books (not all the same one) on JSTOR. I think he passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes both NACADEMIC and NAUTHOR. I stopped counting reviews of his books when I got to 20 for just the first two books I tried, and there is even published back-and-forth about them. Few academics can equal that for two books. Zero^talk 10:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee[edit]

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

I'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Martial arts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story and I'm amazed he hasn't been featured in NPR or something... I don't see anything we'd use, no news coverage, nothing, for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than mentions of his degrees and being a professor, I cannot find anything to convince GNG.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent sigcov appears in the Fayetteville Observer (more, book review) and Miami Herald (cont., later). His Google Scholar may suggest an NPROF pass too but I don't know the field well enough. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the multiple sources with SIGCOV provided by Hameltion are enough for a GNG pass. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per GNG and per WP:NPROF#1 based on his GS profile, he seems to be highly cited for his field in ethics/philosophy. Also there is enough evidence for a GNG pass.--hroest 07:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 we also have a case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of his books [18] [19] [20] [21]. Each case is borderline but I think together they're enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable. The subject overwhelmingly cites himself, never seen this before. See my comment below. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Easily searchable on google and has a myriad of academic articles. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that this article was previously AFD'd under another name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am considering this article strongly in favour of deletion. In 2022, the article was deleted (AFD#1 Robert W. McGee) and recreated under Robert McGee. The AFD#1 Robert W. McGee is a very interesting read where the subject joined in, seemingly WP:BLUDGEONING in order to justify his article. In terms of martial arts, he has accomplishments to be proud of but nothing to show WP notability, his martial arts championships are in senior age (limited participant divisions). Unverified claims such as "1020 medals" looks like Self promotion/vanity page. I also have a huge problem almost all the citations in the article. Citations such as "AT 72, ROBERT W. MCGEE IS JUST GETTING STARTED" published by Union Institute & University where the subject earned his PHD is absolutely non-independent and unreliable. As another user mentioned, (and I verified) if you look up the work of the subject called “The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice” the majority of the citations in this work are self-citations from the subject other work. Another of his work “Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews”, we noticed self-citation rate of around 80%. Most of the sources are from his own works/self-published. It’s quite concerning. Heavy self-citation technically makes citations WP:PROF#C1 unusable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that reduces the case for #C1 notability, but your rant about how all of the other stuff he did is uninteresting does nothing to address the case for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the multiple published reviews by other people of his books. Let me spell that out: we have multiple in-depth sources about his work, independent of that work and reliably published. That also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe article would need an entire rewrite if we base the notability off this criteria (WP:AUTHOR), as barely one sentence mentions his authorship. As for the reviews you mentioned, as you said, I find them borderline and not very compelling. I may be wrong, but I'm not at all convinced of the subject's notability as an author based on WP:AUTHOR, but I would be happy to change my vote if more info is brought forward to strengthen the case for WP:AUTHOR. Edit: I noticed your "Delete" vote on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee. I still see evident self promotion as you mentioned and I still don't see great coverage to meet GNG. I am wondering what made you change your mind? Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I didn't find the books and their reviews during the previous AfD. So now I have new evidence for notability that I didn't have earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article poorly describes his notability under WP:AUTHOR at present, and does need a significant rewrite to the Career section. But David Eppstein has convinced me that he does indeed meet that criterion. Qflib (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Isaac Malitz (via WP:PROD on 7 May 2024)
~~Wilhelm Josef Oomens (via WP:PROD on 4 May 2024)~~