Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

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

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

Does not meet 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]

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

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

McMahon is a former high school government teacher. McMahon lacks independent in-depth coverage and fails to satisfy notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:BIO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Radio, Law, Politics, Internet, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's wrong with e.g. the Time source already in the article? I also found more reviews/coverage of her book, which the nominator neglected to mention [1][2][3] Geschichte (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bewildered by this nomination, TBH. There is clearly ample coverage presented in the article to pass WP:GNG. I mean, TIME, good grief! WP:BEFORE really not required... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the article is clearly passes WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adequate high-quality sources in the article to meet GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Robert E. Ireland has a messy and (and coincidentally, also without many sources) Wikipedia article. There aren't really enough sources to establish anything beyond the fact that this guy existed, which unfortunately isn't enough for WP:GNG, plus it doesn't have significant coverage. Pitille02 (talk) 03:51, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, France, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps the nominator could explain how they failed to consider WP:PROF and the obvious claim of notability through WP:PROF#C5 in the article ("Thomas Jefferson Chair Professor of chemistry at the University of Virginia"). The Ernest Guenther Award may also pass #C2, and his citation counts look high enough for #C1. Note that WP:PROF notability is independent from WP:GNG and does not rely on the existence of in-depth independent sourcing, but we have that also in three published obituaries (not counting the alumni magazine one), all of which have a half-dozen or so in-depth paragraphs about the subject and are independent from each other and Ireland and reliably published. To add to that we have one in-depth review of a book by him [4], not enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR but adding to the depth of sourcing in general, and entire papers about the Ireland–Claisen rearrangement named after him [5]. So I think we may have a pass of WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites and a above. A trout for the nominator, who has been editing for one month. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I'm biased as the original author, but I have a good record of selecting high quality professors who meet WP:PROF (humble brag, picked out a couple of Nobel Prize winners). Anyways, he is a University Professor of UVA and the general trend is to have Wikipedia articles for most professors who meet that criteria. Sources come from obituaries from ACS and tributes from fairly high profile chemists. Article can and should be improved but individual is certainly notable. Chrisvanlang (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful if you take a look at WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. A clear pass of WP:PROF on named chair, concept named for them, and citation profile per GS. As David Eppstein writes, GNG appears to be satisfied too. Suggest withdrawal. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep, per clear evidence of passing multiple WP:NACADEMIC criteria and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unless someone can show how this would meet WP:NPROF, subject is not notable under any other guideline. Putting aside COI and UPE, the sources simply do not go into depth about the subject. Just passing mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, Austria, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most sourcing I can find is actually about the Meatable company, not about Kotter. Being quoted in some articles about your company doesn't transfer notability to the person, and I don't see any evidence this meets WP:NPROF. - MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with CNMall41 and MrOllie. Axad12 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, leaning keep. Not my area, and I know neuroscience is heavily cited, but according to GS Kotter has two co-authored articles with >1000 citations (one is a review), and a further 18 with >100 citations, which seems to merit consideration under PROF. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could weigh in? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to a formal keep per Ldm1954's comments below. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in-depth because the sources just pass a claim. COI, not at all notable. Agreeing with Axad12, MrOllie, CNMall41. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extending based on review - more time may be of benefit here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With an h-factor of 48 he just about passes NPROF#C1. Note that for NPROF we don't require extensive external coverage. If he had significant awards it would be a strong keep; at the moment he squeezes by. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

h-factor can be an indicator, but not proof of notability. We need to show "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here." I don't see that here unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, it is very rare to find reviews of the work of scientists except when they receive major awards, in Feitschrifts or obituaries; hence that criteria is rarely used in the AfD discussions I have seen. He has two > 1K cited papers in high quality journals (Nature Reviews, Brain). As I said, I would be happier if there were awards to back up the case but I will argue that he just makes #C1. Please also look at his citation history which has had a rapid growth in 2022-2023 which looks to be continuing in 2024. That does strengthen the case slightly. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and I respect your points. I understand it may be rare but if they don't exists then they don't exist. The coverage in reliable sources is what we need. If the citations pick up in the future, maybe he will meet the threshhold but I think we are even lower than low hanging fruit to say he meet #C1 based on two papers with 1K+ cites. Maybe a redirect to Meatable would be appropriate until such time as he meets the threshold. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Let me be more definitive; coverage such as reviews of their work is not a viable criteria in almost all of science. There are many scientists without them who already have WP pages. If people cite the work, and it is in a high impact journal that is a strong indicator. Note that this is not HEP where citations are massive.

If you believe 1K is not a significant number of citations I really think you should post a question at WT:NPROF to get more opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking, I just looked under one of his GS areas remyelination. The highest cited person has 3 articles with > 1K cites, the 2nd has 1, 3rd 0, 4th 2 and he is fifth. I see no indications this is a very high cites field (e.g. HEP), it is comparable to physics, albeit much higher than math and most arts. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the disagreement which is why we are discussing. I never said it was not a significant number of citations. I said that #C1 would not be satisfied with two papers of 1K+ citations. If it was, we would have a ton of pages for people who would otherwise not be notable. I agree that a significant number of citations is an indicator of notability, which is why I said "h-factor can be an indicator;" but, it is just that...an indicator. There would need to be an agreement that the amount of cites he has is significant enough to pass the #C1 criteria and I don't think we do. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If we agree that the subject passes WP:PROF (and I'm not claiming that we do) then GNG arguments are moot. And unless I'm mistaken, outside a few hot-button topics, research papers with >1000 citations are still very rare. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are close. I don't believe this would meet GNG so the only thing I think we differ on at the moment is if his citations would meet the threshold of #C1. I wouldn't be opposed to requesting other editors with experience in that space to chime in. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was what I hoped for when I first commented. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see an open discussion from September but it doesn't look like there is headway one direction or the other. Personally, I hate WP:PROF standards as everything is subjective in cases like this.

Interpretation of whether GNG is met is also surprisingly subjective. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, but we have guidance based on discussion and consensus what governs things such significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent coverage. That makes GNG fairly easy at times and subjective in fewer cases than not. Whereas, we don't have guidance (at least none I can find) that helps with PROF, hence the reason for the discussion I guess. Even the September discussion doesn't see to have clarity unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, clear consensus usually arises from PROF-based discussions in AfD, while I have seen endless debates over precisely what constitutes adequate coverage under GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your contention. We will have to disagree on that as well. Different lens I guess. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROF#C1 is tricky as you will see from the often (very) extended discussions at WT:NPROF. There are a range of methods for h-factors/citations, but they all boil down to a check of:

1. Journal reliability, impact factor, notability, e.g. "Nature" versus pay "Pay to play" (predator).
2. Some disciple scaler. For instance as a crude metric for 3 topics I would equate h-factors as mathematics:15 ~ condensed matter physics:30 ~ High-energy physics:75
3. The base number. My minimum requirement (45-50) for physics/materials science is quite high, I have see others claim that 30 is notable.
4. A comparison to others in the field. This matters.
5. Place in article, e.g. first (did the work), last (managed everything), other (never obvious) and the number of co-authors.
6. High single paper cites, which indicates that the community considers the work important.
7. Experience. I changed my scaling for what is notable in mathematics following several AfD discussions and WT:NPROF.

N.B., I steer clear of academics in the arts as I don't know how to judge them unless it is a no-brainer (e.g. FRS, MacArthur). Ldm1954 (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable per GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check the WP:NPROF guidelines, they are different from GNG and are what matters here. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to get more commentary on whether NPROF 1a is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF#C1. I know this is easily gamed by careful choice of keywords, but rather than looking at his Google Scholar citation profile directly I thought to look at his ranking in the keywords he lists as his research interests. In three of the four, including Remyelination, there are multiple other authors with comparable citation counts and yet he is in the top five. I think that should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PROF guidelines. Scopus profile does confirm high level of citations. ResonantDis_tortion 10:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kif Augustine-Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the eight criteria at WP:NPROF applies to Augustine-Adams. It is true that she holds a named chair, but in my view she still does not satisfy criterion #5 because the BYU Law School is not an elite school that has the requisite "reputation for excellence and selectivity", as the specific notes say, like a Harvard or Yale would.  White Whirlwind  15:24, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think limiting notability of named professors to schools in the top ten is stretching the requirement for "excellence or selectivity". BYU Law School is ranked 28 in US News & World Report, that is enough of an indication of selectivity. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Named professors at major US schools are almost always considered notable per C5. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - named professor at top 40 law school, almost stereotypically stellar cv. Easily passes the PROF test and my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. GS citation profile [6] is a bit thin with top citations 64, 62, 52, 41, 24 and an h-index of 12, so unless I'm missing something obvious we're resting on the named chair alone here? Also the profile link to BYU law school given in the article no longer works, it looks to be here now: [7] (and there might be some copying concerns). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The sources do not provide sufficient significance to justify an independent article. News articles emphasize "concise promotional" content. While the article weakly meets WP:BIO standards, it falls short of meeting WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He very obviously does not pass WP:PROF; the question is whether the in-depth sources about him are independent enough and reliable enough to pass WP:GNG. Indian news sources are rife with paid promotion per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and I suspect that some or most of the sources here have that issue. The first two (Patrika and News18) are obviously both taken from the same press release, so do not count as independent of each other and maybe not reliable and independent of the subject. India Today is specifically warned about in WP:RSP and our article has no depth of content about the subject. That leaves only the Free Press Journal, about which I know nothing, but whose writing appears more hagiographic than factual or informative. I don't find any of these convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

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

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

This article came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, Engineering, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [8] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [9]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. EEng 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) EEng 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we can assume that. If there was an article on me, I probably wouldn't edit it or its talk page point blank as far as possible. If there was something bad enough that I felt I did need to do something I would likely stick to the talk page etc but whatever I did, would still only edit in relation to these important issues. And no matter how much else I felt was missing I likely wouldn't do anything about it, not even posting sources on the talk page. I'm not sure if I'd worry too much about the nationality of my father myself, but it can be a big deal for some. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's worth noting the book is only being published this month so it could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as far as reviews go. For this reason, if it can't be kept, I would support a redirect for now per @Cakelot1:'s suggestion. Starklinson (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and suggestion: stories about him are front page news in UK national newspapers today, please can we wait a while to make a decision, there are many new refs to add and very likely more in the next days. John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I very much doubt if any newspaper, anywhere in the world has front-page, today, that isn't entirely One Story. In terms of update, itself, it doesn't seem to change the WP:BLP1E calculation (it being an update to the "Hendy event"). Is your impression that we are likely to get any stories about Gareth, that don't concern his firing/Hendy? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cakelot1 This was the leading story of front page of the Guardian yesterday morning, at least when you accessed it from the UK. I've added some of the info into the article with this ref. John Cummings (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is off topic, but I guess when somebody says a front page news, I still think there talking about the print editions (which were pretty uniform in being about the elections). Certainly when I went to the Grauniad website yesterday the first screen I got (from the UK) was all US election stories/widgets and had to scroll to see anything else, but I guess that would also depend on size, etc. All of which is besides the point about the 1E-ness of the article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bear in mind when newspapers were being prepared for Wednesday morning in the UK, it's fairly likely all that there was to say about the US election, was something like "Americans vote in monumental election" so it's not particularly surprising they had a lot of room for other stuff on their front pages. I'm sure their Thursday papers and any evening or other late editions might be different. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The point remains though that this is still BLP1E - it looks like he ended up getting sacked because a government minister complained to his boss about something he said in an interview; that (now former) government minister has apologised, and that apology is resulting in news coverage. We can (and do) cover those controversial events in the article about the politician (although it looks like that might need a bit of updating in light of today's coverage), but it doesn't follow that we need an article about the individual who lost his job. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Girth Summit do you think there are enough refs to recreate an article on the situation? John Cummings (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean an article on the scandal / controversy? I don't have a view on whether or not it would be possible, but I doubt it worthwhile - as scandals involving government ministers go, it's pretty low level. Mentioning it at the page about him is probably worthwhile, but I wouldn't go further than that personally, and I've written some low-traffic articles in my time! Girth Summit _(blether) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail: Per above... About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 13:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Request If the article is approved for deletion please 'draftify' it instead, I want to work on it. John Cummings (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing stopping you making a user space copy of it yourself right now, provided you follow the guidelines at WP:CWW. If this closes as redirect, as seems likely at this point, you would then be able to work on it in your user space, and copy back across to the article title when the subject clearly passes notability criteria. I'd appreciate a courtesy ping if you do that, but I can't require that of you. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit I'm requesting this because I want to catch the most developed version of this article if it dissappears, given that its currently covered in the news it seems likely it will change in the next days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cummings (talk • contribs) 09:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoever closes the discussion can make that call; I guess it could be draftified/userfied and then a redirect put in its current title place if that's the decision. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cummings, when the time comes, make a request at WP:REFUND for the text to be emailed . EEng 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that waiting for a deletion decision is best. A copy/paste drafting would lack the version history, which might hold information that's useful in the future. A page move isn't appropriate during the AfD discussion. But that's essentially the best outcome for @John Cummings. I just !voted delete, but this is a sincere comment. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom and Oaktree b. This subject fails all available notability thresholds. It might be WP:TOOSOON; you never know. JFHJr (㊟) 23:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  & userfy/draft for @John Cummings. JFHJr (㊟) 00:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, as the sacking seems to be the main source of notability now. If delete & redirect is the outcome then I'd be happy with userifying the latest version for John Cummings to keep on working on it; if the book becomes notable by reviews, then the content of this article might be useful background, but with only a single authored book, WP:AUTHOR isn't going to be met for Dennis himself, even if multiple mainstream reviews are later published. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recommending this article for deletion. The person has no particular wiki worthy notability. He is a psychiatrist.

The page mentions that - "Known for Various presentations public speeches and debates done for Kerala Freethinkers Forum and many other science groups of Kerala". This isn't something that qualifies as notability. Freethinkers itself isn't particularly notable on its own. And being a member of it isn't any remarkable achievement.

And has received an award named Media Special Appreciation Award' which is of no particular value whatsoever. Every professional would  have received some form of award in their career. 

The person was in news for trying to abuse a female patient https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2024/02/08/psychiatrist-wayanad-medical-college-student-sexual-abuse-suspended.html

Also see the External Links section of the wiki page. They link to his FB page, Business Contact page and Personal blog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jostin_Francis#External_links

This article doesn't belong in wiki. This definitely has the look of a self promo article.

Bobgali (talk) 14:42, 28 October 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E for the sex scandal. No other notability. This BLP appears to be an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The "widely acknowledged" writings have left no trace in GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The sources for the subject consist primarily of promotional articles offering suggestions, tips, and recommendations on medical well-being. Additionally, there is a verifiable and reliable source related to a sexual offense case. However, beyond that, the subject lacks significant notability, thereby failing to meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

Alex Taek-Gwang Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Edit: I'm on the fence.

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Can't find any notable coverage of their work in news media either. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His work is every where(books, lectures, articles). It is on Jstor, Google scholar, Google Books, Print like The Guardian has mentioned him. He is writing on Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet This is his google scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=oAEdHDkAAAAJ&hl=en

This his Jstor search result: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Alex+Taek-Gwang+Lee&so=rel

He has edited a book with Salvoz Zizek https://www.versobooks.com/products/196-the-idea-of-communism-3?srsltid=AfmBOoqosEfP3Y6T5G2tDhErrlHwpEeUJFbFSsTUrhNnnkZoF9LoIJWV

He is extensively writings on French and German Philosophy and Korean Culture. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that you have made a mistake. I request you to please reconsider your decision. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

He is a known philosopher who is writing on Deleuze and Guattari, Korean Culture and other cultural topics. His publication is everywhere. WP:NACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePerfectYellow (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Sources that he wrote or published himself do not contribute to his notability. It has to be other people writing about him in a published format. Having a Google Scholar profile or having previously published books or articles doesn't help, otherwise every academic in the world would qualify for a Wikipedia article. seefooddiet (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think reputed and highly discussed books an topics are basic for academia. There are series of reputed portals who have discussed about him and give his references for saying things. Publication like The Idea of ​​Communism 3, which he coedited with Salvoz Zizek and Salvoz also mentioned him in his writings(https://slguardian.org/we-already-live-in-the-end-of-the-world/). His writings on Deleuze and Guattari and Korean Culture are not just ordinary. He is reputed Deleuzian scholar and member of various academic society. i have given the enough reference for that. And I am keep updating his work. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

google Scholar, Goolge Books and Jstor have been required as (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sources that he wrote or published himself do not contribute to his notability. It has to be other people writing about him in a published format. ) On this, scholar writes their books. Although, the reception of their works is important. So, he has been recognised many places for his writings on new Marxism and philosophy. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell us the exact sources, you want. Scholars have cited his works a lot. So, i am also using these. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting the work and reception part by using third party references. Will update this tomorrow. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're making efforts to improve the article. Respectfully, I'm still skeptical that it passes NACADEMIC. Some of the mentions you provide are trivial mentions (see WP:SIGCOV). They're brief one or two sentence mentions of Lee. The major criteria I think Lee may pass is possibly #1 (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources), but you'd have to provide sources with more than just trivial coverage to show that. Otherwise a lot of what has been presented in this thread is just your word that he is impactful. seefooddiet (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet I have rewrite the entire passage of 'work and reception' and have used all the third party references. Request you to kindly check. I have mentioned two important concepts which he drives: his intervention in the philosophical debate of 'concept creation' as he explained it as 'third world' and 'eschatological force' as he uses this phrase to describe the pain and trauma of Korean people from Korean war and conflict.

Other than this, I have also mentioned his ideas reception in media. He is also the member of respected academic societies and journals.

I request you to kindly check! ThePerfectYellow (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, these are still trivial mentions, and most academics are members of various societies. It still doesn't meet NACADEMIC. seefooddiet (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. GS doesn't seem to be finding much in the way of citations? One authored book is mentioned, as well as an co-edited one, so WP:AUTHOR might be an easier route than PROF (but with a more senior co-editor on the latter I'm not sure how one might interpret any reviews). Open to persuasion but not seeing much here. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleuze and Guattris studies is an emerging academic field. Not many scholars have intervene in this. This is very much exclusive right now. But that doesn't mean this in not valuable. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we go with WP:AUTHOR , the point number 2 and 3 are perfectly suitable for him. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For AUTHOR #2 ("The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique") I think you would need to provide a reasonable number of unrelated academics who explicitly stated this. For #3, you would need to provide multiple book reviews covering at least two books, and even then there's only one authored book, and many discount edited books. To be honest, I worry that the subject has not yet gained sufficient traction in the academic community. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He ahs written many books on Korean culture and korean issues. I am listing here the links where his opinion from his writings and reviews of his book has been published.

  https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/histories-of-violence-the-ghosts-of-civilized-violence/

  https://h21.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/culture_general/4745.html

  https://www.ijejutoday.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=230029

  https://web.archive.org/web/20170824093816/http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/taek_gwang_lee.html

  http://m.100news.kr/24621

  https://brunch.co.kr/@critic/176

  https://www.unipress.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=8152

  https://brunch.co.kr/@minq17/254

  There are many more. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unconvinced of this argument. Similar opinion to Espresso Addict. seefooddiet (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unable to understand your standpoint. I have shown what you have asked for. Kindly check. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can send you more reviews and mentions by the other media and authors. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit: I'm not sure anymore. Ok, I'll change my vote to keep. The first three links in this comment are possibly sufficient coverage. seefooddiet (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seefooddiet I request you to kindly remove the deletion nomination from the Alex Taek-Gwang Lee page. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Other people may vote. seefooddiet (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okays, wait, then. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seefooddiet I request you to kindly look into this or should we wait? ThePerfectYellow (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I already told you what I wanted to do and you already agreed; please be patient. seefooddiet (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see how this person meets WP:NACADEMIC. Seems to be some confusion that just because a person has published works means they're notable for our purposes which is untrue. Outside of their own self-published works, all I see is short bio blurbs by publishing companies and quick one line mentions in articles, none of which represent WP:SIGCOV which is a core pillar of notability. Article's prose itself help out either... nothing in it tells me why this person is notable. Going line by line through WP:NACADEMIC's requirements doesn't hit anywhere. RachelTensions (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you consider the Verso, Anthem, Bloomsbury Publication, Cambridge Scholars Publishing etc as a self-publishing agent? ThePerfectYellow (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  From my perspective even taking all of that into account I'm not convinced of notability. seefooddiet (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia deals with collective intelligence and we all respect that. I request you to check all these from a fresh eye. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Citation counts [10] far too low for WP:PROF#C1 even in a low-citation field. One authored book and two edited volumes are not going to be enough for WP:AUTHOR, it's not actually the books themselves that provide notability that way, and whether they have a respectable publisher or are self-published is not very relevant. What we need instead is reliably published reviews by other people of multiple books authored by him, not edited. In any case searching JSTOR and Google Scholar found no reviews of his books. And the sources, most of which are by the subject, contain quotes for the subject, or are event announcements, are so full of fluff that I cannot find among them anything of high enough depth and independent to contribute towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He has many books on Korean culture and politics. The links of their reviews, I have submitted earlier in this discussion. You may check here, again:

  https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/histories-of-violence-the-ghosts-of-civilized-violence/

  https://h21.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/culture_general/4745.html

  https://www.ijejutoday.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=230029

  https://web.archive.org/web/20170824093816/http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/taek_gwang_lee.html

  http://m.100news.kr/24621

  https://brunch.co.kr/@critic/176

  https://www.unipress.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=8152

  https://brunch.co.kr/@minq17/254

  Not just this. His SEO is also working with this keyword 'Taek-Gwang Lee'. You can search through this to find more relevant links.

  Not just one book, he has more half-dozen books, I have mentioned just two. Two is more about to come. One is from Routledge and one is from Sublation. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "His SEO is also working". What telling phrasing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Search Engine Opitimisation: His name is also spell as Taek Gwang Lee and in Korean 이택광. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Brunch is a South Korean blogging service, unreliable per WP:SELFPUBLISHED. seefooddiet (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am here sending you the more reviews of his books:

  https://www.idomin.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=453925

  https://vop.co.kr/A00000777793.html

  Here, his work in Korean academics.

  https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%EC%9D%B4%ED%83%9D%EA%B4%91&tbm=bks&hl=en&gl=in&ei=UaMtZ7rAJp6vseMPlt_iqQs&ved=0ahUKEwj6rLGKgsyJAxWeV2wGHZavOLUQsJ4FCAM

  https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%EB%B0%95%EA%B7%BC%ED%98%9C%EB%8A%94+%EB%AC%B4%EC%97%87%EC%9D%98+%EC%9D%B4%EB%A6%84%EC%9D%B8%EA%B0%80&sca_esv=786f0427ca544071&hl=en&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ADLYWIK3Djhed0ILRgDpotxKM2s1dvaaZg%3A1731044112831&ei=EKMtZ4K0Mv2RseMP85LU2Qs&ved=0ahUKEwiC_L3rgcyJAxX9SGwGHXMJNbsQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%EB%B0%95%EA%B7%BC%ED%98%9C%EB%8A%94+%EB%AC%B4%EC%97%87%EC%9D%98+%EC%9D%B4%EB%A6%84%EC%9D%B8%EA%B0%80&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIiPrsJXqt7ztmJzripQg66y07JeH7J2YIOydtOumhOyduOqwgEjgmwFQjgtYnZYBcAJ4AJABAJgBzAKgAYYHqgEFMi0yLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgCgAgCoAgCYAwGIBgGSBwCgB9IC&sclient=gws-wiz-books ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I request you to kindly recheck all this.

  • 《들뢰즈의 극장에서 그것을 보다》. 갈무리. 2002년. ISBN 8986114445
  • 《한국 문화의 음란한 판타지》. 이후. 2002년. ISBN 8988105516
  • 《영단어 인문학 산책》. 난장이. 2010년. ISBN 9788996172871
  • 《인문좌파를 위한 이론 가이드》. 글항아리. 2010년. ISBN 9788993905243
  • 《인상파 파리를 그리다》. 아트북스. 2011년. ISBN 9788961960779
  • 《이것이 문화비평이다》. 자음과모음. 2011년. ISBN 9788957075753
  • 《99% 정치》. 마티. 2012년. ISBN 9788992053549
  • 《마녀 프레임》. 자음과 모음. 2013년. ISBN 9788957077290
  • 《인생론》. 북노마드. 2014년. ISBN 9788997835423
  • 《박근혜는 무엇의 이름인가》. 시대의창. 2014년. ISBN 9788959402953

  ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir, sending you the link where he has been covered in news.

  https://www.inkl.com/glance/news/in-south-korea-a-tv-show-airing-north-korean-defectors-stories-is-riling-kim-jong-un-s-regime?first_login=true&section=personalized

  https://ch.yes24.com/Article/View/17910

  https://www.g-enews.com/article/General-News/2020/01/202001201000162590f67c3fc824_1

  https://www.mbn.co.kr/news/culture/4843312

  https://ch.yes24.com/Article/View/17910

  There are many dailies, where he is writing columns regularly. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Two of these links are duplicates (the yes24 ones) and the first link is a trivial mention.

  I'm on the fence about notability, but still skeptical. ThePerfectYellow, please mind your behavior; make sure to avoid trivial mentions and send only reliable sources. It makes it harder to trust you when you do this. seefooddiet (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seefooddiet Apology, for this. I will make sure to not repeat this. Sir. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atta ur Rehman Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The situation appears to be unchanged from the last AFD: this academic is listed online (in primary sources such as his own books or copies of his conference papers) but has not received coverage within reliable and independent publications. arcticocean 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Technology. arcticocean 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can’t believe this didn’t come to my attention sooner!! It's quite a shameful AUTOBIO. It was created by an Oman-based IP back in 2019 when the subject was a professor at Sohar University, Oman per his LinkedIn profile. Then it was mostly written by Ajman, UAE-based IPs such as 2001:8F8:1E23:7A12:1C9D:4C83:84C1:AA8A, 5.193.101.156, 109.177.94.190, 109.177.82.11, 109.177.87.49, 109.177.104.239 who are also likely associated with the subject, especially since the subject moved to Ajman as a professor at Ajman University in 2020. If one checks the logs, it’s evident that this BLP has been heavily edited from both Oman and Ajman - both places where the subject has lived. It clearly fails to meet GNG as well as WP:NPROF. it's totally promotional and the subject is clearly using Wikipedia for self-promotion. He also flaunts his Wikipedia page on his personal website [see footer]. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is it stated in the Wikipedia policy that a notable person cannot mention a Wikipedia page link on their websites? 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe he also meet GNG. He established Pakistan's National Cybersecurity Center and Pakistan's first undergraduate cybersecurity program. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I compared Prof. Khan's profile with the following Pakistani computer scientists. If the following are meeting the GNG and WP:NPROF then Prof. Khan's page is also meeting the required criteria.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mubashir_Husain_Rehmani#cite_note-tribune-9

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Majid_Bhurgri

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhawani_Shankar_Chowdhry

  Again, where is the secondary coverage? There are lots of secondary coverage about Mubashir_Husain_Rehmani. Seriously, all this talk is being documented, and will make incredibly harder to get your page back. Now you will have to appear in the BBC, CNBC and Al Jazeera to be considered again for a Wiki page. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn! Contributor892z (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the editor has some personal grudges and is biased against this listing. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  personal grudges Seriously Mr. Khan, it’s not worth it. let’s chill! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Who khan? I think you have something personal with Khans. I can understand. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's been enough years since the previous AfD that the previous WP:TOOSOON arguments do not really apply. But the only case to be made for notability appears to be through WP:PROF#C1; he doesn't meet the other PROF criteria and we have no evidence of GNG notability. Setting aside the quality of his publications, this is a high-citation field and the top-cited works on his Google Scholar profile [11] all appear to be surveys. I don't think the remaining ones have sufficient demonstrated impact to pass C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you from the same domain? How can you pass a judgement if the number of citations are not enough? Prof. Khan is listed among the world's top 2% scientists in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 WP:PROF#C1. He also serves on the editorial boards of more than eight high impact journals WP:PROF#d. He has delivered multiple keynote talks at international IEEE conferences WP:PROF#e. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the subject is really notable, then why no secondary coverage? The WP:PROF#C1 criterion is indeed subjective and is just a shortcut to presume that there is notability under WP:GNG. Best way to prove notability beyond doubt is to have evidence of WP:SIGCOV, which the subject fails to have. To be highly cited under WP:PROF#C1, in my experience I have seen that 3000 citations across the entire career in computer science is still not enough without secondary coverage. Probably still needs to triple that amount, with at least a couple papers with more than 1500 citations each. I agree that it would be better to include quantifiable information in WP:PROF#C1 and make it less subjective, but I doubt this will ever happen. Contributor892z (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In order to count for the academic notability criteria, he would need to be the editor in chief of a prominent journal. Serving as a member of an editorial board for a journal (or many such boards) is not enough. And Contributor892z is perfectly right, these citation numbers are not high enough for his particular field. Qflib (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  World top 2% scientists is definitely not enough either. If you do a simple maths - there is 1.1 million BLPs in English Wikipedia and 1.35 billion English speaking people in the world, you conclude that to be notable you need to be at the top 0.08% of your field of expertise. (Actually, if you consider that some of these BLPs became notable for bad reasons, e.g criminals, big failures, etc, the true number is even lower than 0.08%). Probably the fact that he is top 2% explains the lack of secondary coverage. Contributor892z (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  David Eppstein Could you provide one or two notable academics in this field for comparison? Also, I assume "senior member" of IEEE is, in practice, a giant step below fellow? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's definitely at least a step below fellow. By "the field" do you mean computer science in general, or cybersecurity/blockchain/cloud computing? That can be kind of a spammy area so harder to tell by citation counts. And if I name people who are outright stars it wouldn't be a fair comparison. But ok, going down the Google Scholar listings for someone matching similar areas and more borderline but clearly on the keep side of the border, let's go with Yang Xiang [12] [13]. The top couple of papers by citations are surveys again (this is not unusual; surveys get better citations) but the tail in his citation counts is significantly longer and heavier. More to the point, we don't have to rely only on citation counts because he is also an IEEE Fellow and an editor-in-chief, passing multiple other PROF criteria. We don't have an article on him already (suggesting that maybe his case is more borderline than some, or maybe he is less self-promoting than some) but I would definitely count him as meeting our standards for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks -- Yang Xiang is obviously considerably more heavily cited from the GS profile, and the IEEE fellow is, of course, an autopass. Perhaps in such tricky-to-assess areas we should just go on the IEEE assessment, or perhaps EiC on a well-established journal. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have to agree that he does not meet WP:PROF and there is also no secondary coverage to show evidence of WP:GNG. The article was also poorly written and does not meet WP:NPOV by any means. Seems to be just a case of using Wikipedia for self promotion. Contributor892z (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Khan's work has been cited by thousands of independent researchers in their publications.

For ref, check https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=j5x2DasAAAAJ and https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55602487700. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not secondary coverage. Read WP:SIGCOV Contributor892z (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the citation count were high enough for this research specialty, C1 of WP:NPROF would be enough for notability without meeting WP:SIGCOV. But only a few thousand citations is not much for this field, I think. Qflib (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how Wikipedia is used for self promotion in this case. Prof. Khan's personal website ranks first on Google search for his name. This page is not even in the first five google search results. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the intention is to only get a Google knowledge panel, don’t use Wikipedia then. Get a profile with Google Books and that will do it :-) Contributor892z (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per discussion above, I am convinced the subject does not meet WP:PROF by citations (or any other route), and I see no evidence of GNG being met either. There is one book with two co-authors, which -- even if reviews were to be provided -- would not be enough to meet AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. He does not meet NPROF which is I think the closest. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

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]

Maryam Issaka Kriese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

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

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

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 alPolitico 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]

• 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]

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

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

Article by a novice editor of an academic with unclear notability and which has too many unsubstantiated claims. H-factor of 28 with 2574 cites so does not pass #C1. Page contains both significant WP:MILL (e.g. giving a seminar) and unsubstantiated claims such as "published more than 300 papers". GS shows 141 total, many uncited conference papers. Editor claims that he qualifies under #C2 which I am very dubious about since at most the Ukrainian State prize comes close. I tagged the page with notability questionable, and asked for verification of claims. Appsoft4 ignored request, so now it needs a wider discussion of notability (or not). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the author has strong views on this article but has been temporarily blocked from editing. In the interest of fairness, please consider this diff, which they indicated were their views on the AFD. OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The subject is not completely unnotable under PROF, the citations appear reasonably healthy. As the subject recently died, it is possible that more obituaries will be published (there is one in memoriam already in the article) which will provide GNG. There's a uk article that appears to predate the subject's death and was apparently not created by Appsoft4. Perhaps draftification is an option? Although the creator appears to have been quite disruptive, imo blocking them from participating in this AfD is not really in the interests of assessing whether or not the article subject meets our threshold. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They were warned and asked repeatedly to stop removing the AfD tag and blanking this AfD but refused. They did so at least 10 times. AusLondonder (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Imagine you are a newbie who has written/translated an article on someone who has recently died, whom you strongly (and not irrationally) believe to be notable, and someone brings it to AfD. Blocking them such that the AfD will be settled in their absence feels... cruel. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that it is not impossible that he may end up passing NPROF. Not on citations, as it is not a low citation field and many of his papers have multiple authors. Maybe #C2, although I am not convinced. It might be good for an independent editor to cut the MILL, sources & irrelevant material and add other independent material for us to look at. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I offered to copy a comment here for Appsoft4 (the blocked creator of this article), and they offered the following rationale for keeping:

  ... why precisely Pavlenko meets one or more of the bullet points in WP:PROF and/or what reliable independent sources there are, such as obituaries, prize citations, reviews of his work or similar...

  Here is a list (maybe even incomplete):

  • Yakiv Pavlenko was given by one of two highest awards at the national level for the field of astronomy by The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU):
    • NASU Prize named after Mykola Barabashov [uk] (given to Yakiv Pavlenko and in 2009, presented in 2010): https://old.nas.gov.ua/EN/Competition/Pages/About.aspx?CompetitionID=033
      • Source: https://old.nas.gov.ua/UA/Competition/Pages/Persons.aspx?CompetitionID=033&Year=2010
    • (Seconf one is NASU Prize named after Yevhen Fedorov [uk], but Yakiv Pavlenko never nominated for it.)
  • Yakiv Pavlenko was given by the highest award at the national level for the field of science and technology by The Government of Ukraine:
    • State Prize of Ukraine in Science and Technology (given to Yakiv Pavlenko in 2014); since 2021, award was renamed to National Prize of Ukraine named after Borys Paton [uk]:
      • Source: https://www.kdpu-nt.gov.ua/en/content/derzhavni-premiyi-ukrayini-v-galuzi-nauki-i-tehniki-2014-roku-oglyad-0
  • Obituary was published by the Yaroslav Yatskiv [de], a notable Ukrainian astronomer, a directory of MAO NASU [de] (Yakiv Pavlenko was a Chief Research Fellow and headed one of its departments), an elected member of the Presidium of NASU and the Chief of the Ukrainian Astronomical Association [uk] (Yakiv Pavlenko was a member of NASU and UAA too).
    • Source: https://mao.kiev.ua/index.php/ua/81-in-memoriam/866-in-memoriam-pavlenko
    • Curriculum Vitae: https://mao.kiev.ua/staff/yp/TXT/yp0031.txt
    • LinkedIn: https://ua.linkedin.com/in/yakiv-pavlenko-6244a3b
  • Research work includes more than 300 publications according to ORCID (on Google Scholar, used to reason adding Notability and AfD, ingoring WP:Notability (academics)#Citation_metrics caution on Google Scholar, only 141 are listed, and on ResearcheGate only 272 are listed) — this may be not a direct notability proof, but it describes that adding Notability and AfD templates was not legit in the first place.
    • Source: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7615-4028
    • Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EmsP1AgAAAAJ
    • ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yakiv-Pavlenko#publications
  • Article about Yakiv Pavlenko is published in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine.
    • Source: https://esu.com.ua/article-878326
  • Yakiv Pavlenko's discovery of 5 new exocomets was published by valuable scientific news media.
    • Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ukrainian-astronomers-discover-exocomets-around-another-star/
  • Yakiv Pavlenko co-autored few books, and one of them awarded by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), a valuable non-government association for the field of astronautics, recognized by United Nations.
    • Source: https://iaaspace.org/members/awards/#Awards-Book
    • The IAA Basic Sciences Book Award (2016) certificate: https://mao.kiev.ua/biblio/mono/IAAsertificat.jpg
  • Yakiv Pavlenko was a member of International Astronomical Union, European Astronomical Society, Ukrainian Astronomical Association [uk] and «Science At Risk!» digital platform.
    • IAU: https://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/1253/
    • EAS: https://eas.unige.ch/members.jsp (Yakiv Pavlenko's membership level is not public on website, but he not listed as an actual elected Council member https://eas.unige.ch/council.jsp, no info on the past Council members, though)
    • UAA: https://ukrastro.org.ua/ (website is in maintenance mode)
    • Science At Risk!: https://scienceatrisk.org/expert/pavlenko-yakiv-volodymyrovych

  I suppose its enough to proof the notability. Appsoft4 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to copy his arguments here Unfortunately much of this is WP:MILL for academics (memberships), or not relevant (who wrote the obituary). He does not pass WP:NPROF#C1, or 3-8. To me the isuue is:

• Do we consider the State Prize to pass WP:NPROF#C2. If yes, then we clean the article and keep it. If no it gets deleted.

Ldm1954 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I am somewhat persuaded by the notion that the subject is a notable scientist in Ukraine, if not internationally. The entry in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine could, I think, be considered to pass WP:ANYBIO #3. The obituary certainly would seem to go towards GNG, the Sci Am piece possibly, if Pavlenko were the key author on the exoplanets work, and the three together might be considered to meet GNG. Altogether I'm leaning keep, particularly swayed by the ANYBIO#3 argument. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep based upon the discussion above, sources found, and my own search results. He apparently wrote 316 papers, but not all of them were accepted as peer reviewed and published on Google scholar. Having written at least six papers in physics myself that were not accepted, I interpret this as the difference. Probably some of them were poster presentations or other non-peer reviewed papers. I did a little cleaning and copywriting, and added a citation needed tag for his Doctor of Science degree. Otherwise, I’m leaning towards keep. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Politics, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree 03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
  • Kompas is a major Indonesian newspaper, basically the Times of the country. The quoted article is an interview with the subject, which as per the article linked was also in the print edition. I'm also seeing a response to accusations related to the film (Indonesian), discussion of his views on legal issues,
  • Detik is another solid source, and already cited in our article. There are still more sources like his response to accusations of partisanship,
• I'm also seeing a few lower-quality sources (still RSes, but not as established) through a quick Google search.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled open KompasPedia, and it is published by Kompas. Coverage is sufficient to show GNG, IMO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hans Roland (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2024)
• Georges-Claude Guilbert (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)
• Matt Beat (via WP:PROD on 30 October 2024)
• Ben Caldecott (via WP:PROD on 27 October 2024)