Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

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

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators

Richard McDonald (academic)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. He worked for some important organizations in non-major roles. I see no sign of any influential scientific publication of his on a reputable journal, or any terminal degree for that matter. This looks more like a resume of a postgraduate student than anything else. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Religion, and United Kingdom. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can find evidence of cites or reviews. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
His publication is released in December, and so these are forthcoming JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creation of page was due to unusual and niche academic field of minority religions in prison, which is the topic of his first publication due for release in 2024. His terminal degree was completed at Birkbeck Dept. Of Psychosocial Studies but I can’t find a citation for this so I didn’t include. On the ‘non major roles point’ - understood, but he held the role ‘Head of Policy’ for HMPPS in 2023 which feels notable? Apols if I’ve made it sound like an advert JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for making this page. If I can make the case a bit more: is a nascent academic but in a niche and unusual field of writing about Norse paganism in prison which distinguishes his contribution and his first publication is a book chapter with Bloomsbury coming out in December.

He sits on various policy and governance boards for national organisations including charities (Traveller movement) and the Magistrate’s association. I know he sits on several more including the Uni of Sheffield but can’t cite this.

I don’t want it to read like an advert, just an encyclopaedia entry for a niche academic who works at the intersections of religion and penology. JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find anything to contribute to notability. ResonantDis_tortion 23:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajit Prasad

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

Not a notable scholar. The news articles in which he speaks as an expert are not about himself, they only feature comments by him about medical topics. The papers in the list of "his most cited papers" are not all that well-cited and were all primarily directed by other scholars with some collaboration by him. The creation of this article could be explained by User_talk:M.parvage#Reblocked. Badbluebus (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Medicine, Asia, and Bangladesh. Badbluebus (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. low GS cites in a very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dallas Rossiter

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

A before search does not show anything significant for this article. Does not pass GNG or NHOCKEY. Kline • talk • contribs 00:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not passes WP:GNG and also lack of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 05:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with academics and educators. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: NN hockey player with an ephemeral career in the low minors, fails the GNG and any iteration of NHOCKEY by a country mile. User:Sorable, whose equally short editing career mostly involved reverted edits and one revdel, would be up for a trouting at least if they hadn't walked away nearly a year ago. Good catch by the nom. Ravenswing 06:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Flibirigit (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christiane Wolf

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

She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Health and fitness, Buddhism, and Germany. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is produced that her publications have received enough attention. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I think this article is produced to create attention. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Two of the references are podcasts by notable people (Dan Harris and Sharon Salzberg), there is a book review in Spirituality & Health and some coverage in a Taos News article.

Rezaul Kabir

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for Academicians WP:NACADEMICS. WP:NOTRESUME Charlie (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, and Management. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides summary information to a large audience (i.e., students, academics, scholars, journalists, policy makers) who are interested in academic work on several business related subjects / topics. The content of the article is credible as it includes references to published / verifiable / reliable sources. RRLV (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete at this stage, notability is not established although he has a decent amount of citations over the course of his career so one could argue for criterium one https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=c_EQTfoAAAAJ&hl=en

JamesKH76 (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acceptable citations in a high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Mohammed Tharwat Hassan

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

Associate Professor with an h-factor of 12 and no major awards. No evidence that he comes close to satisfying any of the WP:NPROF criteria. While notability was challenged in a tag by Kj cheetham in Feb 2022, it appears it was not followed up on. He has somehow slipped through the normal review process that would avoid non-notable academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not established. Criterium 1 is not let either as noted in the initial report (low h-index for a field that usually has very high ones due to collaboration)

JamesKH76 (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Prue Bishop

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

This semi-promotional biography of an artist who trademarked her technique for, "sculptural watercolors" does not seem to meet notability requirements for WP:GNG nor for WP:NARTIST. She did not invent sculptural watercolor, she only trademarked her own specific method. An online WP:BEFORE search only found primary sources, many links to her own website, a couple Wordpress blogs, social media and links to a few things she has written. Thinking she might qualify as a scholar/academic, I searched for her h-index on Google Scholar and Scopus (zero); she has written a few articles on the artist JMW Turner, but they don't seem to be cited frequently enough to meet ACADEMIC. The current article sourcing is either primary, or unverifiable (other than her own website and her trademark). Unfortunately, as much as I dislike seeing articles on women artists deleted, I'm bringing it here for the community to decide the outcome. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, Women, Visual arts, and United Kingdom. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article for Prudence Mary Bishop by this same editor was rejected at AfC in 2018 as not showing notability. This is a second try, but I do not find any sources about her except her own web site. Many of the sources cited here are not about her but link to organizations that are mentioned in the article. Lamona (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. She might be a wonderful person, a creative artist, and all that, but unless we can verify basic facts about her, there’s only original research. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Raj

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

Apart from the obvious undisclosed paid editing by Pinknetwork123, a fairly new account with 20 edits, comes up with a 20000 bytes draft. It was quickly accepted by a reviewer who I believe did not properly evaluate it. At this point, the article was majorly based on primary sources. Interviews, commentaries, and his opinion pieces do not contribute towards GNG. I believe the rest are paid PR articles and there is no significant coverage of Prateek Raj in independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, Social science, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.

1. Edits are not at all paid. Sorry if they appear to be. Have edited Wikipedia in the past, but usually do without logging in.

2. Subject’s recently published paper got significant media coverage (mentioned in references), which triggered me, an acquaintance, to create the article including all of his previous media coverages.

3. Subject gained salience on D&I issues since activism on hate speech and LGBT issues.

4. Has significant social media following.

5. Have used credible third party sources for all information, from websites and reputed media houses that pass Wiki’s credibility check

6. I defer judgement to editor consensus, thanks. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw everyone’s attention to Wikietiquette Article for Deletion, WP:AFDEQ, especially on the fourth point “Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.” I would recommend editors to be unbalanced and take a constructive approach here, given that it concerns a living person.

First, the claim that the article has "obvious undisclosed paid editing" is not correct, as I have already explained before. Additionally, the assertion that he gives “interviews on paid promotional sources” is baseless. Which interviews specifically are paid? Those with The Times of India on hate speech, NDTV, Bloomberg, or discussions on caste and income in The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Telegraph, New Indian Express, or the op-eds on LGBT rights? Just a simple Google search shows that subject has several engagements. And his bio is openly available across academic space to help people create his profile.

It may be reasonable to debate the subject’s notability, it is inappropriate to dismiss their legitimate work as “paid” without evidence. I encourage editors to adhere to Wikietiquette WP:AFDEQ to remain impartial and decide constructively in this discussion. Thank you. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinknetwork123: What unsourced negative comments do you think have been made here? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Jlwoodwa for your comment. The comments made here on 1. “obvious” undisclosed paid editing 2. “paid PR articles” and 3. interviews on “paid promotional” sources, make unsourced negative claims about the subject and his work, which affects their reputation in this public space. This is not in line with Wikietiquette policy.

The article cites several reputed and credible secondary sources from the Indian media specifically covering the subject and his work. After this discussion, I agree there are some primary sources which can be removed, and the article can be modified to Wiki standards. The article has been put twice by two different editors in the mainspace.

I understand that editors can put any article to AfD, but I agree with Wikietiquette that AfD should not become a place for making unsubstantiated claims about the work of a living person. I’d welcome a more measured tone when dealing with living persons. Thank you! Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much a promotional article [1], so the statement stands. Others are items this person published under their own name, and are a primary source. No articles strictly about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a lot of the sources aren't at par with what I'd expect when looking for WP:BLPRS, I do believe there are atleast three reliable sources that satisfy the bar for notability:
- [2] is a article in The Hindu talks in detail about a paper the individual coauthored.
- [3] is another article in The Hindu that talks about a study he lead.
- [4] is another article in The Telegraph (India) that talks about research that he lead.
- [5] is another article in Indian Express that also talks about his research.

I think the fact that the findings in his research are being covered by newspapers of record and the fact that he holds the position of a assistant professor at IIM Bangalore would sufficiently qualify him to meet WP:NACADEMIC#7. Sohom (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. Many are passing mentions coming from a report released by the Indian Institute of Management. The Hindu article has no byline and the impact of the report is nowhere to be seen. The second Hindu article is authored by a freelance journalist and a study/ report done with 2 others. 3 has some interview bytes and 4 only mentions his name once.

The position of Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore doesn't carry much weight when evaluating for WP:NACADEMIC. I believe the extensive coverage about the latest report is only because it is related to Karnataka's govt, which i beleive only makes it as routine coverage.

I fail to see Prateek Raj's reports creating substantial impact in terms of citations or otherwise. AFAICS, they fail to meet all eight criterias listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira To clear one thing up, I did not imply that the position "Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore" carries much weight. What I implied was that given the fact that he is a professor, we should use the WP:NACADEMIC criteria to evaluate him instead of the more stringent WP:GNG criteria. Sohom (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both of you for your comments. The academic is known for 3 separate issues, reported in reputed and prominent media houses of India. I will highlight only media mentions that cover exclusively or prominently him.

1. for his recent paper on Dalit economy, where he has been interviewed in the Hindu, the Telegraph, the Indian Express, the New Indian Express, the Times of India. All these interviews are referenced in the article, like, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/dalit-business-owners-experience-income-gap-of-16-when-compared-to-other-disadvantaged-groups-finds-study/article68505789.ece

2. for his work on hate speech. He has a full interview with The Times India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/podcasts/the-times-of-india-podcast/how-hate-can-hurt-indias-economic-dreams/videoshow/102992737.cms. He also has a detailed interview with Indian Express and NDTV, and well as a full interview on history of media markets in Bloomberg.

3. for his advocacy of LGBT rights. His October 2023 OpEd in the Indian Express merits him a notable place in LGBT Academics category, which is underpopulated, and needs more biographies https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/sc-marriage-equality-judgment-8992557/.

Thanks to this review process, which is helpful as it helps identify what is noteworthy about the subject. The constructive way forward may be to trim the article with only the most noteworthy information. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources on the page are quite poor with some written by the subject himself and some others with passing mention and interviews on paid promotional sources. Some sources are also unreliable. The subject has not had a significant noteworthy impact through his profession and outside the profession nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Page also reads as resume. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some more opinions here. But, Pinknetwork123 know that interviews don't help establish notability. Their content can be used to verify article content but having the subject talk about themself and their work doesn't help demonstrate that the subject themself is notable (as Wikipedia judges notability).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz! Your input helped me assess the sources better. With AfC and AfD processes, the article has significantly improved with mostly credible secondary sources that meet WP:NACADEMIC#7 in my view (thanks for highlighting Sohom!). I focused on Wikipedia:BLPRS-compliant sources that aren't based on press releases, particularly relevant in the Indian context (Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA). Here are a few: The Telegraph, The Hindu, and Indian Express highlight the author’s work on caste; Economic Times and Mint cover his work on regional inequality. The one-to-one Times of India interview is as a notable hate speech activist, and his October 2023 Indian Express Op-Ed, though a primary source, is relevant for his role as an LGBT academic from Global South (an underrepresented group on Wikipedia, here). Pinknetwork123 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to pass academic notability with very few publications. Wonderful that they advocate for change, but just not enough non-puffy coverage to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are invariably not notable and this one is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The article has undergone a lot of revision since it was nominated. Here is the source assessment for the current version with 23 sources.
- Direct independent coverage from secondary sources for criteria WP:NACADEMIC#7 (reliable) 11 sources: 1 (Hindu), 2, 21, 22 (Indian Express), 6 (NDTV), 7, 20 (Times of India), 10, 11 (Telegraph India), 12 (New Indian Express), 23 (Bloomberg)
- Significant mention in independent coverage from secondary sources (reliable) 3 sources: 3 (Economic Times), 4 (The Mint), 20 (Outlook)
- Direct coverage from secondary sources but could be press release. (partially reliable) 2 sources: 13 (Times of India), 18 (Hindu)
- Primary sources (less reliable) 7 sources: 5 (Op-Ed by author - Indian Express), 8, 16 (Profile, Report - Chicago Booth), 9 (Paper by author - PLOS One), 14 (News - IIMB), 15 (News - King’s College), 17 (Report - US Congress)Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, criterium 7 of WP:NACADEMIC is clearly met with extensive and diverse media coverage in more than one occurrences. Meeting one of the criteria is enough for academic notability.

JamesKH76 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to mention the extensive and diverse media coverage that Prateek Raj has received for his substantial impact outside academia, apart from the promotional, Op-ed, routine coverage of reports presented to governments and interview sources. To be precise, please highlight his substantial impact . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Morton Mackay

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

Unable to verify a single fact. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I was planning to update the article to a modern standard but can't find anything. Nothing. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator. We can't even consider notability until we have a pass of verifiability. The book exists and its back cover gives some vague details about his life [6] but not exactly matching any particulars in the article. The one working archive footnote shows that someone named "William Mackay" earned a certain honor but that's all we learn, and the name is so common even in combination with the middle name (not given in this footnote) that we have no idea whether it's the same one. See e.g. [7] for another William Morton Mackay with different dates. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability established. Search yielded no real significant coverage/references. Coldupnorth (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Parker (academic)

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

Non notable academic. The only non broken references are generic or links to university faculty pages, and it appears to be used self promotionally. The subjects high h-index on Google Scholar is the result of her sharing a name with a different researcher. --Spacepine (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I used IAbot to fix a broken reference. Probably notable as co-editor of an academic journal, Labour and Industry (1030-1763), although Wikipedia does not have an article on the journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, I thought I’d draw your attention to this article and suggest that an article rescue is as legitimate as creating a new one. Schwede 66 10:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Schwede66. I'll have a go at sorting out that mess of a publication list for a start. First glance at her uni profile suggests to me that she is notable (full professor is not an easy ask in New Zealand, where named chairs are not the norm), and A ranked in PBRF is a significant achievement and not something I think they'd let her say on her page if it wasn't true. DrThneed (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wrt notability I think she is notable in her field. The Big Issues In Employment is in its second edition, and was made broader in scope for the second edition. That, the chief co-editorship, the ILEA Committee membership and the leadership of a large international research collaboration (not mentioned on the page, I will add) all contribute to notability.
Wrt to improving the page: Noting that I have built her a Scholia to contain all the pubs that I've removed from the page. I've divided what's left into type of publication (as I think that is helpful for readers), and selected the publications that ResearchGate/Scopus/Google suggest are most highly cited. I'm not at all wedded to this selection though if other editors have opinions. DrThneed (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable in her field --ProudWatermelon (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to be based primarily on secondary sources and there does not appear to be enough secondary coverage for an article. The only secondary source about her is too brief to create a proper article from. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article certainly needs some help by someone who knows more I do, but I think it can be kept for now. Bduke (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Clearly a consensus to Keep but in AFD discussions, we don't need editors stating that the subject is notable. Our opinions do not matter. We need reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability, especially with a BLP. I see this article is referenced and a source review might help with this evaluation process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1 and 2 are her thesis and university profile. Ref 3 is a study she peer reviewed. Ref 4 appeared to be decent secondary coverage, although not enough for an article; however it is a contributor piece by 'Fusework Media' and I am not able to ascertain if this is a reliable source or not, their website is here: [8]. Ref 5 and 6 are employer profiles. Refs 7 and 8 are work she has done, with the news source being a statement from her in relation to her news, nothing here can be used to support a biography. Ref 9 and 10 are again, just studies/journals she has worked on and have no useful information to extract. 11 is just another employer biography. Ref 12 is an autobiography/self-description. Ref 13 is mention of something she is working on but it is just trivial and simply mentions her name as being involved on it and gives us nothing to write about her. Ref 14 is just a name mention that she won an award.

I do not see these sources as being adequate to satisfy the notability requirements. (WP:WHYN) Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Hershcovich

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

I cannot find independent sources with significant coverage suitable to meet WP:NBASIC, and I cannot find evidence to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPROF. I have looked under both the article name and "Arie Hershkowitz", the name given on the CV in reference 1. Mgp28 (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Israel. Mgp28 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His name is אריה הרשקוביץ. Most of his research is under Arie Herscovici, with other sources under Arie Hershcovich and Arie Hershkowitz. אריה has many spellings as well but hopefully that part is more consistent for this Arie. gidonb (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. Using "Arie Herscovici" I'm still not seeing enough independent coverage to make me think the article meets the appropriate notability criteria. An attempt at using his name in Hebrew with Google Translate seemed to bring up news stories about people with the same name who are not him, but I will be interested to know if there are sources in Hebrew that show notability. Mgp28 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are fairly common. Hershkowitz is the status quo name in English, French, and German. Herșcovici is the Romanian spelling. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Gong

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

It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2018 PhD and assistant professor with a handful of citations. A prize for undergraduate work does not grant notability, nor does the CAREER grant. Performance on the IMO might tend to meet GNG, if it were widely covered by reliable independent sources, but about all I found was a passing mention in Wired. [9] Recently deleted by PROD and undeleted by request on WP:RFU. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. No evidence yet of significant achievement WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, Puerto Rico, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm very much in favor of showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, but the pedestal needs to be something they are already standing on, not something we place in front of them as an obstacle to trip over. She has not yet had the impact in post-student research needed for WP:PROF; although people at this point in their career can sometimes pass, doing so typically takes work with extraordinary impact and major prizes. Instead she is on a promising academic career track and if she keeps it up I would expect her to pass WP:PROF eventually, but eventually is not now. That leaves the IMO accomplishments and Schafer prize, which are separate enough to save the article from WP:BIO1E but would require in-depth coverage of her accomplishments in independent media for WP:GNG-based notability. I don't see that independent coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, I agree with all of the above. Like virtually all assistant professors, this is WP:TOOSOON.Qflib (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After an unsuccessful search for independent news coverage, I have to agree with the delete !votes. Spacepine (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as David Eppstein notes she has IMO accomplishments which don't have in-depth coverage but do have a couple of sentences in three reliable secondary sources. Agree she doesn't have enough yet for WP:PROF but may for WP:GNG depending how notable the math olympiad accomplishments are. Nnev66 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not about significance of accomplishments at all. It is about coverage of those accomplishments in multiple reliable sources, each published independently of the article subject and the events they describe, and with in-depth coverage of the article subject. What sources do you think contribute towards that criterion? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the two I was thinking of. I found a third but didn’t add it to the page because I wasn’t sure it would matter. Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I saw someone added a NYTimes reference which I added to my list below. I changed my recommendation from “Weak keep” to “Keep”. There has been much better sourcing since the beginning of this discussion so I encourage folks who voted earlier to have another look. Nnev66 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entirety of the coverage in the NYTimes about Gong, a sentence only half about her: "Since then, two female high school students, Alison Miller, from upstate New York, and Sherry Gong, whose parents emigrated to the United States from China, have made the United States team (they both won gold)." That is definitely not an in-depth source in the sense required by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a second sentence later on: “Ms. Miller, who is 22 and recently graduated from Harvard, and Ms. Gong, 19 and a Harvard sophomore, both cite Ms. Wood as their role model.” I had noted earlier that none of the references I found have more than two sentences about Gong - you had asked me to list the reliable secondary sources so I did. My original question was whether IMO achievements are notable - they have been covered in top sources. Nnev66 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable", in the context of an AfD, means that there exist reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, not merely that "they have been covered in top sources". So you found a second half-sentence in one source; two half-sentences is still not significant coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These four references have more coverage of the subject. Three were written to highlight winning the Alice T. Schafer Prize. Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timmerman, Michelle B. (December 10, 2010). "Sherry Gong". The Harvard Crimson.

"Sherry Gong named Clay Olympiad Scholar". Clay Mathematics Institute. June 27, 2005. Archived from the original on 2012-05-11.

"Alice T. Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman 2011". awm-math.org. Association for Women in Mathematics.

"Math In The News | Sherry Gong Receives 2011 Alice T. Schafer Prize". Mathdl.maa.org. Mathematical Association of America. 2011-01-14. Archived from the original on 2012-03-08.

Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McGuire, Annie; Collins, Donald (24 July 2002). "Mind-boggling games as the whiz-kids limber up for Glasgow Maths Olympiad". The Herald. ProQuest 332893451.

"Rising Stars". Science. 317 (5842): 1153. 31 August 2007. doi:10.1126/science.317.5842.1153c.

Rimer, Sara (10 October 2008). "Math Skills Suffer in U.S., Study Finds". The New York Times.
Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A coverage in Chinese media was added.
"美国华裔女孩5次参加国际数学奥赛3次拿奖". news.sohu.com, 2007-08-12.

24.107.3.211 (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 24.107.3.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is Sherry Gong's mother. I saw your discussion about media coverage of Sherry Gong. I will not vote because of the conflict of interest, but I would like to contribute some information about in depth coverage about her that was in independent media in Puerto Rico, specifically, El Nuevo Dia (Puerto Rico's most circulated newspaper, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nuevo_D%C3%ADa) and The San Juan Star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_San_Juan_Daily_Star).

This coverage haven't been put online, but I have photos of the articles:

1. August 2, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 22. See

https://ibb.co/FqhjzCX

2. August 3, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 3. See

https://ibb.co/qMDPKGd

3. August 5, 2001: The San Juan Star, page 10. See

https://ibb.co/Jmd7Spn

4. September 16, 2003: El Nueva Dia, page 78. See

https://ibb.co/TH0N4Nz Sanjuanli (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Sherry Gong's mother. I hope she will become a regular contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately the only link of hers that I have been get to looks just like local Churnalism and is not enough to pass GNG. Of course, it is accepted by editors here that WP:Prof is failed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree. Not of welcoming Sherry Gong's mother and hoping she contributes to Wikipedia as I agree with that. But The San Juan Star article does not read like churnalism to me. The story has a human interest angle but it's written by a reporter who used to work for the Associated Press and provides significant coverage of Gong winning a silver medal at the IMO at age 11 when she was on the Puerto Rican team. It adds to the other IMO coverage of Gong. Nnev66 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. San Juan Star article is about Sherry got Silver medal and a Special Award for Original Solution at 2001 Math Olympiads for Central American & Caribbean, not for IMO. There is an article on El Nueva Dia talking about Sherry got Bronze medal on IMO 2003. Sanjuanli (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome and comments. I don't know which page you can not see. So I post them from another site. (El Nuevo Dia is considered Puerto Rico's newspaper of record.)

It seems I can not post here--so I post them in the Talk page. Sanjuanli (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gong is the only U.S. woman who won medals in both IMO and IPhO. This achievement qualifies her for a page. Significant improvements have been made on the page. The sections about IMO performance and coaching are rewritten with more details and independent references included. In the career section, Gong's notable contributions to mathematical research are included too. 128.252.229.153 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The research contributions are far too early in the subject's career to meet any of the eight criteria described in WP:NPROF. It's virtually impossible for an assistant professor to meet that standard and so WP:GNG is the only possibility. Qflib (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 128.252.229.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Just add my two cents to this debate. I think Sherry Gong can be truthfully characterized as a rising star who is known for her exceptional contributions to the mathematical community, particularly in inspiring and supporting young women in mathematics. Alongside Melanie Wood and Allison Miller, Sherry is one of the few female students to have represented the USA in the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) before 2024. Her accolades include one gold, two silver, and one bronze medal at the IMO, along with a silver medal at the International Physics Olympiad (IPhO). Since then, she has been instrumental in training and mentoring female students for the International Math Olympiads, the European Girls’ Math Olympiad (EGMO) and the China Girls Math Olympiad (CGMO). Her efforts have made a significant impact on the next generation of young women in mathematics. Her success has been covered by prominent media outlets in both the USA and China, including The New York Times, The Atlantic, the Herald (Glasgow), Science, and Sohu.

In short, I think what distinguishes Sherry from other rising stars is that she serves as a role model for American female students pursuing careers in mathematics and science. From this perspective, her impact on the mathematics community is in fact long-lasting. 67.252.7.30 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to support those claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the comment! Here are the sources. Some may be duplicating what was already mentioned above. Sherry may not be at the spot light of the coverage, but the importance of her role should be evident.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/education/10math.html (NY Times)

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209 (IMO record)

https://www.aapt.org/olympiad2006/ (IPhO record)

https://www.ams.org/news?news_id=836 (assistant coach)

https://www.egmo.org/people/person110/ (Leader, Deputy Leader)

https://www.myscience.org/news/wire/cmu_hosts_new_math_camp_for_high_school_girls-2022-cmu (math camp coach)

https://www.news-gazette.com/wkio/vipology-single/html_9787332c-8a77-11ec-84d7-235488f5ac90.html?id=114973&category=girl-power (math camp coach)

https://www.g2mathprogram.org/staff (G2 program for female students)

https://math.virginia.edu/2019/09/sherry-gong-lunch/ (AWM meeting) 67.252.7.30 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A chat over sandwiches is not a significant event in the life of an academic. Any time a scientist from another school comes to my university to present a colloquium talk for the physics department, we take them to lunch, and we invite students so they can have a casual conversation with the visitor. Talking up the importance of an event like that does Gong no favors. Indeed, it makes it sound like she is being hyped up by a public-relations crew that has no understanding of mathematics.

The G2 website is not an independent source. Anybody can put up a website and say things about themselves. Who, other than the G2 program, has written about the G2 program? Likewise, the "myscience.org" item is just a press release, a type of source that does us basically no good whatsoever, and on top of that, it doesn't even give Gong a single full sentence. The "news-gazette.com" page is even worse: it's a recycled press release, just scraped and churned so they can have some text on their website.

I'm all for showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, as David Eppstein put it above, but all we've got right now is fluff. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that we frequently take colloquium speakers to lunch. But it is rare that we invite a speaker for the purpose of meeting with students. This occurs only when the speaker has something exceptional that would benefit the students. Is it not so? 67.252.7.30 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although such things are very nice, they are almost never notable - and I've been invited to speak at universities for the sole purpose of meeting with students myself, and I am not notable. The only thing that would make it notable would be if it was covered by multiple independent, mainstream sources. So if the Boston Herald and the New York Times covered the colloquium event with focused articles on the colloquium then I'd agree that it was significant, but this is not the case. Please see WP:N.

Incidentally, can you please explain what you mean by "we?" Do you have a connection to the subject of the article? Qflib (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.252.7.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 128.194.2.54 has made few or no other edits other than to initiate a WP:PROD for Sherry Gong which led to this AfD discussion. The IP address is associated with Texas A&M University where the subject of the article is currently a professor. How much if at all does this matter? Nnev66 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have little enough to do with Texas A&M, and made my own independent assessment of notability before this nomination, which I take responsibility for. The answer to your question is "not at all" -- even if the IP was a banned user, WP:PROXYING would apply. I remain unconvinced that the series of passing mentions and non-independent coverage adds up to a pass of WP:BASIC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving my comment to where you thought it should go as I wasn't sure and for your answer to my question. I would have thought The Harvard Crimson or Mathematical Association of America were independent of the subject but I assume because the subject attended Harvard and received medals in math competitions they are not orthogonal. What about the Mom's scans of articles from Puerto Rican newspapers? It would make sense that there would be more excitement about the subject in Puerto Rico as she was the first from there to win a medal. Unfortunately I couldn't find The San Juan Star article in newspapers.com or Proquest. As I re-read WP:BASIC, it seems to me that the mentions in The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Science (magazine) are more than trivial. It's true there's no in-depth coverage but they are more than trivial in-passing mentions but rather acknowledgments of accomplishment at the International Math Olympiad. Nnev66 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local news coverage celebrating a local person's achievements, however admirable, is not enough for WP:NOTABLE. Also see WP:SUSTAINED. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Qflib (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak keep Per meeting criteria #2 of WP:NPROF. CaptainAngus (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF#C2 explicitly excludes student awards, even at the graduate school level. See the specific criteria notes, 2c. The only awards here are at the high school (IMO) and undergraduate (Schafer) levels. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't catch that. I changed my reco to weak keep, under criteria #7 of WP:NPROF, in that her unique achievement of winning both IMO and IPhO. CaptainAngus (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that these gold medals are not "winning", right? There were for instance 58 gold medalists at the 2024 IMO. Also, that is not even close to the purpose of PROF#C7, which is about making research contributions that have a significant impact on society, or being famous as a leading expert on some topic, not about achieving a good score in a high school competition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you add the [failed verification] after "tying for seventh place out of 536 participants"

This fact is showed in reference [4]

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209

In year 2007 of the above reference, it shows that her score was 32, rank 7, and relative 98.84%

Could you please add reference [4] at the place? Thank you. Sanjuanli (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are interpreting my [failed verification] tag incorrectly, despite the tag having a clearly stated rationale. It was entirely about the fact that, at the time I added the tag, the article claimed that she was one of four female US participants based on a source that listed three female US medalists, also, no, I will not participate in refbombing the article with tiny minutiae based on sources that have no depth of coverage of the subject. That is neither the way to build a Wikipedia article of any quality nor to find notability for the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed @David Eppstein's [failed verification] tag when I found a journal article on "The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High Achievement Levels" reference which noted only three girls had participated on US teams in IMO (as of 2010) and re-wrote sentences to match sources. I was the one who moved the [failed verification] to the line about tying for seventh place out of 536 participants as this is not mentioned in the reference next to this line. Since reference [4] is already used in the article and it supports rank 7, score 32 I went ahead and added it at the end of the line. Since the source was already used once in the article I figured it was OK to use it again as it wasn't adding to the already long list of references that don't add to notability on their own and make it harder for editors to evaluate the article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article talk page and not on this AfD, right? Qflib (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Keep - good arguments on both sides. There's a bit of too-soon/one-more-coverage-needed, but there's also more risk to learning and to the encyclopedia if we delete and we have missed a source. The Math DL/Math in the News coverage ended up being the tipping point for me to move from weak delete to weak keep. We have one math organization covering with a full article an award given by a different math organization. This meets my (and I think WP's) definition of a significant prize, and not a run-of-the-mill student award. That plus the notability-from-one-thousand small articles is a keep for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator and David Epstein. jraimbau (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that some alternative to deletion is merited here. Perhaps merge/redirect to International Mathematical Olympiad#History, as the subject's historic performance there is noteworthy for the event. Alternatively, move to draft iff there is reason to believe that further information can be developed supporting article-worthiness. BD2412 T 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a redirect / lightly merge outcome, perhaps to the "Gender gap" section of the International Mathematics Olympiad article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with David Eppstein's comments. She seems to be a very good mathematician, perhaps in the future a wikipage will be more suitable. Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger D. Nelson

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

I'm having trouble finding secondary sources independent of this subject. WP:FRINGE is also a concern here. 0xchase (talk) 14:17, 16 August 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 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might pass AUTHOR with book reviews [10], [11], but I wonder if those are about the same person; wiki article is about a parapsychologist, this seems to be about a more mainstream psychologist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The first review you list is in Journal of Scientific Exploration, which (searching WP:FRINGEN archives) appears not to be considered reliable. The second is from the Society for Psychical Research, also of dubious reliability. Per WP:FRINGE, we need mainstream coverage of this material, not affirmations from other believers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AUTHOR is just passing book reviews, no matter how good or bad they are. I suppose they aren't RS? Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they're positive or negative is not so important, but whether they're reliable is important. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe publications aren't a reliable source of information, regardless of the valence of the review 0xchase (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this and improve it. It is the way of the future; the Global Consciousness Project is now in it second phase and is set to be a vital source of information about the interaction of consciousness with the material world. Those who cling to materialism are a dying breed. 197.88.230.219 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant the notability or lack of sources here Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, for articles on fringe subjects, we must base them on reliably-published mainstream sources, we have no independent sources at all in our article, I don't think the two reviews listed above are mainstream, and I could not find better in my searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of usable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the nonsense his work is, there does appear to be coverage of Nelson and his work over the course of multiple years. Some examples:

So Just What Makes the Earth Move? by JD Reed - The New York Times
The day the world got smaller by Claudia Smith Brinson (Page 2) - The State
Far out: The Global Mind by Mark Pilkington - The Guardian
When all earth grieves: Science finds astonishing consequences of our pain by Sarah Gibb - The Vancouver Sun
Shared tragedies breeding global consciousness: study - The StarPhoenix
Cambridge Institute Delves Into Paranormal Phenomena by Kenneth Chang - The Tampa Tribune
Roger Nelson’s “Global Consciousness” Does Not Exist by Dominique J. Persoons - European Journal of Theology and Philosophy

The exact sort of paranormal work he does appears to be the kind that gets the clicks and notice from the news media. Silver seren^C 23:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most or any of these pass both WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV

Some of these uncritically embrace the paranormal stuff and clearly aren't mainstream
Most of these sources are primarily covering the Global Consciousness Project and only make passing mention of Nelson. The GCP already has its own article, and Nelson doesn't get inherited notability.

0xchase (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming mainstream major newspapers aren't "mainstream" just because they are uncritical? Whether they embrace a fringe topic or criticize it is irrelevant. It is significant coverage regardless. And it is coverage of his research, which is relevant for coverage toward him, since while he's fringe, this still falls under notability for academics. And, for this fringe field, he is clearly both a discussed and noted expert that has received significant news focus. Silver seren^C 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion --Altenmann >talk 21:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC) delete The refs listed by Silver screen above are sensationalist blurbs and other not very reliable sources. In topics like this an encyclopedia needs references from mainstream experts. --Altenmann >talk 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your opinion on "topics like this" is irrelevant toward notability, including for those of academics, fringe or not. Are you seriously claiming entire multi-page articles in major newspapers are "sensationalist blurbs"? Please explain how significant coverage for notability works in your view, Altenmann. Silverseren^C 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didnt pay attention that some texts are really long. Reclusing for now; lazy to do research. --Altenmann >talk 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps we should redirect to Global Consciousness Project?. 0xchase (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the assessment of my sources above, if they aren't RS, we don't have much of anything left for notability. I don't think a redirect would help, I question the notability of the Project as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What assessment? I'm seeing none above and no actual discussion of the sources I presented. Especially if you're claiming that large page news articles don't count toward even notability of the project in question. How exactly are you determining notability, Oaktree b? Silver seren^C 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Epstein commented on the two sources directly below my first comment to !keep, which I've since changed. I was talking about my first vote. I've not reviewed the other, newer ones identified further down. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might take a look at them later, I have no time to do so now. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Consciousness Project. The NY Times, Vancouver Sun, and Guardian are good sources, however their articles are primarily about the project, not him. A few sentences (maybe a paragraph) introducing him using those sources found by Silver Seren would actually enhance that article. That would fill in his educational background (a short list of degrees) and perhaps something about his beliefs/goals. But for him I don't see SIGCOV for a separate article. Lamona (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Consciousness Project, in order for him to get coverage, we would need WP:DEPTH, which we don't have here.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silverseren’s sources. He seems to have received SIGCOV and sources that debunk his views. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources only have WP:DEPTH for the Global Consciousness Project, not Nelson himself. 0xchase (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Non-notable fringe. Merge Change my mind. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Consciousness Project. The reliable sources that have been identified have WP:DEPTH about the project, not Nelson. 0xchase (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments are still divided between Keep, Delete and Merge. A further review of sources, and whether they focus on the article subject or projects that he has worked on, would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Ali Akbar Rezai (via WP:PROD on 6 September 2024)
Bernard O'Hara (via WP:PROD on 1 September 2024)
Hamid Abbasi (via WP:PROD on 1 September 2024)