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[edit]

Frank Cowell[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NECONOMIST, could not find any coverage to establish notability. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of citations on Google Scholar, enough for WP:PROF#C1, and plenty of reviews of his many books, enough for WP:AUTHOR. I don't think being a full professor at LSE provides automatic notability through WP:PROF#C5 or otherwise, but it is certainly suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Read[edit]

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

Not seeing much to satisfy WP:BIO: no reviews of his books that I can find, and the Stevie Awards are, according to its own article, won by about 30-40% of its nominees. (I have also nominated the awards for deletion too.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Delete. Not notable. I'm not impressed by the list of prizes, but that may be because I don't know much about prizes in the business world. The opening sentence says he is a researcher, but one can search in vain for information about what research he has done. Athel cb (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hasan Osama[edit]

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

Suspected terrorist, with no claims to notability and sourcing does not indicate passing WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh[edit]

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

The author challenged the draftification done by Zinnober9. Based on my check, I don’t think the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criteria. I looked for reliable sources but did not find any. If anyone finds sources in Hindi or other languages, you are welcome to share them here. His books are also not notable. In my opinion, there is no need for draftification anymore. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, and Bihar. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. Sources are just poor and unreliable such as using Wikipedia Commons to source on his early life and education. The author's achievement is not significant or noteworthy to satisfy notability and to warrant a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my rudimentary findings, this person does not meet WP:GNG as there is little to no coverage of the author, and my impression of most of the sources existing in this article/draft were from this author's works; which is problematic for reliably sourcing any claims or facts stated within. I realize that there could be reliable sources in Hindi that would support this draft, but I do not know Hindi, and I am not personally interested in this subject. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As someone who made a few edits on the article, I was debating between moving it back to draft or bringing it to AfD, but since it's been brought to AfD already, I'll cast my vote. Also note that this link here of one of his works listed on the page is nominated for deletion due to possible copyvio and false rationale for uploading (i.e. not own work). Procyon117 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmudul Hasan Gunovi[edit]

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

Suspected terrorist fails WP:GNG. No coverage beyond arrest. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Coverage does not transcend his arrest. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winfried W. Weber[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NPROF. There are references to articles written by the subject, however there is no secondary coverage of the subject as a journalist. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Management. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: citations to work seem negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: This article doesn't quite meet WP:NPROF. While it mentions the subject's own writings, there aren't enough independent sources discussing their journalistic career. Waqar💬 17:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Shirazy[edit]

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

I see nothing that persuades me that he passes WP:BIO, nor WP:NPROF, nor WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor WP:NATHLETE. A draft of this name already exists. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of resume-material involving his works, miscellaneous papers, work experience, and poetry writing, but nothing that seems to definitively secure his notability. Closest thing might be his (failed?/successful?) candidacy for the assembly. The recent COI activity doesn't help either. GuardianH (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be part of a cross multiple wiki spamming exercise by the creating editor. There is a possibility that this is self promotion, whcih I rate currently at a 0.75 probability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bastien[edit]

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

Cited sources do not establish notability, and could not find anything more convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in a Korean source [1] and reviews of a book he co-authored [2] and [3] Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT ref does not seem to be a review from what I can see. The second is a vanity publisher & therefore effectivlt self-published.TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Notable, sources, has written a book. --McSyl (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having written a book isn't enough to meet the relevant standard. Indeed, the usual rule-of-thumb is that an author has to have received multiple reviews for each of multiple books in order to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramil Hashimli[edit]

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

Delete. This is a promotional page create by Atakhanli (the user was blocked-the reason for the blocking was noted that the editor was engaged in paid activities.). There is no nearly enough RS about the subject to establish notability.--Correspondentman (talk) 09:58, 27 June 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 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The {{subst:afd2}} formatting was not fully implemented here; I have fixed this. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Medicine, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see anything here that would satisfy WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Qflib (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Mangano[edit]

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

Draftify moved unilaterally to main space when unready. I think the subject might potentially have some notability, but the article is not written to show it, nor referenced to show it. Flagged as failing WP:GNG after arriving in mainspace by the editor who moved it to mainspace. Being charitable, this feels as if the move were in some manner accidental. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Not ready for mainspace. Other than one lawsuit in 2007 (which isn't mentioned in the article prose), the references seem to just be his published research papers. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. New enough for this to be a reasonable choice, sources inadequate for current content, but with some possible case for notability (possibly through WP:PROF#C1). That criterion does not require depth of sourcing for notability itself, but it does not eliminate the need for all claims in our article to be properly sourced. In particular all claims of having invented or discovering something important should be backed up by reliable independent sources that verify those claims; his own publications are not adequate for that kind of claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (the AFC reviewer who originally declined the submission). I do think the subject could meet the GNG, as there is some coverage (I have 1E concerns as it relates to the fact that a lot of the coverage will be primary in regards to the various lawsuits) but that is not demonstrated here and I have doubts that its demonstrated presently and the I have non-encyclopedic concerns about the article in mainspace presently. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hignell[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket writer. Article was previously deleted in 2007, but there is still no evidence of the subject's notability. – Pee Jay 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cricket, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. Suriname0 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on a quick search, doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I found this review of one of his books. Suriname0 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, History, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Suriname0 found a review of A 'Favourit' Game, reviewed by Jack Williams. I'll add to that a review of Rain stops play, reviewed by Robert Thorpe, doi:10.1256/wea.112.02. But I'm doubtful that [4] is sufficiently reliable, so that gives us only two reviews. I'd want more than that for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His books are reviewed in serious publications and he is generally considered the pre-eminent historian of Welsh cricket. Sammyrice (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surprised to see this nom. Hignell is one of the best known and pre-eminent living cricket historians. Meets WP:GNG. AA (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Janisch[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Autobiography translated from dewiki. Perhaps the subject is notable, but this is not the way to an article compliant with WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you @Joe Roe: for starting a discussion of deletion. There is currently a discussion because of a WP:COISELF problem: The article in its current form was created as a translation of the German article de:Maximilian_Janisch by myself, the subject of the article. COI disclosures can be found at the article talk page, as well as my user page. I agree that the process through which the article was created is unfortunate as I should have suggested it through WP:AfC. My apologies for this mistake. Nonetheless I will argue that deletion is not the appropriate reaction below.

I have suggested steps to resolve the COI problem at the article talk page. I will now argue that deletion of the article is not the right thing to do since none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met. Instead I suggest WP:ATD, specifically editing and discussion. It would be great to have other Wikipedians ensure that the article is written based on solid evidence and from a WP:NPOV.

I now provide reasoning why I believe that none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met.

Speedy deletion criteria are not met.
Copyright violations are not present.
Vandalism is not present.
The article is not spam, notability has been discussed in a deletion discussion in the German Wikipedia, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._Februar_2018#Maximilian_Janisch_(LAE), in 2018, when there were many less independent references about me than now. An incomplete list of such references can be found through a Google Search.
Content forks do not apply.
Article is well-referenced and satisfies WP:Reliability.
See point 4.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.

Best, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just my thoughts- the subject is clearly notable, with significant coverage in many locations, as per https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/dok/srf-dok-maximilians-welt-aus-dem-leben-eines-hochbegabten https://magazin.nzz.ch/empfehlungen/maximilian-janisch-ist-der-juengste-doktorand-der-schweiz-ld.1733390 etc. etc. especially in Swiss media- all reliable sources, all clearly about him specifically. Having read the article and considering the conflict of interest, I definitely think the article could be improved and could be considered a little too in-depth and perhaps overly supportive of the subject, but I definitely feel like the article should not be deleted. I would perhaps suggest that Mr. Janisch consider editing articles in other sections of Wikipedia rather than his own article? Doing this only makes these deletion arguments even more painful and difficult to reconcile.Spiralwidget (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it follows the general notability guideline. OhHaiMark (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I have edited the article significantly in an attempt to remove material that I consider unjustified or not cited in reliable sources. Among other points:

Removal of Scientist infobox, as currently Janisch is known for his child prodigy status and coverage associated with that; replaced with infobox:Person.

Removal of Masters Thesis title; not cited reliably and did not receive significant coverage. If one is completing a PhD, you would expect that to take precedence as the thesis in the infobox.

Removal of Bibliography- not cited, and none of the titles are notable.

Change to the opening paragraph; replacement of "mathematician" with "child prodigy" and inclusion of more relevant reasons why the subject has received coverage

Removal of mentions of advocacy for young people attending University; links with some of these organisations with the subject are not justified enough, and in addition this advocacy has not received significant coverage

Removal of his mother (unreliable source, unpublished, from 1992)

Removal of his CV and website as sources

Removal of German citizenship; uncited

Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries; no need to include dates etc.

Removal of personality traits section- not relevant.

Removal of weblinks.

Please feel free to revert, continue editing, etc. if you feel these edits are not warranted. Hopefully the article now has (close to) a neutral point of view. I thought it was important to do this, as if the article is deleted I have experienced that it becomes exponentially harder to justify the article in the future; I therefore would really recommend keeping the article in this edited form, or continuing edits if you feel they would be conducive.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Spiralwidget: I will answer to your edits here since I think editing the article myself would now be very much frowned upon. I would prefer continuing this discussion on the article talk page, however, so I have posted a copy of the text below there.

First off, thank you very much for your extensive work aiming at having the article be written from a WP:NPOV. Here is what I think of each of the edits:

Removal of Scientist infobox: Agree (it was not added by me).
Removal of Master's Thesis title: Agree.
Removal of Bibliography: Disagree with. The book Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik has been published in a very renowned venue (Annals of Mathematics Studies) and furthermore in the two years since its publishing as a preprint it has been quite influential in the field of mathematical fluid dynamics (see e.g. Google Scholar). We could also discuss the relevance of my autobiography. I feel that mentioning a book written by the subject of a Wikipedia article is routine and would be justified in this case.
Change of opening paragraph: Agree.
Removal of mentions of advocacy: Unfortunate but ok.
Removal of his mother: Strongly disagree. Her dissertation exists as a book, cf. Katalog für die Bibliotheken der Universität Heidelberg, you can order it here [5]. It was an influential work in its research area with over 400 citations listed on Google Scholar. Furthermore, mentioning both parents in the article about a "child prodigy" seems very reasonable.
Removal of his CV and website as sources: Agree.
Removal of German citizenship: Disagree, I am a German citizen. How would you suggest I prove my German citizenship?
Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries: Fine.
Removal of personality traits section: I very much agree with this (I took those over from the German article but they were not added by me).
Removal of weblinks: Fine, although I believe it is not unusual to have links to Webpages in Wikipedia articles.

--Maximilian Janisch (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.

I feel like I do have to respond here, though I do not think it is really too appropriate for you to respond to every point in this deletion nomination- it makes it feel like a negotiation between the subject of an article and Wikipedia editors et al. (with me as the metaphorical leading author). I think it is very hard to maintain a neutral point of view if you continue commenting on the deletion discussion thread. I will make it clear that the default in this situation is a delete, and you are not helping by being so deeply involved. With that being said, I think I should respond to the points you provide here.

Removal of Bibliography: Janisch was not the leading author on Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form would be my counterargument. I see his point on his autobiography, and it is in fact used as a source in the article already. I could see the section therefore being added.

Removal of his mother: I see the point that the dissertation was an influential work in her research field. However, I would like to see a source linking Janisch with Janisch before it is added back to the article- I would expect one to exist.

Removal of German citizenship: I would suggest that someone would have to find a third-party reliable source that states clearly that he holds German citizenship.

I also would express doubt that Janisch will be able to keep his hands off the metaphorical editorial cookie jar of editing his own article. Just my two cents. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my point-by-point reply came off as overly involved. I assure you that I am acting in WP:GF and am happy to use whatever venue you suggest to reply to content-wise issues related to my article (I'd like to do this on the article talk page) and will refrain from further interacting with this deletion discussion unless absolutely necessary --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's best. Let's be clear though: this is not "your article." Please see WP:OWN. If the article is not deleted. you should completely abstain from making any further changes to the article to avoid any further COI. Instead, post requests for edits on the article's Talk page and one of us will get to it. Qflib (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is only a graduate student and none of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied here. One could make a case for general notability under WP:BIO, but since this is a WP:AUTO case, the article is highly promotional in nature (I'd say a borderline G11 case) and notability is mainly asserted on scholastic/academic grounds in the article, I feel that 'delete' is the correct outcome here at this stage. If and when the subject makes substantial research impact, the matter can be revisited. Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This subject clearly and obviously does not pass WP:PROF. For someone this early in their academic career, I think significant international recognition of a major result (at the level of the Salem Prize, say) would be necessary to overcome the usual obstacles, that the work has not had time to accumulate recognition in the normal way (citations) and the researcher is too junior to disentangle their work from that of their academic advisors. The only case for notability is through WP:GNG and through media coverage of the subject as a child prodigy. All that said, I don't read German, the language of most of the coverage, so I don't feel comfortable making an evaluation of notability that way. I have some concern that the many sources may really all be echoes of a single story and that we should consider WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 and 15 are directly about the subject, in RS. I'm not sure what else is required, a rewrite perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I'm not contesting whether subject is notable either way (though David makes an interesting point above w.r.t. to WP:BLP1E). The argument for deletion is that this is an autobiography that would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have read the sources given in the article in German and French. I am knowledgeable about the education system in Switzerland. I confirm that Janisch had an absolutely extraordinary path through our schooling system. When he wanted to become a student at the ETH Zurich at an early age, he was not allowed to enter as a regular student due to a minimal age requirements of the ETH, of which I am an alumnus. Translation of a comment concerning Maximilian Janisch by Michael Hengartner, president of the University Zurich in 2018, quote: «I am glad that he had some more time for his personal development.» Hengarter is president of the ETH Board by now, the supervising administration of the ETHs in Zurich and Lausanne. It is exceptional that such a personality makes a comment about a particular student. ("Das Wunderkind an der Uni." In: "SonntagsBlick", October 14, 2018 (in German). Retrieved June 26, 2024) In my opinion, Janisch is an outstanding prodigy in mathematics who fulfills WP: GNG through WP:SIGCOV.--BBCLCD (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BBCLCD: May I ask what brought your attention to this discussion? – Joe (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting the academic notability standard and otherwise being only known for one event. Essentially, the problem is that if you cut out the puffery, nothing remains. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree WP:PROF does not apply to me. In response to WP:BIO1E please consider that news coverage about me started when I finished the final high school exams at age 9, der Spiegel, 2013, Die Welt, 2013, Tagesanzeiger, 2013. Then continued as me being France's youngest student Le Monde, 2015, Europe1, 2015, Tagesanzeiger, 2015. Then continued when I started the Master's at age 15 Sonntagsblick, 2019, and when I started my PhD at age 18 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2023. You may argue these stories are echoes of my high school exams, but considering WP:NOTBLP1E I find it hard to argue in favour of WP:BIO1E. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Zero pass of any categories of WP:Prof. No evidence of achievement yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Straightforward GNG pass, which trumps all special categories: as Maximilian Janisch points out in his latest comment above, there is extended coverage in multiple reliable sources (Blick being a possible exception) from 2013 to 2023. In addition, there are enough biographical details to write more than a cv. It's unfortunate that the article was written as an autobiography; I note that Spiralwidget has done some rewriting (summarised above) and may do more myself to make full use of the sources. But he's notable, so deletion and recreation is not appropriate, particularly since policy does not actually forbid autobiographies. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by Yngvadottir's reasoning –Tobias (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, although I think it is remarkably inappropriate for the creator to be the subject and for the subject to be participating in this debate. May this article wear the COI badge of shame for all time. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you mean the article "A major contributor to this article appears...", that should be removed if/when appropriate (though not by User:Maximilian Janisch). The talkpage cc, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the subject would not meet notability standards at all if it weren't for the subject's age. I do feel that this is an example of WP:BIO1E - the one event being the subject's age. Here, the press coverage for the student achieving at a series of young ages what would otherwise be nice, but non-notable, achievements (earning degrees, entering grad school) is the only thing that generates notability. Technically these could be viewed as separate events, although I personally don't see it that way - so that's GNG for you. Anyway, I hope that this subject's future is bright and many more reasons for their notability become clear in time. Qflib (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K. Davis (historian)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Can't find any other sources in an outside search other than one source in the article. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, United States of America, and Texas. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the unscholarly ring of some of his book titles I found thirteen published book reviews of four of the books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This military historian passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these reviews indicates that the books are NOT considered major contributions to the field. For example: "This book is a generally accessible book for a mid-brow audience as opposed to a scholarly work." (That's H-War) The Michigan Review states: "Serious students of military history, however, will find here neither a dependable reference book nor an original contribution to the scholarship of command across the ages." The two for Ends and Means are one page each, and one states "Its principle weakness lies in a failure to draw in literature on the Middle East, and especially the Arabic results in gaps and misconceptions. It is nevertheless a strong study of the modus operandi of the British in the area, and of the muddle and misinformation which lay behind their eventual success". This sounds to me like the reviewers are not seeing these books as being major contributions to the field. Nothing in NACADEMIC nor AUTHOR states that if a book (or a few books) get ANY reviews the author is notable. Both of those policies include much more rigorous criteria, and among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics. This person clearly fails that. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in NAUTHOR says anything about the reviews being positive, nor about the reviewed books being scholarly works. They merely have to provide depth of content about the books they review. Your quote "among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics" is completely false. There is nothing in our criteria that reflects that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the 8 criteria in WP:NACADEMIC and indicate which of those this person meets. I don't think he meets any of them. And note that nothing in academic nor author notability mentions book reviews. I don't know why this has become a thing here at AfD, but the mere fact of reviews wouldn't satisfy the policy criteria for either of those categories. If, however, you are looking to see whether a person has (as the policy says) "...made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" then what their colleagues say about their work is evidence.Lamona (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have I even tried to argue for a pass of WP:ACADEMIC? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:POLITICIAN? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:ATHLETE? Do you think that minor politicians who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as politicians, or that minor athletes who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as athletes? How about you address the criterion I am actually arguing for, WP:AUTHOR, instead of trying to make the ridiculous argument that being notable requires being notable for everything? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like you are going for #3 of AUTHOR. Here's the whole AUTHOR list:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I do not see that this person has created a "significant or well-known work" merely because it has been reviewed. I am leaning on the word "significant" and when a book is reviewed as not being dependable (as above) then I don't see it as "significant." As I said, just getting reviewed doesn't make it "significant" and if you're looking at "well-known" then low citations and low library holdings (the only number we have because we don't have access to sales figures) tell me that this greatly stretches the concept of well-known. Also, I'd like to mention WP:CIVIL. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4(c): The works have won significant critical attention. Perhaps you are having difficulty with the grammar of that criterion? The word "significant" is a description of the amount of critical attention the works have received, not of the works themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by way of passing the WP:AUTHOR bar. Reviews don't have to be positive; what matters is that attention was paid to the author's work. Nor do we require that the books being reviewed have to be scholarly in a narrow sense. We have articles on authors known for inaccuracy, popularization, and inaccurate popularization. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and probably WP:PROF#C1 as well based on number of reviews and multiple Oxford University Press books. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marco Magnani[edit]

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

Not particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
- Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [6] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [7] [8] [9] [10]
- Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [11] [12] [13]

Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [14][15] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [16] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTA AND WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet WP:NACADEMIC. All in all WP:TOOSOON. – Ploni^💬 00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. --hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like many good sources with significant coverage from 2019-2020. There is also a in-depth article from 2009. I think this establishes enough notability to keep the article. – notwally (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. BLP1E strongly applies here, and the subject does not meet any NPROF criteria. However, there is significant coverage in 2009, surrounding her name, that could be merged. Considering how often two sources with 3–4 sentences of routine, often non-independent or non-RS,[17][18] transfer coverage each, or even merely the unevidenced presumption that such sources exist,[19] [20] pass as "GNG" for athletes,[21] it's only fair that the far more extensive biographical coverage here would count for something. JoelleJay (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I don't feel strongly about this, and just weighing in because of the relist request and the chirps afterwards) -- the one article from 2009 in addition to all the 2019 articles makes me feel like it is somewhat more than a one-event coverage. There's no exemption for notability for "one thing", it's one event. So given the long time period of coverage, seems like a weak keep, but I can totally understand those who disagree. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Thibaut[edit]

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

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [22]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Faingold[edit]

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

I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – 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. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are in reliable sources. That's the point. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I've closed hundreds of AFD discussions and for academics, citation counts are routinely considered in discussing notability. They are not the only factor but they are a factor that shouldn't be casually dismissed as being arbitrary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:PROF#C1 based on citations which, yeah, like it or not, is the most common way of assessing whether someone meets WP:PROF#C1. Scopus lists 5746 citations to Faingold's papers which, in Wikipedianese, means that there are 5746 reliable sources covering Faingold's work. Most of these will be passing mentions but it is still incredibly unlikely that with more than five thousand potential sources we won't find enough to support a decent summary of his contributions to science. That's enough for an article (biographical details are nice to round it out, but not strictly necessary) and the core logic of WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper[edit]

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

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [23] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.

...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as "No consensus". As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Hallvard Lillehammer (via WP:PROD on 25 June 2024)