Deletion Sorting Project
Project page (talk) Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday edit · changes

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:

• To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

• Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
• 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
• You can also tag the AfD by adding

{{subst:delsort|Academics and educators}}<small>—~~~~</small>

to it, which will inform users 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.

• Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
• You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles, WP:PROF for the widely-used notability standard for academics. Other notability standards that may be of relevance include WP:SCIENCE, the notability guidelines for scientific research.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education.

Contents 1 Academics and educators 1.1 Bryan Shader 1.2 Walt de Heer 1.3 Dave Warwak 1.4 Wang Jiancheng 1.5 Peter Hudecki 1.6 Kisan Dhage 1.7 Krishna Kumar 1.8 Bernadette Clayton 1.9 Peter Swirski 1.10 Rodrigo Jokisch 1.11 James Noone 1.12 David Madore 1.13 George Udeani 1.14 Tzvi Blanchard 1.15 Elena Rumyantseva 1.16 Peter Maple 1.17 Afshin Shafiee 1.18 Brian Roper (academic) 1.19 Ernest Morrell 1.20 Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) 1.21 Yosef Babad (HTC) 1.22 Andrej Grubacic 2 Academics and educators Proposed deletions 3 Deletion Review 4 Relevant discussions

[edit] Academics and educators

[edit] Bryan Shader

Bryan Shader (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Bryan Shader" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article fails to address the requirements of WP:PROF. Examining Shader's biography on the University site and checking Google Scholar, I see one reasonably well-cited co-authored book and staff awards from the University but no evidence of the impact needed to address the requirements of PROF. There is little reason to expect that reliable sources will be found in the near future to address these criteria. Ash (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep on basis of WP:Prof #1 with GS cites of 145, 39, 38, 32..... h index = 13. Input from mathematicians would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

[edit] Walt de Heer

Walt de Heer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Walt de Heer" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This page looks great in design ... but I am not sure that it satisfies the notability criteria. In addition to being mentioned in a couple of newspapers and websites, only 2 of the prizes look good to me. Then I searched further. First, I found ~100 Scientists listed in Scientific American 50 in 2006. Not many of them have wikipages (I checked a dozen or two only), and among those who have, this Sci Am 50 is not even mentioned. "The Nanoscience prize" sounds great but this is not the Kavli Nanoscience Prize but an award given by an organizing committee of some conference! Basically, the best in a dancing competition during a summer camp. I do not mind to have extra pages on Wiki but I know many more professors who have got real prizes and distinctions but no wiki pages.

I am not sure but it is strange to see a rather average professor (for his age and his School/University) being listed on Wiki. Sicfriend (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. An h-index of 50 is hardly trivial and more than establishes notability in itself. --Googolit (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. In addition to the h-index data mentioned by Googolit he has three papers with over 1000 citations each in Google scholar, one of them solo-authored. He clearly passes WP:PROF #1, and also #5 due to his Regents' Professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. I agree with Googolit and David Eppstein. I just wish to add that who the "The Nanosize prize" is given to is not chosen among the participants of a conference. Awarded researchers are chosen among the research community and invited about half a year before the conference in order to receive the award by the "Atomically Controlled Surfaces, Interfaces and Nanostructures" organizing committee. Also, Sicfriend argument about other researchers and professors awarded with the same prize not having a Wikipedia entry would only be meaningful in order to establish the notability of this article, if all other professors not having an entry are actually not notable. The fact that other professors who deserve Wikipedia entries do not have them is not a criteria of notability for article deletion. --Slaute (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Obvious keep Strange nomination, it is unusual to see a new user master the intricacies of AfD so fast. In any case, this case is so obvious, that I think it is snowing heavily. --Crusio (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• For an explanation of this pointy nom, see the edit history of Andre Geim. --Crusio (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, I'm afraid. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

Gasupporter (talk · contribs) repeatedly vandalized the Geim page claiming that it was incorrect in attributing the discovery of graphene to Geim. The nominator has the appearance of someone in the Geim camp deciding to take revenge. Despite WP:AGF I think we should seriously consider the possibility that Gasupporter and the nominator are two sockpuppets of the same troll, trying to stir up trouble — why would someone who actually works in the labs of either of these highly successful scientists stoop to such juvenile tactics? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that there is a contentious discussion of priority on the graphene talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

• Speedy Keep, stick fork in it, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Googolit. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other related criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons clearly expressed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC).
• Keep although I despise pages written by close associates or maybe even by people themselves. Some references (see, e.g., [7]) are very specific and cannot be found if you are not working for this group. Oh, well. These days every professor wants his/her home page on Wikipedia. Importantly, please do not forget to donate to Wikipedia! KlausMn (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Google walt de heer > 2nd result > left side. You seem to have deep loyalties of your own ... --Googolit (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:PROF I can NOT believe that this was Walt de Heer himself craetingg the page (not so low) but obviously he encouraged one of his lieutenants (probably the guy who runs the graphene news blog in Georgia). No signature. Have to keep friendly relations. Sorry.Sicfriend (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• ... and I will exercise the same privilege. --Googolit (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• As someone who stands to what he writes and edits under his own name, I hope it is not necessary to detail what I think of the above two comments. --Crusio (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please closeGiven that the original nominator has now voted "keep" and that there has not a single !vote for deletion, I hope that someone will speedily close this improper nomination so that we can stop wasting out time. --Crusio (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Warwak

Dave Warwak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Dave Warwak" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

WP:BLP1E: person notable for only one event. He's a teacher who was fired for 'turning his classroom into a forum on veganism'; the only reliable sources are those reporting his initial firing, and the Illinois State Board of Education confirming it a year later. There are plenty more mentions of him on the Internet, but all of them are unreliable sources (blogs, YouTube, etc). Robofish (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that this is a classic case of BLP1E. The events of his dismissal and subsequent appeal received a fair amount of coverage, but it doesn't justify an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Dave Warwak seems very likely to remain a low-profile person, other than the firing incident, which seems to have been reported on primarily as a wacky human-interest-type story.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Not important. Not worth having on Wikipedia. I know we aren't lacking for space, but we should at least try to conserve here... --Tarage (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This article has also been the subject of vandalism, and not much else. This should be proof enough that it doesn't belong here. When was the last actual improvement made? --Tarage (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete As clearly outlined by others above, coverage of Warwak centers on a single event and therefore falls under WP:BLP1E. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC).
• Delete. The article itself basically says that his firing is his only claim to notability – obvious WP:BLP1E. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC).
• Delete per my original PROD, (although ideally correctly spelling "thing"). --kelapstick (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wang Jiancheng

Wang Jiancheng (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Wang Jiancheng" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Is this professor sufficiently notable? Nothing I see indicates that he is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I just added a footnote to prove that he is one of Distinguished Contemporary Chinese Jurists. Notable enough. --Pengyanan (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Hudecki

Peter Hudecki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Peter Hudecki" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unnotable person. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO and without significant coverage, can not properly meet WP:BLP. The only news coverage found mentioning this person was for a lacrosse coach, and not this Hudecki, which is particularly telling that a local coach got more press than this person. Prod removed by User:T. Anthony without explanation. Previous AfD closed after several folks said his directing a series made him notable, however, per actual guidelines it does not, and without actual significant coverage of Hudecki himself, per Wikipedia's guidelines regarding living people, his article can have almost no actual content or claims, so deletion is the better option. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:N and WP:BIO as a producer, director, and animator with a career spanning 3 decades. Pity that he shares the name with an sports figure, but OUR Hudecki is written of in a few books, and his career can be be sourced to meet WP:ENT. And no, WP:ENT does not also require meeting WP:GNG... if it did, there would be no reason for WP:ENT to even exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, EP:ENT DOES require meeting WP:GNG. WP:GNG can not be ursurped by a subject-specific guideline. ALL articles most meet WP:GNG. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry to disagree, but if all subjects needed to meet the WP:GNG first, then there would be absolutely no reason for it or ANY of the many sub-criteria of WP:N to even exist. All the many sub-criteria of WP:N were written specifically to address notability of topics that might not otherwise meet the GNG, as guideline accepts and explains that there are other ways by which to measure and source notability. What is required under sub-criteria is meeting POLICY in being verifiable in reliable sources. However, you are always welcome to nominate any of WP:N's sub-criteria for deletion if you think that they are either unclear or poorly written or somehow usurp policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MQS. The relationship of the GNG to the special guidelines varies. As the clearest example, WP:PROF is fully accepted as an alternative. Others one may be similar, or may be in addition, or as explanations, or giving more detailed interpretations. There is no general rule for this. In any case GNG is not basic policy--it's merely a presumption as one part of WP:N. And even WP:N is not policy, but a guideline. Attempts top make it policy have consistently failed. Thee is no "constitution" at Wikipedia to which other rules must conform, except possibly WP:FIVE, and even those are interpreted by more detailed rules. As I recall, 3 years ago when I had just joined there was a long discussion of this relationship, which reached no general conclusion, and attempts at a unified inclusion rule have consistently failed. for lack of consensus. Not only does collecteana's statement not have the necessary wide consensus for a general policy, but I think it's probably a minority view. Wikipedia is an empirical operation, and different subjects require different ways of dealing with them. (this is not a !vote to keep--last time round, in fact, I said delete. Now I need to think about it further.) DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• The general consensus is that WP:ENT is inclusive, rather than restrictive: someone gets in if they meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG (though, realistically, there's enough media coverage of entertainment that it is impossible to meet WP:ENT without also meeting WP:GNG--I can't think of a single counterexample). It's moot in this case, because this guy does neither. THF (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Result of previous AFD is clear and convincing, particularly with regard to the Rosanne Barr project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Hudecki is mentioned, but not written about in the books listed by MQS. Unsurprisingly, the article has zero references. Merits at most half a single sentence in the Little Rosie article, and wouldn't merit mention in any of the other articles in which he's credited as the rest of the article is essentially a resume of positions that don't meet WP:ENT, such as "storyboard artist." Perhaps the strongest evidence for deletion is the following WP:PUFF from the article: Most notable was lip sync and facial animation for the Bud Light commercial Smooth Monkey during the 2004 Super Bowl. It was in the top 10 of the Super Bowl advertising poll. If that's as notable as his work gets, that's not notable enough. Separately, strongly smacks of autobiography, though that's not a reason for deletion. THF (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:Inspector Gadget, Talk:Nelvana, Talk:A Cosmic Christmas, Talk:Rock & Rule page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Strong keep well referenced article, meets all notability requirements. Ikip 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

comment. How is this article "well-referenced" when it has zero references?!? THF (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been mentioned on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:THF
• weak keep appears to meet WP:ENT, but I'm worried a bit about how much usable material we can find about him. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

comment. What's the basis for claiming that this bio meets WP:ENT? THF (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing for prolific and important work. So basically 1 and 3. It's a weak argument, but it does look like he's done a lot of shows (many of which I, a non-film person, recognize). File it as "ILIKEIT" perhaps, but being producer for Babar, and co-directory for The Adventures of Tintin make me believe he's notable. Being the director for Little Rosie helps too. These are notable works and being director or producer for them seems to meet the letter and spirit of WP:ENT. Any one of them wouldn't put him over that bar for me, but all of them (plus faculty member, plus all the other credits) make it fairly clear to me. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He was the "line producer," not the producer of Babar; and he was the "second unit director" for Tintin.[1] Neither are notable positions. The article exaggerates the biography; I've corrected that. THF (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna Kumar

Krishna Kumar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Krishna Kumar" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I can find no evidence Prof. Kumar is sufficiently notable per WP:PROF. He does not appear to meet criteria 3 through 9. That leaves criterion 1 (has his research has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline?). No doubt he has published well, but the guy is not even 40 and is running a lab with only one post-doc and a bunch of grad students. We are are talking tens, not hundreds of papers. And we are not talking Nature or Science either - pretty much all of them are in specialist chemistry journals. Compare his publication and award records, for example, with contemporaries like Phil Baran or Kevin Eggan who have made significant scientific impacts at a young age. I don't see how his impact is any more significant than an average chemistry professor at a decent US Institution. That leaves criterion 2 (has he received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level?) I don't see that either. Other than a few fellowships, he has listed a young innovator award from the Indian Business Club (a student-run organization chaired by graduate students at MIT) and one of 100 young people shortlisted each year for TR100, by a MIT Magazine. I really don't see how either of these would qualify as "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Delete. Rockpocket 09:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the detailed nomination. I had actually prodded this myself a few months after a failed search for evidence of notability, but someone deprodded and it fell off my radar. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I am grateful for the detailed nomination rationale and for the nominator's courtesy, but I disagree with the nominator's conclusion. The subject served as chair of Tufts University's chemistry department, and has been a full professor there since 2006. There seems to be enough coverage of him and his awards in mainstream reliable sources for him to pass WP:GNG. - Eastmain (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. If the subject has "given proteins Teflon-like properties" that would indeed be notable. Input from protein chemists would be useful. A problem here is that there are so many people with the name K. Kumar that it difficult to assess citations. Would the proponents of the paper care to produce the Google Scholar (or WoS) cites for the publications listed in the article? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC).
• Keep full professor at Tufts is very likely to be notable--it is a research university. 8 of the papers were in JACS, the highest quality chemistry journal of all, and one not just in PNAS but featured in it. A number of them seem to have drawn discussion on them specifically as well as formal citations Even in Scopus and in WoS, the name is not distinctive. I found it necessary to get citations separately for the papers listed in his CV, and I have revised the list to show the 10 most cited, the counts of the five highest being 91, 90, 87, 33, 32. This is within the range that shows someone an authority in their field. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep in view of enlightening information above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC).
• Keep per DGG. Salih (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Bernadette Clayton

Bernadette Clayton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Bernadette Clayton" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. nothing in gnews about this specific Bernadette Clayton [2]. the claim about being a "prominent" educator is only in 1 ref in the article. only 1 article in gscholar. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, per WP:BIO. Side note: I don't think WP:PROF would apply to a high school teacher. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 08:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The main claim seems to be nothing more than that this person was at one time an assistant principal and then wrote an article about it in a trade magazine. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

[edit] Peter Swirski

Peter Swirski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Peter Swirski" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

The article doesn't show any reliable sourcing for assertion of notability, and all I got on a Google search were lists of book reviews and bookstore hits. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:N at the very least. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – That is the problem with these damn academics, notability is often hard to prove. However, in this case, it was somewhat easier. I was able to find references at Google Scholar as provided here [3]. In addition, there were a few references at Google News, as shown here [4]. And finally, as quoted from Google Books “…his novels and short stories have been translated into over forty languages and have sold over twenty-five million copies”, as shown here [5]. I believe this meets our requirements for inclusion. JAAG^Talk 02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome new editor! It's Lem who has had the huge sales not Swirski, whose cites are tiny. Notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for your welcome and you are right to a point-out that the statement can be misleading. But reviewing an author for inclusion, one of the areas I believe we look at is who reviews the authors work (i.i Book reviews) and I have found that this particular author, Peter Swirski with concern to Lem, books were reviewed by the Star Tribune – The Boston Globe - Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service = Foundation – The International Review of Science Fiction as provided here [6]. The The Washington Post – International Herald Tribune – The Modern Language Review, as provided here [7]. The Age [8] Encyclopedia of World Biography – Extrapolation as shown here [9] plus many more. Hope this helps and Happy New Year.JAAG^Talk 15:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: Per Jaag. Joe Chill (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. GS gives h index = 4. Nowhere near enough for WP:Prof #1. Other notabilty is not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC).
• Keep: Y'know, I've seen putative failure of this "h-index" cited as deletion grounds a few times over the past few weeks. Quite aside from that the index is a widely criticized measure created for physicists (of which the subject of this AfD is not one), I missed the part where it was written as a valid measure of notability into WP:PROF, or by what methodology Xxanthippe is applying it here. I place significantly greater reliability on Jaag's research, the more so in that I can follow his links and review it for myself.  RGTraynor  09:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • But we need to know, not whether he has done and published research (all professors do that), but whether his research has had a big impact, in order to justify a keep of the article according to WP:PROF #1. The h-index is very problematic, I'll grant, but when it is high it does show impact without requiring a lot of subject-specific expertise to interpret it. When it is low it doesn't show very much (maybe we're just not using the right database to find the impact) but it does mean that one avenue to convincing other people of a pass of WP:PROF is blocked. Jaag's analysis of who reviews the books is an alternative that I like better because it's less bean-counting, but in this case it seems to lead towards WP:AUTH rather than WP:PROF. Not that there's anything wrong with that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, this seems like a case for WP:AUTH. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It seems from the discussion above that he does not pass WP:PROF #1 but Jaag's evidence persuades me that we should take a much closer look at whether he passes WP:AUTH. Is he "regarded as an important figure or widely cited by his peers" (#1)? No, I think that's covered by the arguments against WP:PROF. Is he known for originating a significant new concept (#2)? The article argues for his "nobrow" concept but a Google scholar search for that word finds other earlier inventions of it as having more currency. Is his work the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (#3)? Maybe, maybe not. There is a review of his nobrow book in the Journal of American Studies but essentially all academic books get academic reviews; I think that should be counted in terms of WP:PROF rather than WP:AUTH since it doesn't really speak to how the book was received in popular culture. And there is a review in "International Fiction Review", a forum that is not significant enough to have its own Wikipedia article. And there's a review of his Lem Reader in Canadian Slavonic Papers (another academic journal) which is spammed across multiple Google news archive entries but again doesn't really speak to popular culture. He's mentioned in The Age but in a fairly trivial way; the article isn't really about him or his works. And he's also mentioned in "The Lem Chronicles", Boston Globe 2002, but again that article seems to be primarily about Lem. Does his work belong to many significant libraries (#4)? From Lowbrow to Nobrow is in 265 libraries, about par for an academic book; his others are similar or fewer. And #5 is WP:PROF again. So no criterion is really persuasive, but ultimately I decided on a keep because I think being an author of a half-dozen or so books from reputable publishers and that are of some interest to the general public should be enough for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep - while it's doubtful he passes WP:PROF, it's seems like he might scrape by under WP:AUTH, which others have noted. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Rodrigo Jokisch

Rodrigo Jokisch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Rodrigo Jokisch" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

A contested A1 speedy, this article offers no explanation as to WHO this person is This person MIGHT be notable, but who can tell? This is nothing but a few sections of lists (looks like most of it is German), so it is hard to pinpoint exactly what this person is notable for. A Google search doesn't help as it brings up more lists to pore over. I can find nothing in the way of third-party coverage of this person. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. There's a German language Wikipedia entry for him that is much more complete and which this article looks like a partially translated version of; this needs to be WP:BETTER and not removed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Very weak keep seems notable enough as an author of multiple published books, at least some of which appear significant. That said, the article at present is nothing but a listing of works and not exactly acceptable. Suggest keeping if anyone is willing to improve/expand it, but it's likely to be deleted if it stays in its present state for long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as the German article also fails to establish any notability that would warrant an article under the English Wikipedia's guidelines and policy. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] James Noone

James Noone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "James Noone" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No evidence of notability. The only references given are to broadwayworld and ibdb. Neither of these does any more than give credits for work done by Noone: neither is substantial coverage. Also it is questionable how far these can be regarded as independent sources: idbd is a trade association, and broadwayworld is largely promotional. Also broadwayworld is not a reliable source, as anyone can create an account and post information. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability is apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

[edit] David Madore

David Madore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "David Madore" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I would have prodded this, but this article survived a discussion in 2005, way before we had any notability standards for academics. The argument that he invented Unlambda is exceedingly weak; I could barely find secondary references to add to that article— it's not a well-known language by any stretch. Pcap ping 12:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Unlambda doesn't seem to be notable and should perhaps be AfD'd as well. Usually math notability relies on making a discovery which is notable in its own right, as in appearing in a secondary source. There is no evidence that this is the case here. All the links from the subject's page seem to be published by the subject.--RDBury (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unnotable academically per WP:PROF. Five articles on mathscinet, Maitre de Conference, etc. Mathsci (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• His CV is on his home page, and it doesn't appear he meets the criteria at WP:PROF. It looks like, in 2005, the bio here was kept because of unlambda. We have to weigh how well-known that language is, but given that Madore does not meet the criteria in WP:PROF, I think that it would take an extremely well-known language to warrant a bio. I don't think unlambda is very well known. Honestly, I don't know if I would support a bio for the author of nethack, and that has to be much better known than unlambda. So I think that the article should be deleted for now. As always, if things change, the article can be recreated in a few years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain because I am the person involved, but I have some comments to make. Evidently I do not meet the criteria of WP:PROF, and evidently this article could be an embarrassment for me since it makes me sound like some kind of academic crackpot. (I have no idea of who wrote it, by the way. I never edited it myself.) On the other hand, I strongly think that if this article goes, the one on Unlambda should go as well; this I say as a Wikipedia user: I've always thought that there should be at least a stub article for the creator/instigator/inventor/main author of every single item/event/fact/invention/work which itself has an article on WP, and this would simplify the debates on notability—but obviously the folks who decide on the notability criteria think differently, so this opinion is worthless anyway. One thing I have a hard time imagining, however, is why people invest energy in having articles deleted which like this one are fairly short and at least have the merit of containing nothing wrong or contentious, when those on—say—Charles Musès notable for his Musean hypernumbers (not only is this one nonsense, but it has great potential for confusion) haven't been nominated for deletion even once. I mean, I agree that deleting some articles can be as constructive as augmenting others, but the priority order seems strange (especially as the article has already been around for some time, and some people have spent a little effort in editing it). But at this point, a loud booming voice thunders: “you are not notable!” and I vanish in a puff of logic. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I replied on your talk page regarding the link between the existence of your bio article and the unlambda article. As for the existence of other troublesome bio articles, that can obviously be addressed by nominating them too. Pcap ping 05:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep WP:PROF is a guideline not a rule. M. Madore above statement points out topics that are more important than the question of deleting a page about an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanefr (talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete in view of subject's reasonable request to do so. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

[edit] George Udeani

George Udeani (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "George Udeani" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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 a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

While 1900+ citations usually is rather significant, in the present case almost all of these citations are to one single article on which this person is a minor author. Very modest publication record (4 articles listed in WoS from the last 10 years, 1 from the last 5). Editor-in-Chief of a journal, but not a major one (does not even exist yet and appears to be self-published). One book in press, but also self-published. Does not meet any of the requirements of WP:PROF. Crusio (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment It should be noted that Évariste Galois, a well recognized and 'notable' mathematician had a h-index of 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaagg1 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Top GS cites are 2074, 77, 21 with h index = 6. This is a case where h index is more indicative than citation count. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

• Keep. I don't think this individual's citations bear more weight than his accomplishments which includes being a significant part of the discovery team that uncovered four major drugs including resveratrol, deguelin, tephrosin and betulinic acid. Cancer remains a major threat worldwide and it is projected that in the year 2010, it will become the leading cause of death in the world. In this particular case, the quality of this individual's work out-weighs the h-index or any other factors including citations. Chaagg1 (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — Chaagg1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Please note that the quality of this person's work is not an issue here at all, we are uniquely concerned with encyclopedic notability. --Crusio (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It is ironic that Wikipedia used this scientist’s work to demonstrate notability for Deguelin, where 25% of the citations is his work, but does not find him notable for Wikipedia. Please note, this individual made Deguelin. Deguelin did not make this scientist. I still say Keep. --Chaagg1 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vote more than once in a debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

This isn't a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 11:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see section on how to conduct an AfD debate in WP:AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

I assumed that that comment was directed at me, so I did review that section. I didn't find anything that seemed relevant to my previous comment though. What are you getting at? Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as the subject seems notable.Handschuh-^{talk to me} 11:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Would you mind explaining why this seems this way to you? What criteria of the GNC or of WP:PROF are being met? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• How about criterion 1, since he played a key role in the discovery of several drugs, notable in his field? Or criterion 7, for that matter, since the drugs are used by many people outside of academia? Handschuh-^{talk to me} 13:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining. Yes, if all that were true, he would be more than notable. However, if you look at the references and look more closer into these grandiose claims, then you will see that it is all puffery. If this person was as briljant as claimed, then why is he now not a big shot at some pharmaceutical company or university? I have not been able to find out what, if any, position he has currently. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Point taken. My position is now to delete. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Udeani seems to have been involved in a minor controversy, although it does not seem to have garnered enough attention to meet GNG directly. This document shows that in 2008 he was suspended and put on probation for 3 years by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation for "failure to perform pharmacist-in-charge duties". The pharmacy apparently closed immediately after this. Although it does not establish notability, if the article stays, this should obviously be added to it, although it would be nice if some more details could be found. --Crusio (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Assistant professor who was on a team that discovered something. This is not a sufficient claim of notability. High cite number only reflects membership on this team, and it is clear that he was not the main discover. Abductive (reasoning) 17:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Not enough academic credentials to be obviously notable, and the "will be published soon"-type of material is disturbing, but has apparently made some contributions in areas which tend to be high-profile and receive attention from general media, so I lean towards keep after all. Tomas e (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Updated original artical on George Udeani to include academic work. Please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaagg1 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • {{like resume}}. So tagged. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: we should only include significant information about its subjects, not just list all available data. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I believe the biggest argument against Udeani is his article publications and whether he was a significant contributor to the articles cited. I just went through his page and he seems to have enough articles where he is first author. Also, we should not dilute the significance of his contributions to drug development. Someone argued earlier, that he should be at a University or working for a pharmaceutical company if he is brilliant. Apart from the fact that this does not establish notability, we do not know that he is not, therefore I find that argument petty, unprofessional and very subjective. Subject seems notable to me.--Soccersunshine (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — Soccersunshine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Look at it this way. According to the article, Udeani is a giant of cancer drug discovery. "Udeani and colleagues discovered and developed four anti-cancer agents", nothing less. Yet, there are no sources showing that he ever published any significant articles (except that Science paper on which he is a minor author) or had a position more significant than assistant professor. On the other hand, we have sources establishing that he was working as a pharmacist in some ordinary pharmacy as recently as 2008. Somehow, these things don't square with each other. I think that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is more reliable than some editor adding unsourced stuff to this bio. (And given the detailed knowledge this editor has about Udeani's career -nothing of which seems to be available online- this is clearly a person close to Udeani, or perhaps this is even an autobiography). --Crusio (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I just took a second look at Udeani's article, there is no where it is stated that he is a Giant of drug discovery; as a matter of fact, I read that he significantly participated to the development of 4 major cancer drugs and honestly, this is good enough for me. If we went about looking into the details of every notable person's background, we surely will find that many may have interned, moonlighted /held second jobs in not too attractive organizations. Does this disqualify their contributions? I think not. I believe that Wikipedia was designed for more than politics and that is the direction I am going to take. Two of 8 articles on deguelin listed on Wikipedia are from Udeani. High citation for resveratrol and not deguelin or betulinic acid which is currently in clinical trials is simply because there appears to be more interest in this common drug, which is present in wine and fruit. It takes a long time to approve drugs.--Soccersunshine (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Response Somebody who works full time in academia or the drug industry simply does not have time to "moonlight" as a pharmacist. In fact, there is no evidence anywhere that it was "Udeani and colleagues" that discovered these drugs. At the very best (and not even that is certain), Udeani was part of the teams that did this, him being a very minor member of those teams. And then apparently he left research. --Crusio (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The citations for the resveratrol paper are quite impressive, but his position in the author list indicates that his role in the paper was relatively minor, and the rest of the citations, while not bad, aren't enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. And if not that, what reason is there to keep the article? Contrary to Tomas e's keep comment, he himself has not received attention from general media: some of the subjects he's studied have, but notability is not inherited. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - at first glance this person seems notable, but upon further examination and consideration of the discussions above, it seems pretty clear to me that he does not pass WP:PROF, and the fact that he appears to have been only a minor contributor to these discoveries does not indicate to me that he merits inclusion under the notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Tzvi Blanchard

Tzvi Blanchard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Tzvi Blanchard" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Does not establish the notability of the subject.  fetchcomms☛ 21:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep based on a few mentions in the national press ([10] and [11]).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Elena Rumyantseva

Elena Rumyantseva (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Elena Rumyantseva" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No sourced autobiography Истребительница (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Wow, this one is really quite something. I do not have a definitive opinion yet but at the moment I am leaning towards delete, based on WP:V and WP:BLP concerns. The article is clearly relentlessly self-promotional and looks to be a WP:AUTO or WP:COI case. I looked through the talk page of the ru-wiki version of the article and people there are also complaining about not being able to verify various things, about WP:RS issues with sources cited etc. Various googlenews, googlescholar and googlebooks searches for the name of the author (both in English and in Russian) also produce fairly little, which is hard to reconcile with the grand claims made in the article (here is a sample search in Russian[12]). I tried to do some worldcat searches for various versions of transliteration of the subject's name but did not find anything that looks like her books (maybe someone else should give it another try, though). This is all pretty strange given the grandiose claims made in the article. One thing that does check out is the "best economist" prize but the people at the talk page of the ru-wiki version of the article claim that the organization that made the award is not really notable itself. Basically, I have no idea how we here can untangle this mess and decide what is and what is not verifiable from the information in the article and the current text does not look salvageable to me... If someone with some economics background and some knowledge of Russian can comment here, that'd be good. Nsk92 (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. By the time that a BLP gets to AfD it is required that notability be demonstrated explicitly. The extensive researches of Nsk92 have failed to turn up anything of deciding substance. GS gives two cites of 36 and 18, which is nowhere near enough. The genealogical evidence is charming but would confer notability only on the close family of a reigning monarch. If further evidence appears I am prepared to change my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC).
• KeepComment. Looks notable to me.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to be more specific? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

an author of 35 books.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A search of Google books and Google Scholar with -author:"Elena Rumyantseva"- gives zero relevant hits. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

Do you really suggest that all book references that are currently included in this article were fake? They do not look fake.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• KeepUncertain article needs trimming down to proper size , perhaps 1/10, and translation from google-english, , and made less like a CV, but the presumption is that an author such as this is important. I'm looking further to try to identify the books. The google translation of the Russian talk p is fascinating [13] -- there is a repeated assertion that her noble origins are what make her important, and a discussion of whether the degree of her noble ancestry is sufficiently distinguished, but that's the part I think we would all remove here as totally irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC), I have not yet succeeded in identifying the books. Reading more of the talk page, it is seriously questioned whether all the supporting material are actually independent, or were written also by her. It is hard to judge the reputations of people on another WP, and I would appreciate it if Biophys or someone else actually knowledgeable could comment in detail. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

She appear to be a notable person based on the article in ruwiki. Sorry, but I do not have time to actually find and read her books. And I do not care if this article kept or deleted. Let's delete. Not a big deal. Biophys (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Ultimately I don't see the article's text as salvageable and don't see how to separate verifiable from non-verifiable bits. In this case I think WP:V and WP:BLP concerns outweigh the other considerations. Nsk92 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a sample book listed in the article, «the Technique an estimation of productivity of agrarian reforms. Calculations on 51 country of the world» (1999; ISBN 985-6320-51-8), and tried to check the library holdings for its ISBN number. Worldcat has no entry for this book[14], Open Library also has nothing[15], Internet Book Database has nothing[16], Karlsruhe Virtual catalog has nothing[17]. This suggests to me that either the ISBN is invalid or that the book is really obscure. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Nsk92, this fails WP:V, one of our core policies. It's possible there is a core of notable truth to all this, but we're not going to find it by sifting this article. I tried Google news (for her name in Roman characters) but found only a French-language story from 2005 about a stampede at a party that killed a college student from Murmansk by the same name. There are several other stories about different people named Yelena Rumyantseva but I'm not sure whether any of them match the subject of our article and in any case there still doesn't seem enough to go by even to stub this down to something believable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Maple

Peter Maple (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Peter Maple" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This page was created and then edited repeatedly by a drawerful of socks, one claiming to be the subject. After much hard work by several editors (and special mention goes to Rees11 (talk · contribs) who has done the hard legwork trying to improve and substantiate this article) we're left with an article whose sources are largely self-published or PR puff or not substantiating the points in the text. Because of that, the article doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC and I seek community input as to whether it has a place in Wikipedia. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 09:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete — I've checked about half the references and none of the ones I looked at supported notability. Many of them don't even support the text in the article they are being used to reference. I did find one news story that mentions Maple, Splashing out, but it quotes him on a different subject, and does not constitute substantial coverage. I don't believe the subject meets the notability criteria. Rees11 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- there is indeed a bit of coverage of this person in the press, but no articles substantially about him. He certainly fails WP:PROF and I don't see anything close to sufficient for WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This expert on post-modern marketing has not yet achieved notability in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC).
• Delete The only claim to notability appears to be that subject is the Course Director at a university with the "largest cohort of charity students in the UK", and there is no independent analysis to show that that is notable. Many people work in the charity field and we should only have articles on those who satisfy WP:BIO – a level not achieved by this subject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - after many edits, subject still seems non-notable and the article still reads like a résumé. --CliffC (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - quite evident this person does not meet WP:PROF, and since the questionable nature of the many of the sources has been brought up, it leads me to endorse deleting this page. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Afshin Shafiee

Afshin Shafiee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Afshin Shafiee" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Person doesn't pass WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 09:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A handful of GS cites on fundamental physics topics but nowhere enough for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. An award or a particular honor has to be recorded Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

[edit] Brian Roper (academic)

Brian Roper (academic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Brian Roper (academic)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Not notable person Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't find a level of coverage to claim notability, article seems to have been created due to a single event, his controversial resignation, so one event is also an issue imo. Also as the reason for the biography creation, it could have an element of an attack page. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP He is notable enough. He has been head of one of the top 100 institutions in the UK. That alone is enough.

Aa42john (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - academic deans and the like are not per se notable under WP:PROF, and there is no evidence he is notable except for the one news item. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep per the discussion below and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Neutral Delete. There is a Brian Roper who writes on economic matters of New Zealand. Whether it is the same person I do not know. GS cites are small (h index = 7) so fails WP:Prof #1 anyway. Looks like WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC).
  • It appears to be a different person, somebody from the political science department at the University of Otago in New Zealand[18]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The only coverage available seems to be in connection with the financial scandal at London Metropolitan University, so looks like a BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep. There is indeed a significant amount of newscoverage of him for the period 2001-2008, well before the recent financial scandal and resignation, see GNews results[19]. In particular, he seems to have been involved in a number of highly publicized fights with the unions during that time. So looks not to be a BLP1E case and looks to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- with apologies, this is a ridiculous nomination, the man was vice-chancellor of one of the largest universities in the UK. (Vice-chancellor is equivalent to president of an American university.) The nom has apparently failed to satisfy WP:BEFORE, otherwise he would have seen that there is extensive coverage in reliable sources; an AfD is not meant to be mounted against the current state of an article but rather whether there are sufficient sources for the person (etc.) to satisfy WP:N, which this person clearly does (in addition to [[WP:PROF, etc). This is really a waste of time here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the links provided by Nsk92, and reading a few of them, I still fail to find any content that confirms this persons notability, this one for example, all it mentions the subject from a large article is the say his salary, perhaps there is some content in these links that people who think the article is worthy of keeping can add to the article in this week. As the article stands it is an attack, it is made up of only the persons so called controversial resignation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The links provided by Nsk92 show nothing more than the Vice-Chancellor doing the job that all Vice-Chancellors do and which their public relations offices are paid to publicise. Nothing notable about this person has yet emerged in terms of previous activities or achievements. Possibly there may be something in his Who's Who entry, but I don't have access to that at present. Nomoskedasticity makes the valid point that the subject technically passes WP:Prof #6 as having been the highest executive officer of London Metropolitan University, a large institution, although one of low prestige: we are not talking about Oxford or Cambridge here. With WP:Prof #6 supporting keep and WP:BLP1E favouring delete the matter seems evenly balanced. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

For WP:N and WP:BIO one does not need to do anything notable to be considered notable; it is the existence of significant coverage that makes one notable. The fact that in this case significant coverage is not limited to the recent financial scandal shows that this is not a BLP1E case. And for what it is worth, at his post as the vice-chancellor he seems to have been more vocal and visible than is typical for academic administrators, often taking controversial positions. E.g. here is an article "Go private, London Met boss tells Oxbridge" [20] illustrating this point (here is another story about this[21], and another one called "One cheer for Brian Roper"[22]). He is characterized as "combative"[23], "gung-ho"[24] His battles with the unions while a vice-chancellor of the London Met also received considerable coverage, e.g. here [25], here "Unions may face legal action over running of no-confidence poll in v-c"[26], here[27], here[28], etc. He was also discussed in protests against high pay for academic administrators[29][30][31]. He also received substantial coverage (although less than later) at his previous post as the v.-c. of the North London University. E.g. here is a link to a book that has a couple of pages dealing with his battles with unions there[32]. A story from the late 90s related to a controversy about student tuition[33]. A short story about his appointment as a v.-c. at London Met[34]. These are just examples and there is a lot more. The point is, there is plenty of nontrivial coverage of him predating the resignation scandal, which is sufficient for passing WP:BIO. To quote from WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". We certainly have such coverage here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I will have a look through a few of these later, but the reality is that right now if additional detail from these links you have added here is not added to the article then it is imo still an attack page, my opinion is strengthened by the reality that no additional content is being added. Right now as it stands the article is a BLP violation, imo.Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps instead of wasting our time with pointless AfDs you could use the material that is clearly available and write some content. As I said above, you have clearly not complied with WP:BEFORE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This AFD is far from pointless, thank you. As I have clearly said, imo he isn't notable enough for anyone to want to write a decent biography about and the article has been started for the single purpose of the recentism situation of his so called controversial resignation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, this person is simply not very notable and there is never going to be any kind of decent biography of him, what about a redirect to the article that this is actually all about the funding crisis at the London Met article and where Roper is mentioned. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Having started this AfD, you will now have to live with its outcome, once it is closed in the normal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • That is not a problem to me at all, keep or delete or redirect it is correct then I am fine with any, but it is totally ok as the discussion develops to offer other solutions to the situation, and I have offered the possibility of a redirect, that is not a problem or out of process. It is not a battle with a winner and a loser, the end result should be the best thing for the subject of the biography and for the wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is properly sourced (and shows some minimal level of notability per WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF). Although the article in its current state seems to fit WP:BIO1E (justifying Off2riorob's redirect suggestion) the sources provided by Nsk92 indicate that the article can be expanded and not be solely about his part in the financial crisis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep VC's are the head of their university and therefore presumed notable by WP:PROF, DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  On the british general level of notability of vice chancellors of universities, the citation I linked to from the gardian named Michael Driscoll (economist) at Middlesex .. Geoffrey Copland at Westminster ... John Tarrant at Huddersfield .. Sir Brian Follett, a fellow of the Royal Society and Vice-chancellor of Warwick .. Brian Roper at North London and £119,000 to Frank Gould at UEL. People in similar positions with a biography. Sir Brian Follett is much more notable for many reasons. Driscol is the only one comparable that has a biography and that bio if you could call it a bio, has taken six years to get to that level of content.Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This is currently a bad article, but he meets the notability guidelines and WP:PROF. The fact that we do not have articles for other VCs is simply a reflection that this is an area where WP is inadequate. I have been surprised many times to find that a particular VC does not have an article and have written one as a result. VCs are notable as they have an important position that means they are certain to be noted. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The article has now been expanded, with a bunch of extra info and sources added. I think it is now in a better shape in terms of balance. Nsk92 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, a lot better. As nominator I would after the vast improvement, move to Keep and see if this could be snow closed. Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

After seeing the improvements I agree. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

[edit] Yosef Babad (HTC)

Yosef Babad (HTC) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Yosef Babad (HTC)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No assertion of notability Kittybrewster ☎ 11:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This man was dean of students at a college for over 30 years. He guided the institution during that time, and had hundreds if not thousands of students. Isn't that notable in itself? Isn't it important for his students to understand his backround so that they can follow in his footsteps?? What is your definition of notable? wizir01 ☎ 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Rabbi Chaim Twerski, Dr. Babad wrote plenty of articles, and a book as well. Please give us time to collect this information and then you will see for yourself his noteworthiness. wizir01 ☎ 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Passes none of the criteria for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
• Userfy or Incubate. An editor has asked for more time. Being dean of students at any university is insufficient to have a Wikipedia article, but perhaps Dr Babad has other claims of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 09:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per article creator. Dean of college is notable. We have to work on the sources, few of which can be found by Google searches. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• What if I told you deans aren't automatically notable? Abductive (reasoning) 07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• i would then probably respond that you're right, but a dean of thousands of students is automatically notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep – Dean of Studies of a major university is inherently notable under academics. JAAG^Talk 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No, WP:PROF #6 is only for heads of universities; Dean of Studies is a lower-level position. It seems reasonably likely that a dean of studies would be notable, but we'll have to find some other way of demonstrating this than ex officio. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I have added a few additional references to the article. Maybe, this will help. JAAG^Talk 17:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or incubate. I haven't been able to find anything significant about this man, as opposed to his ancestor. Dean of students is not the same as dean of an institution; it's often a nonacademic functionary position. The article states that he was "graduate school dean," but doesn't explain the context.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I tried and failed to find sources on him — the article mentions two Chicago-area newspaper obituaries but I couldn't find them (so couldn't tell if they were the kind of obituary the family pays to publish or the kind that major newspapers write about famous people). The institution for which he was dean of students is tiny (around 300 students combined from high school and college levels) so his position there may be more analogous to a high school assistant principal than to a major academic position of the type that would meet WP:PROF #6. Regardless of whether he passes WP:PROF, he seems to fail WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Given that he was a professor a major theological school, he may have been a notable scholar; & I make that presumption on the lack of other evidence. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • But it's not a major theological school -- it's tiny, with almost half the students at high-school level. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Academics and educators Proposed deletions

• Samuil Shatunovsky (via WP:PROD on 2 January 2010)
• Djukanovic dragoslav (via WP:PROD on 2 January 2010)
• Melissa Lane (via WP:PROD on 2 January 2010)
• Geoffrey Chang (via WP:PROD on 2 January 2010)
• Jerry Lin (via WP:PROD on 1 January 2010)
• Luis Enrique Herrera (via WP:PROD on 1 January 2010)
• Lauren Jodi Van Scoy (via WP:PROD on 1 January 2010)
• Eta Linnemann Is There A Synoptic Problem: Rethinking The Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels (via WP:PROD on 31 December 2009)
• Claus Laemmerzahl (via WP:PROD on 31 December 2009)
• Ljubisav Rakić (via WP:PROD on 31 December 2009)
• Tong Zhixia (via WP:PROD on 31 December 2009)
• Qian Wenyuan (via WP:PROD on 31 December 2009)
• Jan van der Watt (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2009)
• Akhileshwar Pathak (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2009)
• Derek Enlander (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2009)
• Robert H. Shaffer (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2009)
• Dr. Rande Lazar (via WP:PROD on 28 December 2009)
• Li Youzheng (via WP:PROD on 27 December 2009)

[edit] Deletion Review

• Matthew Watson

[edit] Relevant discussions

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The bias against academics on wikipedia