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

Robert Gordon (psychologist, born 1944)

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

Non-notable psychologist. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Gheus (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Law, Psychology, Internet, and Texas. jolielover♥talk 02:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see notability under Prof or GNG here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the article makes no cognizable claim to notability and I can't find sources that celebrate him as a significant expert in the field.
Happy to reconsider if sources are found. Note that the highly-cited article Historicism in legal scholarship is not the same person (that Gordon taught at University of Wisconsin). Oblivy (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David O'Regan

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

Associate professor using computational methods (DFT) in solid state physics/materials science, created by an editor paid to promote the university's faculty. Except for being on one team high-profile paper his citations are modest: GS h-factor of 22 and ~3K cites, about standard for a starting associate prof in this area. No major awards or any other evidence of WP:SIGCOV to justify WP:GNG. A good start, but it is WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Physics, and Ireland. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creator of this article is creating too many articles on non-notable people in the department that is paying him to edit Wikipedia. This is wasting everybody's time.--Srleffler (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are several highly-cited papers, but they are all also highly-coauthored. Discounting these, I see little evidence of WP:NPROF notability; no assertion of other notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First-author citation counts on his Google Scholar profile [1] are not enough to suggest WP:PROF#C1 notability and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ldm1954's nomination. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe he'll meet WP:PROF eventually, but he doesn't now, and there's nothing else. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately doesn’t appear to meet WP:PROF at this point. Lijil (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nai Lee Kalema

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

Subject is very early in their academic career (still a PhD candidate, with only 5 publications that have been cited by others). No apparent WP:NPROF pass. As for WP:GNG, sourcing is either primary, non-independent (affiliated with college she attend(ed) or work(ed) for), or does not provide significant coverage (or some combination thereof). I was not able to locate any additional coverage in g-news, g-books, PressReader, or newspapers.com Zzz plant (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Technology. Zzz plant (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to WP:PROF (that generally comes years after completing a PhD) and no sign of other forms of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Edit conflict w preceding comment) No sign of NPROF notability for this PhD student, noting in particular that the Kennedy School fellowship appears to be an early career job (and not a fellowship of a learned society as per NPROF C3). I don't see books for potential NAUTHOR notability. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jusuf Zimeri

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

Unable to find WP:GNG level sources. Most of the cited sources are self-published or connected to the source, and the ones that aren't make only trivial mention of the subject. Subject also does not seem to qualify for any WP:NPROF criteria. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Albania, Kosovo, and North Macedonia. jolielover♥talk 07:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Papalia

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Most of these sources are non-independent as they are either almost completely written by her ([2], [3]), merely repeat her interview tips while adding vapid TikTok comments ([4], [5]), or repeat what she wants to say about her own book ([6], [7]). These sources do not contain serious independent analysis of her work, nor do they contain non-trivial biographical information. UPE concerns have been raised at another article created by the same editor (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulip Interfaces).

I found a capsule review here but that isn't enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Pennsylvania. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if her one book was notable that isn't enough to fulfill NAUTHOR (we would shift it to the book... but that isn't notable either.) PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not the best sourcing, but it's something. Bearian (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ulises Humala

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, unsuccessful election candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and have to show some other grounds of preexisting notability besides their candidacy per se -- but the main notability claim here is an unsuccessful candidacy, and otherwise the article has far more to say about his political opinions than about him achieving anything that would count toward NPOL.
Further, even the sourcing here is mostly more about other members of his family than about him, and the only one that's about him in any meaningful way is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person (thus fine for verification of facts, but not counting for anything toward establishing passage of WP:GNG.) Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Peru. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Won 0.2% of the presidential vote behind 13 other candidates.^[8] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Liu (immunologist)

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

Page with a very large number of sources that fail verification, or are irrelevant. Of the five references on his career [1-5] only [2] is valid, the rest not. If I remove all the unverified material not much is left. I also cannot find enough via GS or Google to verify independently as his name is too common. As a failure of WP:V I think it needs a delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 17:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this person meet the named chair professorship criteria of NPROF#5? See [9]. There's also a fellowship of AAAS which I understand is highly selective (NPROF#3).
Also can you clarify what you mean by references being "valid"? I checked the first citation which no longer lists the person as they left U of Maryland, but the archive link[10] is clearly this individual. I haven't looked further, but I don't see verifiability concerns.
I will say that the article is written in a highly promotional style but we're not here to discuss cleaning up articles. Oblivy (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not agree with you
1. I think it is standard that AAAS does not qualify for #3; NAE, NAS do, as do being a selective fellow of a major society such as APS. Note that there is no source for any of his awards.
2. Only distinguished chairs at the highest level qualify for NPROF#5. When someone gives money they typically want their names associated with them. In strong R1 University Depts in the sciences 1/3-2/3 of the full Professors have a named Chair. Of these only a small fraction are at the level for #3.
3. The Scopus link is not encouraging. An h-factor of 48 is borderline for a high citation field. Most troubling it stops in 2015.
The page has too many problems. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing (aside from the issue of failed links where you are clearly not looking at the archive). I asked for your views. Would be interested to hear from others.
I do think you are misreading NPROF5 - distinguished professorship and named chair (equivalent to...) are in the disjunctive, but I'm not sure if you are saying you considered this chair rather than a statement about "small fraction" at generic universities. Oblivy (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this archived notability discussion on C5, there are more in the archives at WT:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion (which features your then-1/3 figure, now up-to-2/3) just explains how we ended up with the current language. So we're back to what made you conclude, on the basis of that language, and before bringing this AfD, that this specific/non-generic named professorial chair should be disregarded. You certainly didn't acknowledge it in your nomination rationale. Oblivy (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octavius Ryland

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with 1 hit. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. The cited source contains in-depth coverage. Hesperian 09:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide the text if the cited source? LibStar (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. This is one of a number of separate articles relating to individuals listed in Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia. Apart from their membership of a notable group, few of them are notable in their own right, so the articles could be deleted. Alternatively, the information in them could be merged into the larger one. Mark Gould (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Carter (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. The cited source contains in-depth coverage. Hesperian 09:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sandlewood cutter, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article111526478. Gnan garra 12:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Carter actually mentioned in the above link? LibStar (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. This is one of a number of separate articles relating to individuals listed in Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia. Apart from their membership of a notable group, few of them are notable in their own right, so the articles could be deleted. Alternatively, the information in them could be merged into the larger one. Mark Gould (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Richards (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. The cited source contains in-depth coverage. Hesperian 09:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please provide text from the cited source. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. This is one of a number of separate articles relating to individuals listed in Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia. Apart from their membership of a notable group, few of them are notable in their own right, so the articles could be deleted. Alternatively, the information in them could be merged into the larger one. Mark Gould (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Lloyd (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. The cited source contains in-depth coverage. Hesperian 09:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of sourcing on Trove one speaks of Lloyd confirming every claim in the article http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article37840533 "then held the dual position of Town Clerk and schoolmaster of the original State school, which is still standing, and is locally known as "Banskia Cottage.". The position of Town Clerk is sufficient to establish notability given he was also school master, and was a convict transported. I also find this nomination of convicts to Western Australia asm potentially a disengenious group of nominations where insufficient effort was made to research people have independent sourcing.John Hubbard Fred Carter James Humphrey John Warren AfD is not a cleanup process but due care before nominations should be as it makes it hard to work through every article just dispove a point while detracting from doing the expansion. Gnan garra 11:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article37840533 is a 1 line mention of Lloyd and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent notability from being a town clerk. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only adding to the depth of coverage out line in the article and by User:Hesperian previously about the person, running a heritage property is also an additional part of the person notability. Town clerks have more notable in Australia than Mayors. Gnan garra 03:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. This is one of a number of separate articles relating to individuals listed in Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia. Apart from their membership of a notable group, few of them are notable in their own right, so the articles could be deleted. Alternatively, the information in them could be merged into the larger one. Mark Gould (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Jones (Australian convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. A common name so many namesakes come up in searches. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some mentions during a Google Books search [11], but I'm not sure if these are enough to meet WP:BIO. Unregistered Biohazard! 02:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. The cited source contains in-depth coverage. Hesperian 09:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two separate source 11 years apart doent indicate some notability, checking Trove is complicated as William Jones was sentenced to Death in WA in 1871, same year as the subject but I have been unable to confirm or deny the link as of yet. Gnan garra 13:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. This is one of a number of separate articles relating to individuals listed in Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia. Apart from their membership of a notable group, few of them are notable in their own right, so the articles could be deleted. Alternatively, the information in them could be merged into the larger one. Mark Gould (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Hubbard (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. The 1 cited source is not indepth. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. The cited source contains in-depth coverage. Hesperian 09:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found multiple court cases[12] where Hubbard is named, depth of detail is not available online. His death was reported on as was the coronial inquest[13] adding more details about him. Gnan garra 13:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Court case listings are insufficient for meeting WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its more than a listing, the detail is all on Trove and in the State Library of Western Australia also searchable online. Gnan garra 03:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Humphrey (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, United Kingdom, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. Deleting this does not improve the encyclopaedia. Hesperian 01:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does he meet WP:BIO, where is the WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Received significant coverage in The Brand on His Coat by Rica Erickson. This is a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. Hesperian 09:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable subject. @Hesperian: that reply also sounded a bit rude. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 01:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the feedback. Hesperian 09:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hesperian it's okay :) ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 18:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find some mentions in a Google Books search [14], but I'm not sure if these are enough for this page to meet WP:BIO. Unregistered Biohazard! 02:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests notability. Mark Gould (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. Hesperian 09:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that being a member of a notable group of people necessarily makes the subject notable in himself. I think there is a case for merging the information in this article into Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia together with a number of similar articles (at least one of which has also been proposed for deletion). Mark Gould (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fascinating person, forced return from Melbourne under the Fugatives Act, charged multiple times for different different amounts he embezzled http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article3086318 an extensively documented case, thats with out look back further into his pass which its just another string to his notability. Gnan garra 13:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being "fascinating" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to argue notability as a criminal, he needs to meet WP:PERP. It needs more sources than a court listing. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a subject of multiple different sources is the criteria for WP:GNG, what I find fascinating is this subject has many parts to his story, including his convict past, and the use of of an obscure law to force his return to the Colony of Western Australia prior to formation of federation of Australian states. So yes in every sense of the word fascinating this is a notable person, and WP:PERP doesnt apply because of the diversity of the subjects past is beyond just his criminal record. Gnan garra 02:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Hussain Alfailakawi

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

Contested draftification. This article was draftified by User:Praxidicae and was almost immediately moved back to article space. The draftification was correct, because the references are not independent. There are ten references, but nine of them are papers by the subject, and one is a faculty profile. Unilaterally draftifying this page again would be move-warring, and a consensus process is needed. The subject is probably notable, but this page should not be in article space until it can verify that notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and Kuwait. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifyso someone can clean up and fix the article.
Delete as this article is non-notable and reads like an essay. Regards, ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Mccapra (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete because they aren't notable - draftification only delays the inevitable spamming at this point COOLIDICAE🕶 20:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious fail of WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. If you track back from the papers you will find his GS page. This shows an h-factor of 2 and 7 total citations. No significant awards, no WP:SIGCOV, nothing on Google.Ldm1954 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for doing the hard work on this - my N:ACADEMIC related knowledge is abysmal but this is a precise and well written example of why this article should be deleted! COOLIDICAE🕶 19:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopelessly far away from meeting WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Much more sourcing would need to exist to draftify. Fails WP:PROF. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Warren (convict)

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the previous AfD we are much stricter on notability. Searches in google books and Australian trove for [John Warren (convict)] seem yield to namesakes. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge after reading very long debate on 1st Afd. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO. Deleting this does not improve the encyclopaedia. Hesperian 01:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"does not improve the encyclopaedia" is not a reason for meeting notability requirements. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Nor is "Searches in google books and Australian trove seem yield to namesakes". What's your point here? Hesperian 09:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. The search proves a lack of sources is insufficient to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is such an untrue statement. It "proves" absolutely nothing. Ike Lek (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following me again? LibStar (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a google search on John+warren+convict with is what the above link does struggle to give any results, what you need to do is better searching and using places like Trove and State Library of Western Australias collection to see there is more. Also most sources dont say convict. As you can see this person part of the Temerance movement in NOrtham, the formation of the heritage list place all dont talk aboput his convict past. People arent following you around they are following an area of interest that you decided to mass nominate for deletion in separate nominations forcing people to waste their time chasing each one and answering everyone of those nominations. Gnan garra 03:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep John Warren applied for the license to run a Boarding and Lodging House in Northam at Temperance Hall, Temperance Hall is on the Western Australian Heritage register[15] the site includes the Busmans Home[16] definitely notable Gnan garra 13:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. This is one of a number of separate articles relating to individuals listed in Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia. Apart from their membership of a notable group, few of them are notable in their own right, so the articles could be deleted. Alternatively, the information in them could be merged into the larger one. Mark Gould (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Günther Kletetschka

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

Lacks sufficient reliable sources discussing him in detail. Even the Boyce article is on phys.org which is a news aggregator. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Mathematics, Physics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. jolielover♥talk 16:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGEBLP which does not rise to WP:NFRINGE levels. Also fails WP:NPROF. jps (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFRINGE is irrelevant as it is for evaluating notability of theories, not their proponents. Barack Obama may end up saying he's a Younger Dryas enthusiast, but in no universe would WP:NFRINGE apply to him. This is a pure easy WP:GNG matter. Let's not give FRINGE authority or precedent scope it is not entitled and never will enjoy. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:FRINGEBLP asks us explicitly to consider WP:NFRINGE when evaluating whether a person is notable for their fringe promotion. Sometimes they are. In this case, they are not expressly because the fringe theory they are promoting is not notable enough having received no WP:Independent source notice. jps (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the wording or any weight of FRINGEBLP doesn't (and cannot) supersede or set a higher standard than GNG. Kinda like how all state law/constitutions in the USA ultimately are subservient/inferior to the US constitution, is how I'd thought of it. So if a person meets GNG (by mosaic or SIGCOV, either counts) than they automatically count, regardless of any FRINGE* or other lessor page. That's all. It wasn't a knock, it was just to make clear for the readers at home that "fringe" people don't have a higher minimum notability standard than non-fringe people.

Like if all things were equal in volume, weight of coverage, etc., and I was GNG for being an academic and you were GNG for being a "ghost whisperer", it's the same GNG standard. SIGCOV (several) or enough weight of other stuff over time and not just BLP1E and you're good to go with GNG. It doesn't matter if it's for my obvious biochemical research or for your less-than-obvious undead pals that only you can see. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability on WP works. I know some people would like it if it worked that way, but it just doesn't. In AfD discussions, the discussants look at all the different ways to assess notability and then discuss based on those. jps (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is ok, but WP:GNG is the arbiter. FRINGE et al is subservient to it and always will be. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not the arbiter. It is practice that is the arbiter. Read WP:PAG. jps (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it with my !delete vote below and end saying you're mistaken still as we've discussed in the past, and while you're welcome to push this for cultural acceptance, deviation from WP:GNG to elevate FRINGE et al to more power is an ultra-minority position with no real power, authority or traction. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said nor ever desired to "elevate FRINGE". This is a strawman of your own invention. jps (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for basic apparent failure of WP:GNG alone. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)
Weak Delete. The current page is strange, and does a good job of indicating that he is not notable. A lot of negative material has been added if I compare this page to the earlier July 15th version. Some of this seems to be very inappropriate, marginal on WP:NPOV, and I will question why it was added.

Leaving that aside, if I ignore the negative additions I do not see a pass of WP:NPROF. He has an h-factor of 35 with 4.6K total citations, so he is not far off. I do not see anything for WP:GNG or similar. If there were some significant awards I would probably vote weak keep. If someone improves the page, removing inappropriate material then I might change my vote.Ldm1954 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of valid sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Setting aside the high-profile but low-impact archealogical and astrophysical speculation, his higher-cited work on planetary science has many coauthors; his first-author papers "Magnetic stratigraphy of Chinese loess", "Hematite vs. magnetite", "Grain size limit", etc., have 147, 98, 81, and fewer citations on Google Scholar, close but below the threshold for me. I don't think there has been enough popular press coverage of his other work to make a case for WP:GNG in place of WP:PROF.
Keep: Critiques of Günther Kletetschka and his work are evolving. To delete this article now would be a major mistake. This article provides a place where valid criticism and supporting evidence can be presented. Gunther may be another Newton or another Milli Vanilli. In either case, Günther is significant. Lets keep an open mind until we know all the facts. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 19:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lot more liberal than most people you're gonna see here on AfD, as far as my AfD standards. If you see me going straight !delete, it's probably not notable. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not influential enough in mainstream science for WP:PROF, and not noteworthy enough as a promoter of fringe ideas to be notable by that route either. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VPP and WP:GNG. -Roxy the dog 17:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all very interesting, but not yet notable. My concerns about poorly sourced BLPs like this have come true. This lacks significant coverage in reliable sources about him. And of course, we have almost never kept an assistant professor's article. WP:DCOI: I have taught physics at a much lower level, and have written papers on a closely related topic. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe one day, but not today. WP:FRINGEBLP that is not presently notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kasparek

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

Primary contributor/creator (with Logologist being an older account of Nihil novi) has self-identified on Wikipedia as someone who is related to the subject of this article (see this diff, book can be found on Internet Archive where the name can be confirmed).

Undisclosed COI aside, sourcing is really poor throughout. The parts of the article that contain references are mostly sourced from the subject’s own works (including memoirs which are not published anywhere, as far as I can ascertain) and a “Who’s Who” book which I would think best to extend caution on given the integrity of these genres of book as raised by MediaKyle at the AfD for Kasparek’s relative.

I’ve also had to remove material from the article which was cited to another source because it failed verification – it most likely employed some degree of original research. I imagine much of the other unsourced material is also OR.

I can find a couple of instances where Kasparek’s work has been cited in the occasional journal article and a single question/statement to the editors of the NY Book Review hosted on their website but no significant and reliable coverage regarding him. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Law, Military, Politics, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not WikiTree, and we do not host vanity articles for family members of editors. I agree with ToeSchmoker's assessment - like the other Kasparek, there is practically nothing here with the exception of Who's Who in Polish America, which is more than likely not GNG-worthy, and certainly cannot be the entire basis of an article. The remaining sources are Kasparek's own books and translations, without any actual coverage - not even a newspaper clipping to speak of. MediaKyle (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrine Almeida

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

Fails the Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics and the sources fail the general notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Africa. jolielover♥talk 10:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. While I like the page -- facts stated and no peacock -- I cannot find enough here, in her publications or via a search to justify a pass of WP:NPROF; if she had a senior award or two I would change my mind. I also do not see WP:SIGCOV for a WP:GNG pass. (Having the same name as a famous singer does not help.)Ldm1954 (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that her work is important, and there are some reliable sources, but I'm still unclear about her passing either PROF or GNG. We could use more input. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Meldrum

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

Fails WP:ACTOR. Only 1 significant role in The Saddle Club. Other aspects of career like a dog walker don't add to notability. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have tended to delete child actors' articles absent clear evidence of significant coverage, which I don't see here. As a WP:BLP, we must delete them when they're poorly sourced. If you can identify a target, a redirect would work. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine S. Layton

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

Not notable. Cited sources are non-independent or primary. A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Education, and United States of America. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE BACK TO DRAFT this was moved into article space from draft more than once by the creator. The last move was very much done without properly addressing the reasons why it was moved back into draft space in the first place. Only a couple of additional sources were added. So it should either be deleted or moved back to draft. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I refuse My Page to be Moved back to a Draft or even get Deleted and That it should Stay the way it is and I also don't know why The World's 1st Enclyopedia has to be so Strict on making Sure Articles look very Proper on Everything including Citations (I'm not saying Copyright and Vandalism shouldn't be One of those Things i know they're Both Bad and doesn't deserve to Exist at all) Devolver789 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot refuse anything. This is a community. It is your contribution but it is not your article. See WP:OWN and perhaps also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, there is only one remotely-reliable source cited in the article and none in a search. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion: You said "none in a search" that Is actually not True because I Searched for this Information on The Chrome Search Bar and Tried looking for Available Websites for This and I did. Devolver789 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review what counts as reliable source, because user-generated content doesn't count as reliable. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't find any sources that suggest Layton is notable. I wondered if Chechens: culture and society might be notable; ProQuest finds a reasonable short review in the ALA journal Choice from July 2015, but it'd need at least one more to meet WP:NBOOK. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Choice counts much towards notability; they are not very discriminate in what they review and their reviews do not have enough depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The purpose of Choice is to advise (mainly public) libraries on purchases. The reviewers are librarians who are knowledgeable about what libraries might need to serve their patrons, but may not be subject experts. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Did a search myself and couldn't find anything that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Not to mention that the prose and broken grammar used in the article is so challenging to decipher, it might be easiest to tear it down and start over even if the subject is notable. nf utvol (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely does not pass WP:PROF, my searches did not turn up any additional book reviews that would contribute to WP:AUTHOR notability, no evidence of WP:GNG notability, the unsourced state of most of the article brings WP:TNT into play, and the combativeness of Devolver789 suggests that, if kept, maintaining the article in an acceptable state of encyclopedicness is likely to be difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If You are Really considering to Delete Katherine S. Layton then Delete Draft:Katherine S. Layton aswell. Devolver789 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That should happen automatically; the draft is currently just a redirect to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I agree with you I don't understand why the draft doesn't have a Deletion Post unlike it's Redirection which does have one. Devolver789 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  If the article is deleted, the redirect at the draft will presumably be deleted under criteria G8. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This bizarre article smells of trolling. Possible joe job directed at the subject. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the nominator, she doesn’t satisfy any notability standards.Gedaali (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: It's been days and The Article hasn't been submitted for deletion yet. Devolver789 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2025 (UK Timezone)

You already registered your !vote above, no need to bludgeon the process. Deletion discussions usually run for seven days unless there is a reason to re-list the discussion due to lack of consensus or it is closed early due to a snowball. Kindly take a moment to review WP:INTROTODELETE for more information. nf utvol (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the repeated boldface from the same editor. You are only allowed one of those per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure if Devolver789 lacks tact, never follows the news, or just is actually unconcerned about how his actions affect us. We can't have poorly sourced BLPs: wealthy and powerful individuals are looking for a "good excuse" to destroy us. Equally necessary is to stick to our due process principles; 7 days is our standard for deletions. Come back in 17 months, when the coast is clear, or we are still at war with Eastasia. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: largely unsourced, no indication of notability, and written in very unencyclopedic style. Draftification has previously failed, as the creator has just moved it back to mainspace, so deletion is the only way forward. PamD 15:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several unsourced paragraphs from this BLP article. It was moved out of draft space in no fit state for mainspace. PamD 15:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my eyes, this bu*****t reads like an AI-GENERATED essay. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey don't swear that type of Language is not allowed on Wikipedia you know even when it's censored. Devolver789 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Devolver789 I don't think so. See WP:OM and WP:WINC. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good job you didn't tell him not to be a ****, or a ****-***** *******. You truly are the great one Rafael! 10mmsocket (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@10mmsocket what? I didn't understand. Can you write it less confusing please? ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 01:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm skeptical that this is entirely or primarily AI-generated. Most AI text that I have seen is not written in such bad English. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @David Eppstein the text I am thinking about is: For nearly two Decades (Twenty years), Katherine Sue Layton has been working as a Human Rights Professional fighting for proper Human Rights and Freedom for Countries who have been Torn from Historical Events that Soon led to them Being poor and have an Undependable Government mainly Türkiye, The Northern Caucasus, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina which is why She helped them By doing Lots and Lots of Fieldwork for Refugees to give Them Humanitarian Aid and advocating for their Rights. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 12:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems more clear cut than the debate indicates. Per nomination, delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayfer Veziroğlu

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

Page moved to main by COI editor (see Talk:International Association for Hydrogen Energy) over draftification. Editor is performing many promo and/or inappropriate actions on various pages including removal of tags, AI etc. This page is for a not notable CEO of an organisation. No pass of WP:NPROF, no WP:SIGCOV or pass of WP:BIO. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chemistry and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ldm1954, but the proposed article on Dr. Ayfer Veziroğlu meets the notability requirements. She is the president, top leadership and top executive at a major academic society, the International Association for Hydrogen Energy. She particularly meets criteria #6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) 6-The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Regarding the coverage note, as stated in the proposed page, you will find that her work and leadership in the International Association for Hydrogen Energy have received extensive, in-depth coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources, which are listed and detailed in the proposed wikipedia page.

I understand the concern about ai-generated content. I can assure you that I wrote this article myself, based on research I conducted from various reliable sources. I have checked and visited every single resource in this page, show me any prove of ai information, at least in this page!.

Regarding the note of me having a close connection to the subject, I declare that have no close connection to her; I am committed to improving all hydrogen related articles because hydrogen is my passion, and would welcome any and all edits from other editors to ensure it meets the highest standards of neutrality. My primary goal is for this to be a factual and encyclopedic page. HydrogenEagle (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The notability of International Association for Hydrogen Energy (the organisation of which she is the President and CEO) has been questioned by Cabrils, see the associated talk page. Note that "President and CEO" is a common term used for the executive director who is employed by the organization and is in charge of operations, different from being elected as President of an established notable society such as APS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question of notability of International Association for Hydrogen Energy is an old question..I trust Wikipedia editors have the right to ask this question, but the page of International Association for Hydrogen Energy has passed this step before, when it was published and accepted in articles for creation submission (AFC)..Does the following reference satisfy your concerns about her being 'elected' as a president? https://fuelcellsworks.com/2024/10/03/h2/the-international-association-for-hydrogen-energy-has-a-new-president-and-executive-vice-presidents HydrogenEagle (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Portugal, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC. Lacks significant coverage in independent sources, and doesn't meet any WP:SNG criteria. Suggest reporting editor to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if it hasn't been done already.4meter4 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 4meter4 for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG despite the well-puffed content of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you Xxanthippe for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. I appreciate if you point out 'the puffed content' to remove it from the page. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article states that she took over as head of IAHE from her husband, its founder. To me that suggests that it is more in the nature of a family business than an academic society whose elected presidency is a significant honor. I don't think we can use WP:PROF#C6 and must fall back on other criteria. But we have no evidence of WP:GNG notability, her citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (noting that all her highly-cited articles are in the journal of the organization she runs), and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David for feedback. I have added more resources to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion to show her coverage from outside the IAHE, Dr. AyferVeziroğlu's academic notability based on her publication record and high citation count (not only IAHE), from independent sources, directly addressing the concerns about WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C1.

Regarding the comment that the IAHE presidency may be 'more in the nature of a family business,' I respectfully submit that the internal governance or succession process of a professional organization is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. There is no evidence in any published source to support the claim that the IAHE is a 'family business.'. The role's significance is demonstrated by the extensive, independent coverage Dr. Ayfer Veziroğlu has received from academic journals, news outlets, and other professional bodies, as now detailed in the article. https://www.iahe.org/en/board

The notability of the subject should be judged solely on the verifiable, published record, not on speculation about the nature of her personal or professional relationships. The updated page now provides ample evidence from reliable sources to justify her inclusion. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person hasn’t held any notable academic positions, and her research doesn’t meet WP:PROF#C1. also, there are no reliable sources per WP:GNG, so she fail notability.Gedaali (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gedaali for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2025 (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 delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 03:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June Lukuyu

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

Assistant professor appointed in 2023 in a high citation field (Electrical Engineering) with an h-factor of 8, 217 total citations and no major awards. While she has made a good start, it is far too early (WP:TOOSOON). Ldm1954 (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with WP:TOOSOON and a long way from notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kenya and Washington. jolielover♥talk 03:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC. The sources about her specifically are all published by UW where she works. They lack independence. There aren't any significant publications responding to her work as a researcher, and she doesn't any of the SNG criteria for academics. A clear case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Just being an assistant professor doesn’t meet WP:NPROF.Gedaali (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF yet, and the only source that appeared independent (Down To Earth) does not have significant coverage that would count towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per David Eppstein. We almost never keep assistant professors, unless they're notable for another reason. Bearian (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2025 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antony John Baptist

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

Fails to meet Wp:GNG and Wp:ANYBIO. No secondary coverage. Zuck28 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Christianity, India, and Tamil Nadu. Zuck28 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found two reviews of Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives [17] [18] and one review of Unsung Melodies from Margins [19]. Could pass WP:NAUTHOR if anyone else has better luck finding a few more reviews. MCE89 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – With respect, I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements under several established guidelines:

Under WP:GNG, there is significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources. This is more than routine or passing mentions.
According to WP:AUTHOR, authors are presumed notable if their works have received multiple independent reviews. Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives and Unsung Melodies from Margins have indeed been reviewed in reliable publications, which supports this standard.
WP:ANYBIO also provides that individuals with significant coverage in independent sources merit a standalone article. As both a priest and published author with reviewed works, Antony John Baptist fits within this scope.
The sources demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, offering in-depth treatment rather than trivial mentions.

In light of these points, I suggest that the best course is to improve the article with the available references rather than delete it. The subject clearly meets the threshold set by Wikipedia’s own guidelines, and keeping the page would align with policy.

— Alephjamie (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide the " multiple independent reviews" and "significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources." Zuck28 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I searched about the subject and found some book reviews of their works, which I believe are sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. In addition, I also came across some good articles on Google Scholar, and the authority databases are also giving positive signals. You can see the book reviews here, here, and here. Thanks to MCE89 as well for providing some reviews. Baqi:) (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR based on the sources provided in the discussion above.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Baqi sources. Again, I don't know what the scope of Catholicism is in India, but the sources are perfectly adequate for an article. Svartner (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR since has published multiple books that received solid coverage in reviews.Gedaali (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I have long done for such a WP:BLP, I won't consider new sources until they are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Meets, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ANYBIO. Antony John Baptist has received significant, independent coverage in reliable sources as a Catholic priest, biblical scholar, and author. His academic and pastoral work focuses on contextual theology and the interpretation of biblical narratives from the perspective of marginalized communities such as Dalit women. His published works and leadership roles at NBCLC, CCBI, TNBC and CBCI constitute WP:SIGCOV, supporting his notability as both an author and priest.RevJackDaniels (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevJackDaniels (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still waiting for the additional sources about him. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:AUTHOR found academic reviews Google Scholar, review1 review2, review3, review4 review5 establishing him as Indian Theologian.RevJackDaniels (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2025 (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.

Joy Philip Kakkanattu

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

The article does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the references are affiliated publications, without the depth required to satisfy GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. No SIGCOV in secondary WP:RS. Zuck28 (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

11:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

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

Despite being tagged for notability and COI since 2022, the current version of this article still provides no justification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. The references are primarily user-generated or self-published promotional websites. There is not a single reliable secondary or academic source demonstrating why the subject is notable as a researcher, professor, or author. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Deletion preferred.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. jolielover♥talk 09:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I have found some references, including book reviews about the subject, and also a couple of articles on Google Scholar. In addition, I came across some general references which I believe are sufficient for WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR. The rest of the articles need some cleanup and copy-editing, which I will do once I get free, as per WP:ATD. Thanks. Baqi:) (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannatulbaqi: I have reviewed all the sources you mentioned and found nothing that establishes the subject’s notability. Here is the breakdown of your references:

1, It’s an article about Urdu poetry; nothing is relevant to the article.
2, These are some routine book reviews. They are not published in any academic publications; instead, they are advertisements published in news media. Plus, there is nothing that establishes the subject’s notability.
3 This is a user-generated file-sharing website. What is the relation of this unreliable website to the article’s notability?
4, The article is about Urdu Ghazal in Sindh.
5 A catalogue of a book about Ghalib.

This article falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states that it must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and the avoidance of original research. We must be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. The sources you mentioned do not meet WP:NBASIC, which requires that people are presumed notable only if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cormode

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

No indication of encyclopedic notability for this academic administrator. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Religion, and California. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with proposer, does not meet any notability requirements. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all notability requirements. My own WP:BEFORE did not provide any useful sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Patre23 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being the editor of the Journal of Religious Leadership is probably not enough for WP:PROF criterion 8. Being the Hugh De Pree Professor of Leadership Development might be enough to meet criterion 5. He's published a few books, but they don't seem to have been widely reviewed (this was the only journal review I could find of either, but I may have missed some). Josh Milburn (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are also a few interviews, for instance [20] and [21]. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while his books haven't been reviewed a lot, his work does seem to be cited quite a bit and I think it's reasonable to say he passes WP:NACADEMIC 5. I found two additional journal reviews of one of his books other than the one Josh Milburn found, as well as a review of a book chapter and a journal article talking about the impact of some of his work. Jahaza (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Between what I said above and what Jahaza has found, I think there's enough here. The article has been slightly improved, including incorporating some of the sources identified above. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:NAUTHOR per the reviews added to the article and listed here.4meter4 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPROF #5 is met by his named chair, and Fuller is no minor fringe seminary. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement among participants on whether or not this article subject can pass WP:NPROF or WP:HEY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- was going to say almost exactly the same as Jclemens -- Fuller's reputation is that of a major institution whose named chairs are what NPROF 5 is about. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens - WP:NPROF#5. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPROF #5 as holding a named chair. Not sure why there are so many delete !votes - someone has referred to WP:HEY, but at least one editor claimed to do a WP:BEFORE search. St Anselm (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Puschmann

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

Lack of notability. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Finance, Science, Economics, Germany, and Switzerland. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Despite having a decent amount of citations as per Google Scholar, (asaik) he has not made any foundational or major pedagocial publications. Neither does he hold any elevated academic positions which would make hime notable under the SNG ACADEMIC. There is also no secondary coverage of his person from outside of academia, so general noatbility is not cleared either. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-keep. He is the top editor of a significant book series in his field published by Springer Publishing. While it doesn't exactly fit criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC; I do think the series is equivalent to editing a top journal in his field. Under the spirit of criteria 8 I would say he does meet NACADEMIC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Kirkpatrick

The subject of the article is a former Professor of Church History in Union Theological College, the small seminary for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, based in Belfast, northern Ireland.

He does not meet the notability criteria for an academic WP:NACADEMIC:

there is no evidence that his research has had a significant impact in the discipline of Church History, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
He has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
He has not been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association.
There is no evidence that his academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
He has not held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research or a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement.
He briefly held the post of Principal at Union Theological College, but this is a small seminary, not a major academic institution.
There is no evidence that he has had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity.
He has not been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in his subject area.

Reliable sources him only in the context of a single event. WP:BLP1E When he was sacked from his position as Professor of Church History in 2018 there was widespread press coverage of his sacking, subsequent employment tribunal and eventual settlement, but other than that he is a low-profile individual. The event is covered in the history of the college in its article, [22] but is not significant enough to merit an article of its own.

The article was first created in 2023, well after the professor had been sacked and was no longer academically active. [23] It was created by a confirmed sockpuppet who spent a lot of time making edits related to the sacking of the professor.

In summary, the subject was not regarded as notable during his academic career and the article was only created in response to a single event in the news. He is not a notable subject. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - I suspect the OP is correct that the notability standards have not been met per NACADEMIC, but it seems to me it is possible that he has a certain notability as a religious leader and commentator. Also possible he doesn't, but that doesn't seem to be explored in the nom. JMWt (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @JMWt, those are helpful categories to raise.
I've had a look to see whether he pops up as a commentator or not. In Northern Ireland the main opportunities for that would be the two national daily newspapers, the Belfast Telegraph and the Newsletter; two religious programmes on BBC Radio Ulster, Sunday Sequence and Thought for the Day; and the political blog Slugger O'Toole which sometimes touches on church and religion.
- I can't find any articles by him in the Belfast Telegraph. [24]
- I can't find any articles by him in the Newsletter. [25]
- He was a panelist on Sunday Sequence just twice, in March 2023 [26] and in March 2025 [27]. [28] That isn't a noteworthy number.
- He was a contributor to Thought for the Day three times in April 2025. [29] That isn't a noteworthy number.
- He doesn't seem to have written for Slugger O'Toole and only comes up once in a Google search. [30]
As far as being a leader, I'm not aware of him leading any movements. He's been invited to speak at some public events, but I'm not aware of any of them being influential or notable and it's the sort of thing plenty of people get invited to do who aren't noteworthy enough to appear on Wikipedia.
As far as I'm aware the thing he's probably best known for in Irish Presbyterian circles is writing a large coffee table style illustrated history of the Presbyterian Church. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that enough for WP:NAUTHOR? Elemimele (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be of interest to note here a curious disparity between the way that Ardenssedvirens has nominated this article for deletion, for which the notability of the subject has never hitherto been questioned as far as I can discern, versus the article on Martyn C. Cowan, for which the notability of the subject seems to have been questioned from the outset. This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, whereas the article on Martyn C. Cowan is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I am not suggesting that either article should be deleted but I would be interested in hearing why Ardenssedvirens is so interested in removing this article and yet had become so intensely engaged in a discussion regarding the mere addition of tags to the article on Martyn C. Cowan. Notably, the latter was also recently edited by a long-established user called Jdcooper, self-described as mainly focusing on the worst articles on Wikipedia. Nonavian (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nonavian and welcome to the discussion. There's helpful advice on how to contribute here: WP:DISCUSSAFD that will help you to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. If you want to discuss me personally this probably isn't the place to do it. If you want to discuss another article can I suggest doing on on the Talk page for the article or starting an AFD yourself for that article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my questions regarding consistency of criteria for deletion of articles, which is entirely on topic. I am now curious to know why the mere mention of Martyn C. Cowan in this context is something you should take so personally. Nonavian (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to the active discussion? TheBritinator (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Elemimele, that’s helpful. I hadn’t considered that angle. It looks like there are four possible criteria to be a notable author. Criterion 3 looks like the potentially applicable one here:

‘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);’

So I guess the question is whether Lawrence’s illustrated history of Presbyterianism is regarded as significant or well known, and been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. As far as I’m aware there aren’t any books, films or TV series about it!
I did a Google search for ‘review “Laurence Kirkpatrick” “Presbyterians in Ireland” an illustrated history’. Apart from reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, I only found one review, in ‘Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society’ [31].

A search on JSTOR for the book showed just this one review.

A further search on JSTOR for anything with Laurence Kirkpatrick turned up two articles: the aforementioned review and a review by Kirkpatrick of another book.

I also checked the Presbyterian Historical Society. There didn’t appear to be any reviews. Kirkpatrick contributed two articles to their periodical — one in 2008 and another in 2015. But his own work doesn’t seem to have been reviewed.

Returning to the criterion above, the book doesn’t appear to meet the requirement that the ‘work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews’ and therefore doesn’t seem to meet the criteria to be a notable author. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NAUTHOR is always worth checking for academics, especially those in non-science disciplines, but I concur that this doesn't look like an NAUTHOR pass. Typically NAUTHOR requires multiple notable books (otherwise we can just have a book article and cover the author as "background"), and with only one review it doesn't look like even his one book passes WP:NBOOK. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - edits by a sock puppet can be cured with edits by uninvolved users, but lack of significant coverage is fatal. I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being sacked for publicly disagreeing with his church's hard line on homosexuality (and the ensuing media and legal fallout) has given him a general notability that he might not have specifically as an academic or an author. Focusing on those rather than on the general notability seems a little disingenuous. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t being disingenuous. I specifically mentioned that, said it was the one thing he’d be known for, and linked to WP:BLP1E to make it easier for other people to consider the criteria themselves.

Calling someone disingenuous doesn’t seem very civil and idoesn’t contribute constructively. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any offence, but feel I should point out that I haven't called anybody anything: I have communicated the impression made on me by actions, quite independently of persons or their qualities. You did indeed refer to BLP1E, but I'm not convinced this meets the spirit of that rule. This is a public figure whose main claim to fame (or notoriety) arose due to remarks he made while ~~being interviewed~~ speaking as an expert in his field on the BBC and has generated media coverage over a seven-year period, some (e.g.) exclusively reporting on his own subsequent thoughts and actions. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said ‘Focusing on those rather than on the general notability seems a little disingenuous.’ I don’t know how you can say that and then claim you didn’t call me anything. That seems disingenuous.

Most of the media coverage was in 2018/19 when he was fired and took the church to ab employment tribunal. There has been a bit of coverage since then, but it’s mostly been to say that the tribunal is expected to meet soon and then later than there had been a settlement.

The event is already covered by the Union Theological College article. The Kirkpatrick article doesn’t really add much, if anything. I’m not sure it adds any value having it as a separate article rather than delete and redirect. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we focus on Kirkpatrick please and less on editors' perceived motives?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the key premises for deletion as described above is that the notoriety of the professor’s dismissal is already covered by the article on Union Theological College but the talk page for that article has comments by that editor indicating that they resent positive descriptions of the professor. 195.99.165.202 (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to the AFD discussion. I’m not sure if you’ve confused me with someone else, but I have never said that I resent positive descriptions of the professor. Can I suggest you read the guides at the top of this page. They have plenty of helpful advice on how to contribute constructively. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be just about enough coverage over an extended period of time to justify the article e.g. 1 2 3. Cortador (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like WP:BLP1E, and neither NACADEMIC nor NAUTHOR applies. I don't think the links Cortador points to constitute coverage over an extended period of time; rather, it looks to me that the event (his firing) occurred over an extended period of time. There doesn't appear to be any retrospective coverage after the affair concluded which would give the event some broader significance. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability.Gedaali (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Pier Luigi Lattuada (via WP:PROD on 29 August 2025)
Paul Israel (historian) (via WP:PROD on 29 August 2025)
Richard Yetter Chappell (via WP:PROD on 29 August 2025)
James W. Le Duc (via WP:PROD on 28 August 2025)
Eroia Barone-Nugent (via WP:PROD on 27 August 2025)
Alfred Rolfe (headmaster) (via WP:PROD on 27 August 2025)
Robert Lowe (academician) (via WP:PROD on 27 August 2025)
William Perrin (convict) (via WP:PROD on 27 August 2025)