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

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]

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]

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]

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]
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]

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]

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]

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 [1] [2] and one review of Unsung Melodies from Margins [3]. 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)[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]

Ian M. Duguid

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

Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS, fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. The references are minimal and non-independent. Such content violates WP:NOTPROMO, turning Wikipedia into a free promotional tool for academics. Also, the article's title is misspelt, I don't understand whether deliberately or by mistake. Zuck28 (talk) 01:00, 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, and United Kingdom. Zuck28 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his first book is notable [4] [5], haven't checked the rest. Article is not promotional imo PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article title will need to be moved after this discussion closes to address the misspelling, but Duguid passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews for his books Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel ([6], [7], [8]) and The Song of Songs ([9], [10]), as well as many independent journal reviews for his co-edited series the ESV Expository Commentary. I expect he passes WP:NACADEMIC as well as a leading Reformed biblical scholar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Dclemens1971. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Move to Iain M. Duguid.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dclemens1971. Gedaali (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reliable sources reviews of his works as identified in this discussion by Dclemons so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the GS data suggests a WP:PROF pass for the field. St Anselm (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable as an established Christian author (WP:AUTHOR) and professor (WP:PROF), per evidence provided here. Alephjamie (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bennett (librarian)

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

This article has an interesting history. It was started in 2006 as a mass of unsourced fluff, and was whittled down over time to one still mostly unsourced line. In that nearly two-decade span, either no one has either had the interest to expand and source this, or there are not sources to do it with. BD2412 T 16:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Connecticut. BD2412 T 16:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and WP:NACADEMIC, and there are likely no other sources available to expand the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as above, and agree the article is unlikely to ever expand/improve. Leonstojka (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Librarians are often not notable and generally need to go through WP:GNG, but we have no in-depth independent sourcing. There is some depth at [11] but not independent. However he was a humanities professor before he was a librarian so there is still some hope of WP:AUTHOR notability through reviews of his books; the books are listed among his publications at [12]. I could not find any reviews of The Family Library, 1825-1835: the uses of literacy in a revolutionary age (his dissertation, ProQuest 302236605, later republished). I did find a small number of reviews of two edited volumes: Art and Error: Modern Textual Editing: JSTOR 3722991, JSTOR 513289; The Altrurian Romances: JSTOR 2923930. Because these are edited volumes they don't count for as much with me as if they were authored books and I don't think this is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per David Eppstein. I note that as a BLP, the burden is on those who want to keep. Bearian (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Mullooparampil

(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) 10:19, 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) 10:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Poor to unreliable primary sources are used to create a promotional article for a non-notable subject. Zuck28 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Poor sources and the degree of significance of the subject and of role as Indian priest and professor, is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Paulachan Kochappilly

(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) 10:13, 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) 10:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see any evidence of passing WP:GNG or an SNG like WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet notability due to lack of significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalya Kumar

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG criteria, as it lacks adequate coverage by multiple reliable sources. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and West Bengal. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Maybe meets WP:NPROF#C1 [13] and WP:NPROF#C5 [14], and definitely meets WP:NAUTHOR [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. But the page is a complete mess and needs to be cut down if this is kept. MCE89 (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is an utter mess and a very obvious paid promotional entry, but I think he meets the WP:NPROF critera. He has a pretty good citation count for his field, and his google scholar profile lists a number of impactful articles in reputable journals where he is the first author. Leonstojka (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N. S. Raju

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

Not notable, not in coverage, a big article stands on only two sources, looks like unsourced article. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Asia, India, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with the nominator. Taabii (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling him doesn’t bring up anything that looks notable.Gedaali (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Despite the nominator being a sockpuppet, the article appears to have been generated by LLM, is based on only two sources, and has no parallel on te.wiki. To make matters worse, there is a namesake professor of microbiology at the University of Mysore. Svartner (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md Shohil Aktar

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

Young researcher who most recently worked (or currently works?) "as a research intern at the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee". The article is mainly sourced to his own paper "Analysis of heterostructure MOSFET properties for improved device" published in something called TIJER (Technix International Journal for Engineering Research?) that looks less than stellar, and to his various profiles via external links. Searches suggest that sources required to meet either WP:BASIC or any part of WP:NACADEMICS are not found.

The article was draftified, but the article creator moved it back to main space, so here we are per WP:DRAFTONCE.

Judging from the level of detail in the article not supported by sources, and the fact that the photo File:MD SHOHIL AKTAR.png is a selfie uploaded by the article creator as their own work an autobio is assumed. Sam Sailor 21:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Sam Sailor 21:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar finds four unpublished papers by MDS Aktar but no citations to any of them. Nothing in the article rises to the level of WP:PROF or any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator, User:GUIDE3, is moving a lot of pages about physics into main space. It would help if some of our experienced editors who are knowledgeable in this field could quickly review them and see whether or nor they are any good. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I just found then. So far I have AfD'd two to enforce draftification as @GUIDE3 has moved them back overriding prior draftification without material changes. I have left him a warning, and I am checking the rest; harsher action may be needed.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., I have changed my AfD noms to delete, as we are in clear WP:NOTHERE territory. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per David Eppstein. Svartner (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom, article clearly does not meet WP's notability standards. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I suspect autobiographical based upon the article creation history of the editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is he even just a non-notable researcher? I can’t believe it! Gedaali (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Clearly a self-promoting article. Zuck28 (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Listing travel reimbursement as an award really does betray how not notable this subject is. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a promotional article. The degree of significance of the subject fails to meet notability and does not warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. The comments above are quite revealing. What a wretched text! -The Gnome (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debabrata Sen

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

All I can find are fabricated sources from a WP:BEFORE search. The five sources in the article are unavailable with no wayback archives. Fails WP:GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, India, and West Bengal. jolielover♥talk 09:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as Outlook India, Free Press Journal, The Hindu, and Times of India. Dead links do not mean sources are fabricated (see WP:DEADREF). He has received notable awards and recognition, meeting WP:GNG.Sweetabena (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetabena, please link those articles here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources I could find. I don't really like this page and I'm not sure I want it here, nonetheless:

1. https://www.outlookindia.com/healthcare-spotlight/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-leader-revolutionizing-ayurveda-with-generational-wisdom-and-modern-innovation

2. https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/health-news/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-blending-ayurveda-with-modern-science-for-a-healthier-india/ar-AA1K5HUw

3. https://www.republicbiz.com/initiatives/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-blending-ayurveda-with-modern-science-for-a-healthier-india

4. https://www.indiablooms.com/health/parampara-ayurveda-founder-dr-debabrata-sen-shares-wellness-strategies-for-desk-bound-professionals/details

Kvinnen (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above sources are either sponsored or unbylined, as disclosed in the sources themselves. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with unbylined sources? I understand why sponsored sources might raise problems. Thanks! Kvinnen (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unbylined sources usually aren’t that reliable since a lot of them turn out to be press releases or sponsored pieces. You don’t really know who wrote them or if they even went through proper editorial checks. With bylined articles, at least you can look up the author’s past work and get a sense of their credibility. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response – While I agree that sponsored content is not independent and should be discounted, not all unbylined articles are automatically unreliable. Major Indian outlets like Outlook and MSN India frequently run unbylined staff pieces, especially in their health or features sections, and these still go through editorial review. Per WP:RS, reliability depends on the reputation of the publication, not whether an individual journalist’s name is attached.

That said, I agree we should prioritize clearly independent coverage. The Hindu and Times of India pieces cited are standard news reporting (not sponsored), and they provide exactly the kind of significant coverage required under WP:GNG. Even one or two such articles, combined with his awards and professional recognition, are usually sufficient for notability.

In short: let’s remove or de-emphasize any PR-like sources, but the existence of mainstream coverage in The Hindu and TOI still supports keeping this article.Sweetabena (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the AI crap and link those articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweetabena and @Kvinnen:, Unbylined sources (or even "bylined" sources) that are obvious promotion are unreliable and should not be take seriously. For example this sort of wording is indicative of undisclosed sponsored content, native advertising, PR promo and WP:ADMASQ: "His life’s work is a shining example... of "his extraordinary contributions", credited for creating "new paradigms" with no back up by reliable medical sources, BTW; or ..."His brainchild, (is his) brand"..."Beyond clinical excellence...", is an obvious marketing strategy, "through his pioneering work"...the man is a "beacon of selfless service"......etc. this is straight up, transparent public relations firm marketing copy, it is not news, nor journalism. Sources like this should not be used, and they do not confirm notability. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Number 2 is just a link to number 3. Jahaza (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no apparently reliable sources. Some sources appear to be fake. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge source appears to be fake/hallucinated. Jahaza (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This Ayurvedic physician is not notable. It seems there is a western physician with the same name, therefore one has to be careful when searching for sources, because they are different people. I could not find anything in an online BEFORE search to substantiate this Debabrata Sen's notability. The current sources in the article are either dead links or poor quality or as mentioned above, fake. The sources brought to the table by Swetabena are sponsored content or PR puff-pieces not journalism, for example wording like: "Dr. Sen has redefined the landscape"..."he has created new paradigms"..."His brainchild, (is his) brand"..."through his pioneering work"..."Beyond clinical excellence...a beacon of selfless service"..."His life’s work is a shining example..."his extraordinary contributions"...etc. etc. is pure unadulterated promo that can't be taken as serious news reporting, especially not for an encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per statements above. Svartner (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I wrote the article, and all dead/expired links are now live. Hummer9713 (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single bylined source isn't significant coverage; it's original research. The other sources are unreliable as discussed above. I'm sorry, but unless it's hard news, we must be suspicious of certain media outlets. In ordinary times, we could tolerate a poorly sourced BLP, but in 2025, we must be cautious. The proponents of this BLP have failed in their burden of proof. I'm sorry, but this is a terrible time to treat us like we're LinkedIn. Don't take it personally, but it's for our continued existence. Maybe you can try again in 2029. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The deletion reasons make sense, no reliable sources exist.Gedaali (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Zuck28 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' . Do not find any awards notable. After looking at sources that are rather poor, I find that the subject's role as Ayurvedic physician is not notable and does not have any significance to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom Mehru13 (talk) 13:44, 25 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]

Arun Kapur

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

Limited or routine coverage. Much of the available coverage focuses o institutional roles, with limited in-depth coverage. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable educator. Fails SIGCOV. Apart from the Bhutan award thing, all the sources are trivial and passing mentions. Possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- would agree with what Zuck28 pointed out, seems most hits even from Google news is mostly about the subject being awarded for his educational contributions, so unsure how much those weigh in making the subject notable enough. Not opposed to draftify if any SIGCOV can be found. I suspect there maybe more SIGCOV in Indian sources, interestingly no alternate language version of the subject is available.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:35, 24 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 [25] and [26]. 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]

Sunita Dodani

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

Page of a medical practitioner with an h-factor of 24 and 2277 cites. She is a Fellow of the American Heart Association, but from their web page that is not selective enough. Author of this page claims a pass of WP:NPROF, but I am not convinced, it is WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 16 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) 15:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the BLP is puffed up I think there is probably enough for a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 16 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) 15:31, 23 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]

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, [27] 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. [28] 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. [29]
- I can't find any articles by him in the Newsletter. [30]
- He was a panelist on Sunday Sequence just twice, in March 2023 [31] and in March 2025 [32]. [33] That isn't a noteworthy number.
- He was a contributor to Thought for the Day three times in April 2025. [34] 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. [35]
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’ [36].

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. 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]

Proposed deletions

~~Ian Dyck (via WP:PROD on 22 August 2025)~~
~~Camilla Mørk Røstvik (via WP:PROD on 18 August 2025)~~