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.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive 2

watch

Academics and educators

Oyo Mitsunobu

Oyo Mitsunobu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Mitsunobu reaction because I am finding very little coverage of Mitsunobu as an individual. Most of the coverage is in relation to Mitsunobu reaction, and it may be an issue of WP:BIO1E. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Chemistry and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep verging on speedy keep. Per WP:NPROF#C1 he passes notability based upon a significant impact. While it is common for this to be many well-cited papers, a single big achievement is enough. BIO1E does not really apply as satisfying NPROF is enough by itself. Also, from a quick Google Scholar search, in addition to the paper on his reaction (which has > 5K cites and numerous papers on it) he appears to have quite a few others with cites in the several hundreds. The page should be improved with some of the sources that praise the reaction, and maybe a bit more about him, but that is for the future.Ldm1954 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  verging on speedy keep
  Which specific criterion for speedy keep do you think could apply to this page? FaviFake (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge – While the topic itself may or may not be notable as Ldm1954 said above, the only thing this guy did was introduced the Mitsunobu reaction, so it would be better to cover all it on a single page instead of spreading it across two pages, per WP:SHORTTEXT and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The topic is notable and the content is worth keeping, just not as a separate page. FaviFake (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Trygve Ugland

Trygve Ugland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NPROF nor WP:NAUTHOR google search shows he exists but not to our notability standard Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Norway. Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Please do a source analysis of the extant sources Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Northern Ireland and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Pierre Venter

Pierre Venter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most likely AI-generated (see reasons in tag added in Special:Diff/1359903761). Original article has been replaced with a second version in Special:Diff/1368762949, that has utm params showing ChatGPT use and is also almost AI-generated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Suspected AI-generated articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Food and drink, South Africa, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - we should honestly make these ChatGPT copy-pastes eligible for speedy deletion. There wasnt even an attempt to change what ChatGPT created. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  They are eligible for G15 speedy deletion if the evidence that it lacks human cleanup is clear enough, as it may be in this case. We also have the WP:LLMPROD process for LLM-created material. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't found any G15'able edits. The closest are the utm params, but it's only on one link which isn't enough for G15. Hence this AfD instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. LLM text is not worth the effort to fix. M kuhner (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT and the clear LLM origin of this text (which still contains WP:LLMSIGNS), despite the pass of WP:PROF#C6. Could possibly be G15 speedy as above. I would be open to changing my mind if some non-LLM-user wants to undertake a ground-up rewrite. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Zabir Saeed

Zabir Saeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources listed in the article are self-authored or about award like "Lifetime Achievement Award" , which are usually paid. I think sole purpose of this biography is self-promotion. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Pakistan. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 01:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Vivek Kumar Birla

Vivek Kumar Birla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mainly based on WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLP1E. Not salvageable as the person is WP:NPF with not enough ample amount of sources in vicinity around him, it was also cited with The Times of India which falls under WP:RSP, I don't thing the topic deserves a standalone page as of now. Naslmah (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, Academic journals, Events, Law, Social science, Asia, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Naslmah (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NPOL - he was a judge on a state (subnational) top court, the Allahabad High Court, which is the top court of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:NPOL. A judge of an Indian High Court is presumed notable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Tanuj Khatri

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tanuj Khatri
• Articles for deletion/Tanuj Khatri (2nd nomination)

Tanuj Khatri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and NPOL. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete fails notability - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 04:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The article is based on multiple independent reliable sources covering Tanuj Khatri's appointment as a State Information Commissioner of Jharkhand, including Hindustan Times, The Times of India, BHASKAR (NATIONAL HINDI NEWSPAPER), and the official Jharkhand State Information Commission website. I have added these references to verify the appointment and office. If there are specific notability concerns beyond the sourcing of this appointment, I would appreciate guidance on what additional independent coverage would be required. Ziyush (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The Personnel Department issued a notification on Wednesday regarding the appointment of four new Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission. The appointments were made under Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, following Governor Santosh Kumar Gangwar's approval. The newly appointed Information Commissioners include Anuj Kumar Sinha, Tanuj Khatri, Amulya Neeraj Khalkho, and Shivpujan Pathak. Their tenure will be effective from the date they take oath. Their tenure will be valid for three years from the date of assuming office or until they attain the age of 65, whichever is earlier. The notification states that the arrival of Information Commissioners in the state will help expedite the disposal of pending cases. Earlier on Wednesday, the Governor gave his approval to the proposal submitted by the state government. Lok Bhavan reported that the Governor approved these appointments subject to certain conditions. He directed the government to ensure the prompt appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner to the Jharkhand State Information Commission. He also clarified that if any procedural error or question arises regarding compliance with Supreme Court orders in the appointment process for Information Commissioners, the state government will be held accountable. This is from one of the sources. Now can you please show me where is the significant coverage. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The appointment is also verified by the official Jharkhand State Information Commission website, which is the primary government source maintained by the Government of Jharkhand. The official Commission website lists the Information Commissioners and their contact details, and serves as the authoritative record of the appointments. I have cited this official source in addition to independent news coverage.

Official source: https://onlinejsic.jharkhand.gov.in/contactus.php

The appointment was also reported independently by several mainstream media organisations, including Hindustan Times, Bhaskar (local hindi news) , Dainik Jagran (local hindi news), The Times of India, PTI/ThePrint, and others after the official notification was issued.

I understand that the official government website establishes the factual appointment, while the independent newspaper articles provide secondary reporting of that event. Ziyush (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Appointment is verified by the government I agree. How can it make this person notable. For that there should be multiple reliable sources proving significant coverage. You should read WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification regarding WP:GNG. I have reviewed the concern and have now added three additional independent reliable sources covering Tanuj Khatri in his capacity as a JMM spokesperson. These are separate from the government sources and the routine reports concerning his appointment as State Information Commissioner.

The article now contains independent coverage relating to different periods of his public career, including his earlier student leadership, his subsequent role as JMM spokesperson, and his later appointment as State Information Commissioner.

I understand that holding an office or having a designation does not by itself establish notability, and that passing mentions are insufficient. I have therefore tried to strengthen the article with independent secondary sources rather than relying on the official government record for notability.

Could you please review the newly added sources and advise whether, taken together with the existing independent coverage, they provide sufficient significant coverage under WP:GNG? If particular sources are still considered routine or only passing mentions, please identify them so that I can improve the sourcing accordingly. Ziyush (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The article has also been revised to improve neutrality by removing promotional language and ensuring that all significant claims are supported by reliable references. Any remaining editorial issues can be resolved through further improvement rather than deletion.

Based on the current sourcing, I believe the subject satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG, and I do not believe deletion is warranted. Therefore, I support Keep.

The article now includes independent coverage from:

The Times of India

Hindustan Times

LIVEHINDUSTAN

Dainik Bhaskar

Official Government of Jharkhand records (for factual verification only) Ziyush (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The independent coverage which you are mentioning is mostly routine ones. For meeting GNG,we need significant coverage which is missing here. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. 1: Solely quotes from the subject, zero secondary independent coverage let alone SIGCOV N. 2: Reports only what the subject said, zero IRS SIGCOV. 3: Reports what the subject said, no secondary analysis at all apart from the editorializing "extremely harsh and abusive language" N. 4: More of the subject speaking, neither independent nor secondary N. 6,8,9,10,11: Namedrops, trivial mentions N. 5 & 7 are Times of India and thus not reliable for BLPs, not that they provide more than namedrops anyway N.
  How is it that the LLMs interpreting Wikipedia's P&Gs cannot seem to grasp the concept of SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I stopped replying to the creator. They are simply replying using AI bot without even knowing the basics of Wikipedia. Totally fed up at this point. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  I am not here to argue with anyone if you think the sources I have provided meet Wikipedias requirements please consider them and support the article If they don’t thats fine reject them a I am not gaining anything from spending time debating whether my replies were written manually or with the help of AI

  I’d rather keep the discussion focused on the sources and whether they meet Wikipedias policies ~2026-44347-75 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Alethea Jane Macon

Alethea Jane Macon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

My BEFORE shows a failure for NAUTHOR, NACADEMIC, and GNG. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Mahammad Mammadov (scientist)

Mahammad Mammadov (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page on an Azerbaijani scientist which was previously draftified as the majority of the page was unsourced; see Draft:Mahammad Mammadov (scientist) for the history. Page creator added a few links (not sources for claims) and moved it back to main, deleting maintenance tags at the same time. At a minimum draftify, but since this is now AfD the question of notability has to be considered with delete an option. I am dubious about a pass of NPROF, the GS profile I found has an h-factor of 2, and I am dubious about NBIO. There is of course the language issue. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Azerbaijan. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Merrelyn Emery

Merrelyn Emery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing how this passes WP:NPROF. Lots of puffery added by a WP:COI editor might make it seem that way, but there's nothing there there. Could possibly be merged/redirected to Fred Emery as an alternative. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You are probably referring to me, as I was the one who wrote the first version back in 2021. I had no CoI back then at all, just a wish for her work to be noticed and for her page not to be redirected to her partner's page, as it did back then, which is an insult to a seasoned researcher and writer as she is.

Since then, I have worked with her, and when I wanted to update the page and create a more balanced piece (remove what you may think of as "puffery") I added the CoI and asked for approval of the update. I have now deleted it as I see no point in trying to get that approved, which proved to be right based on your request to even delete the whole page.

I'm not alone in arguing for having this page on Wikipedia and hope some will join the discussion. Since your request for deletion may have been initiated by my Draft:Open systems theory proposal and your opposition to that, I will probably not be able to sway you. In the meantime, I will update the page as planned to make it more representative, as I do agree that it is not there yet. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The page has been updated with more sources, and promotional language has been removed. This should make the WP:NPROF clearance more obvious. Also, Google Scholar shows sustained citation across the organisational development and action research literature:

• Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1989, ≈274 citations),
• Searching (1999, ≈190),
• "The current version of Emery's open systems theory" in Systemic Practice and Action Research (2000, ≈165),
• A Choice of Futures (with F. Emery, 1976, ≈156),
• Barton, Emery, Flood and Selsky (2004) in Systemic Practice and Action Research (≈115),
• "The search conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action" (with Purser, 1996, =694).

Six works over 100 citations in a small specialist field. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I did the updates to the page, which probably conflict with the WP:COI process, but I hope that is OK since there is an AfD, you are involved and there is full disclosure about my CoI and the ongoing AfC. More than happy to revert and create a draft page instead. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: authors of widely recognized concepts, both by public and by scientific community, are generally considered to be notable. There were concerns about promotional language of the article; the overly promotional language has since been removed. Jean Mélenchon (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Where is the secondary sourcing to establish this as a widely recognized concept by both the public and scientific community? Where is sourcing establishing the subject's role in this? Were you canvassed to be here? Sulfurboy (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry for butting in here, but since you asked for secondary sourcing, there are loads of its uses around the world (like Search Conferences and organisational redesigns using the Participative Design Workshops), especially in Australia and the US. A good source is this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1879091.The_Self_Managing_Organization_ In addition to the citations mentioned above from Google Scholar. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  This does not demonstrate significant recognition, at all. In fact, an h-index of 7 would demonstrate the exact opposite. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Scopus has a mere 17 of her articles. Not sure which as they are hidden behind a wall. She has authored or coauthored at least ten books, eight edited books, 35 book chapters, 60 journal articles, and contributed 29 institutional research reports, including several national studies. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect back to Fred Emery. On Scopus I am not seeing anywhere close to the citations claimed above, with just 196 citations total and an h-index of 7. I'm also not seeing the significant recognition of either "open systems theory" or M. Emery as its co-developer needed for a pass of C1. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Why do you use Scopus? It has only 17 of her articles. See the numbers I've given above for her production and the number of citations on Google Scholar. Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Thjortel @BenAveling, because NPROF advises to use Scopus or WoS and against using Google Scholar for citation counts (bolding mine): The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. ...

  A caution about Google Scholar: ... For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. ... In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources.[2] It has also been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals.[3] Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only.

  If you can find multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple of her solo-authored books, that would be more helpful for a NAUTHOR pass.

  Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, is staggeringly sexist and patronizing. Just wow. JoelleJay (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm very aware that Wikipedia sets the bar higher for female academics than male academics. I think 'multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple books' is a bar that would rule out most academics. And, as per Wikipedia:NPROF, Google Scholar as prone to undercounting as overcounting, and can be used as a rough guide. Google Scholar is particularly compromised in this case because she doesn't have an account, which would have been helpful. That said, the top 5 results do seem to be the right M Emery, and have between 115 and 274 citations each, according to Google Scholar. The only journal among those five results is Systemic Practice and Action Research, which has an impact factor of 1.8. Springer report 56 and 35 citations for those two articles, about 1/3 of what Google Scholar reports. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Looking through Google Scholar, a lot of those citations come from the same two journals, Systems Research and Behavioral Science and Systemic Practice and Action Research, which possibly suggests significant impact but only in a very small field. All up, it's not nothing, this is not a field I'm familiar with, and it's tricky to compare impact factors between different disciplines. But. Compared to what I'm used to, and considering that this is over 20+ years, I can't build an argument for notability on citations. On the other hand, you could say much the same about Fred Emery's citation record if you only rely on Scopus Preview - it (wrongly) rates his h-number as being lower than hers. Citation count isn't everything. Her contribution to Open systems theory does seem significant. But is OST significant? I'm unsure that it demonstrably is. If we could quantify her contribution to Participative Design Workshop, that might be sufficient. Can we? Ben Aveling 22:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think we can. She has not only worked on theory and done action research, but she has also helped numerous companies in Australia and Canada, in particular, in their transition to self-managing organisations. The PDW is one area where her contributions have been substantial, the other being the Search Conferences that have been the topic of her most well-known book and have been used a lot around the world, even here in Norway. It has also inspired other techniques like Weisbord's Future Search (https://futuresearch.net/about/history/).

  Generally, I think C7 should be an equally important criterion for keeping as C1. Documented applications of Emery's methods include large-scale regional planning by the U.S. Forest Service (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000); Project Australia national consultations; Torres Strait Islands community planning (Paton & Emery, Journal for Quality and Participation 19(5), 1996); and workplace mental health (de Guerre, Emery, Aughton & Trull, SPAR 21(8), 2008). NPROF is disjunctive. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Multiple empirical studies have determined Wikipedia does not set a higher bar for women academics (a recent study even found the opposite for women biologists). This is something I have also noticed across the NPROF AfDs where I have calculated the subject's senior coauthors' citation metrics to estimate the field medians.

  Yes, "multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple books" is supposed to rule out the vast majority of academics, because articles should be about highly impactful scholars and not the average professor. However, if Emery's books are as influential as claimed, it is likely that sufficient reviews exist and searching for those would be the best use of keep !voters' time.

  The problem with the GS citations, as noted at NPROF, is that they are inflated by citations in non-academic or non-indexed/non-RS academic sources.

  In my experience, trying to evaluate the impact of the subject's contributions to a topic, and the significance of the topic itself, in the absence of reliable citation counts is very difficult and rarely attempted at AfD. Fred Emery likely has escaped deletion attention due to his apparent pass of ANYBIO #2, although given he worked at the university that prepared his biography I don't think that should be given much consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  A couple of peer reviews for her books have been added to the page, by me and one other. For papers I assume the journals have covered that process. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Just got word that the Australian National University is preparing a biographical piece for publication on their website. Ought to be a decent sign of the importance of her work.

Trond Hjorteland (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Under what policy would a possible piece like this warrant a keep? This is WP:CRYSTAL at best. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

ANU is definitely not an independent source, so such a piece would not be acceptable as GNG coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite to make clearer her own contributions, rather than leading by saying she is known for working with someone else. It's hard to be sure what her h-index would be, but FWIW, it's going to be more than 7. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Merrelyn+Emery Ben Aveling 20:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• An extra point I would like to bring up concerns the suggestion to use WP:REDIRECT to Fred Emery (psychologist). It calls for targets that contain the information sought. Fred Emery's article does not document Merrelyn Emery's independent contributions — the two-stage model of active adaptation, her work on Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1993), the Search Conference monograph (Searching, John Benjamins, 1999), or the statistical methods (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000). A redirect would leave readers at a target that does not contain the material. Also, a redirect to Fred Emery here would fit a pattern noted in Wikipedia's coverage of women in science — redirecting the woman scholar to her male partner's article rather than maintaining a standalone biography. This concern is especially relevant where the target article does not contain the redirected subject's independent contributions. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Shahin Khalilli

Shahin Khalilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet WP:NBIO. Sources only about book publications and the books themselves. Yousiphh (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Social science, and Azerbaijan. Yousiphh (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The books are enough for a pass of NAUTHOR if there are some reviews of them. Unfortunately the only source that indicates it is a review, [7], leads somewhere else. The sourcing is bad, but most of the text comes from [1] so is "OK". I am not sure here, the language is a barrier to my finding reviews, maybe someone can do better in which case it will be a keep.
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Mahendra Bora

Mahendra Bora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a single SIRS is coming up on Google search. Fails WP:NBIO. Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. A simple google search in assamese brings up a lot of sources talking about him. See and easily meets WP:NAUTHOR Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Note for closing admin that Flyingphoenixchips is the article originator, who is currently blocked from article space for overuse of WP:LLMS. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Francois Strydom

Francois Strydom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NACADEMIC on every point, fails GNG. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. "Senior Director of Teaching and Learning" sounds like an administrative position, one too low (not head of entire university) to pass WP:PROF#C6. He does have scholarly publications on education, but not with high enough citation counts to convince me of WP:PROF#C1. Searches found nothing that could generate notability through WP:GNG instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing much there to indicate notability. Athel cb (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete appears to have a low/absent h-index in Gscholar. Doesn't meet PROF per the discussion above, not much else about this individual that I can find. Also reads like PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Keep (and I must confess that I am the author of this piece). Thanks for all the feedback. Those administrators in Teaching and Learning, who also wear an academic cap (and serve on national quality assurance bodies) are quite notable. They are both shaping provision and making financial decisions around massification and the use of AI in education. Which (IMHO) will harm higher education in South Africa. This is not a promotional piece at all. I am trying my best to maintain a very neutral stance. I have added another book that he has edited. "Engaging students: using evidence to promote student success". If you want more grey literature, there is plenty. Derek J Moore (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, one more thing. Do take a look at achieving the dream {{Q30271507}} and Strydom’s association with it! Derek J Moore (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Here is the reference Derek J Moore (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  That source is neither independent (it is published by UFS, Strydom's employer) nor in-depth (it mentions Strydom only in passing and is primarily about something else). It does not contribute to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hello David. Ask your self. What is a US based organizations, whose focus is American community colleges, doing in South African Higher Education? We have our community colleges here. They are called TVET institutions. They are state funded. Let’s say the roles were reversed. And I was funding an achieve the dream from South Africa, for a US student at Harvard. That would be notable! Derek J Moore (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Not according to our standards for WP:notability. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

References

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Luca Massaron

Luca Massaron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or another subject-specific notability guideline (e.g., WP:AUTHOR). The citations provided are an online community profile and links to purchase books which the subject has (co-)authored. A search finds no significant coverage in reliable sources to support a biographical article. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I am also of the belief that the content of this article was generated by an LLM, given some of the generalizations, hagiographic style, and significant portions of the article lacking citations. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment has an h-index of 14, with 1000 something citations. This book review , for a book the subject co-authored. I'm not sure we're at notability... Is the H-factor enough for PROF? Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Artificial intelligence, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a high-citation field so his citation counts on Google Scholar are not enough to convince for WP:PROF#C1. I found a second book review, in Japanese but two reviews of two coauthored non-research books are not enough for me for WP:AUTHOR. And the bad state of the article and non-responsiveness of its creator to questions on LLM use don't help. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Criterion A7 for speedy deletion could apply here. His accomplishments are greatly overblown; being a Google Developer Expert seems like a common recognition given out by Google, his 5 books published are co-written with other experts covering niche topics within computer science, and his Kaggle activity is not an indication of importance at all. Besides, as per looking at the edit summaries made by the article creator, his intention was most likely to lionize the subject of the article. I believe it's also AI slop as per Kinu. Absolutely does not clear WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. AGibberishUsername (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  okay man, like, "nominate for deletion" buddy im contributing to a free encyclopedia, calm down. https://i.etsystatic.com/14109029/r/il/64b984/1168318093/il_570xN.1168318093_tvax.jpg <<<<-------

  You can do either of these : 1. Delete my article which is truth. or 2. Why not help me with it instead? Interview the man himself? He is probably as, if not way more skilled at computers then you. help me add some <ref> ? Help me add a photo? Like man, the purpose of this website is supposed to be about sharing knowledge, not about policing articles because "i think you used llm". That what you guys are all about now? Deleting truth? Okay man. Do whatever the fuck you want. Who am I to stop the almighty Wikipedian from deleting my article? Nobody I guess. ~2026-41217-75 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• delete based on the discussion above, citation count doesn't meet PROF Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Taurino Araújo

Taurino Araújo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject fails to meet WP:NACADEMIC and the edit history of the author suggests a WP:COI. There are no awards, memberships or fellowships. The subject of the article also appears to be a practicing criminal law attorney, which is not mentioned so this may be a form of covert advertising. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Literature, Poetry, Law, and Brazil. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Does not make NACADEMIC. Khalitate (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - we are not LinkedIn. This is lacking good sources. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Randy Villegas

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Randy Villegas
• Articles for deletion/Randy Villegas (2nd nomination)

Randy Villegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was previously made into a redirect after a deletion discussion unanimously found that Villegas was not notable. Six days later, an editor reversed that change, arguing that Villegas became notable because he won the primary. WP:NPOL states that being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically make you notable, and I don't agree that the Villegas/Bains primary was high-profile enough to warrant Villegas getting a Wikipedia page. It didn't get even remotely the same amount of news coverage as, say, the Michigan Senate primary. Every election cycle has plenty of primaries that receive a decent amount of media attention, we shouldn't be giving people Wikipedia pages because they won a somewhat contentious primary. I'd suggest restoring the redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 22. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: the first nomination was a little over a month ago, for what it's worth, and the comments (including the then-nominator) pretty much made it clear that any theoretical automatic notability here would come via a general election win, with no suggestion that winning a primary would do it (despite the recreator's challenge of the redirect on those grounds). No opinion on the article itself in its current form, but if redirected again I actually think some form of protection might be warranted–there's almost no way any redirection here won't get challenged again. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and protect. The primary win is not enough for WP:NPOL and nothing else has changed. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 22 per nom; being a political candidate is not considered notable in WP:NPOL. If the subject is successful in their election, the page can be restored. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 22 per previous (and recent) AFD; nothing substantive has changed since then to make us ignore WP:NPOL. Marquardtika (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, SALT, redirect. Seconding DE's comment above and previous. Jay-Wiki (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This was a major upset of a progressive, Bernie Sanders-endorsed very young person against a centrist, Democratic Party/DCCC backed current state legislator Jasmeet Bains in a conservative-leaning district. The primary was included in a NY Times article about how primary endorsements were dividing the democratic party. The upset got a separate stand-alone article in the New York Times. Both of these New York times articles are now in the article. (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/06/us/politics/house-democrats-primary-endorsements.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/us/politics/bains-villegas-california-democrats-primary.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0lA.Xk_H.YST2TgsZGB5w&smid=url-share and . The New York times said Randy Villegas won "a high-profile primary in a battleground [California] Central Valley House district." A notable victory in a notable district. His candidacy is notable regarding the notable themes of the newly drawn California districts coming out of 2025 California Proposition 50 and whether the Democratic party can win back Latino voters (see Hispanic and Latino conservatism in the United States. Both these themes are mentioned in the NY Times article and are included in the current Wikipedia article. This candidate also had stand alone articles in the LA Times (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-05-28/bitter-slugfest-in-central-valley-exposes-divisions-in-democratic-party) and the San Francisco chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/a-key-congressional-race-in-california-will-test-22300409.php). And this is not to mention the local press in the district. The main Bakersfield paper has at least a half dozen articles with Villegas in the headline. See: https://www.bakersfield.com/search/?l=25&s=start_time&sd=desc&nfl=ap&f=html&t=article%2Cvideo%2Cyoutube%2Ccollection&app=editorial&nsa=eedition&q=randy+villegas as does the main Fresno paper. See https://www.fresnobee.com/search/?q=randy%20villegas&page=1&sort=relevance Not getting as much attention as the Michigan primaries is a bit of a subjective standard, when really stand alone stories in the two major California newspapers PLUS two stories in the New York times, plus repeated coverage in Bakersfield and Fresno certainly metts the standard of notability. Scarykitty (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect per nom. The vast majority of unelected candidates for office are not notable. In a congressional race targeted by both major parties, there will necessarily be some coverage of the main candidates. As I understand our consistent practice, it is that, with the exception of candidates who are notable for reasons beyond their campaigns, candidates are hardly ever notable enough for a page merely because of the coverage they receive during their electoral campaigns. As it stands right now, this page fails NPOL. This decision can be revisited after the general election if he wins. For now, delete the page or redirect it. Deleting and salting would also make sense. PA Uploader (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
New York Times on DCCC endorsement			Very little detail besides used as an example	✘ No
New York Times on primary election victory []			No biographical detail. It's about the contest.	✘ No
LA Times			This is election coverage and it lacks biographical details needed for WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
Associated Press			No biographical detail here. The article is centered around the election contest and not about the candidate.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Redirect and protect: Redirect target: 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 22. I see the coverage from User:Scarykitty and I would classify it as election coverage that lacks a lot of detail about the subject. An outsider defeating an establishment candidates is uncommon, but in the WP:10YEAR view, it's unremarkable until they win the general election. (Past precedent on outsiders defeating establishment candidates in primary elections is mixed in Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates). Darializa Avila Chevalier became redirect, on the other hand, India Walton became keep.) 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 09:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Darializa Avila Chevalier is no longer a redirect. Scarykitty (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates) says that Darializa Avila Chevalier became an article when she won the primary. It's the same situation here. Scarykitty (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Respectfully, this is not the same situation. Darializa Avila Chevalier received a significant amount of coverage from nationwide outlets, a lot of which was coverage of things she had said and done prior to becoming a candidate, after winning the primary. It's not just that she won the primary. It's that she won the primary, which all but assured of winning the general election, and she received that level of coverage. Those things are not true for Randy Villegas. PA Uploader (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I would also say that Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated an incumbent member of Congress in the NY primary in 2026. To me, this is a significant and relatively rare event that contributes to notability. - Enos733 (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Antoine Ghauch

Antoine Ghauch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Autobiography of a Lebanese academic. His h-factor of 34 with 5.5K cites is low. The FRSC is an established not-notable award (too easy to get), by concensus being on the Stanford list does not indicate that an academic is notable, and his grants do not confer notability. I pondered just tagging for notability, but his citations/year have really dropped since 2022 which I find disturbing; he had two refereed papers in 2024, one in 2025 and none so far in 2026, GS. If his research productivity picks up again in the future then the page can be resubmitted. Page currently fails WP:NPROF and I do not see enough SIGCOV for anything else. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Chemistry, Lebanon, and France. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Ldm1954 makes the case very coherently. I agree that FRSC is nothing very special, and I was also struck by the decline in productivity and citation counts since 2022 -- not normal for a youngish professor with a PhD from 2000. Athel cb (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Seconding Athel cb's comment above. Jay-Wiki (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Duy-Loan Le

Duy-Loan Le (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Self-promotional BLP that is non-salvageable per WP:TNT. The lady is not notable, since she did not receive independent coverage from WP:RS. MitYehor📘^^talk 20:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Engineering, Vietnam, and United States of America. MitYehor📘^^talk 20:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable subject, reads like a resume/spam article. Ping me if significant coverage is found. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 02:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I have found coverage of her in newspaper articles dating back to 1981, and I have started adding citations into the article. The article itself is a bit disorganized and reads like a CV in parts, so I am still working on tidying it up and retaining information that points to her notability.DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: verifiable independent recognition such as this evidence of her place in List of Women in Technology International Hall of Fame inductees. PamD 20:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Beata Gutarowska

Beata Gutarowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One of many pages of academics at Łódź University of Technology recently created directly in main. With a Scopus h-factor of 34 & 3.4K cites the case for NPROF is weak. No awards and most of the page is promo that would be removed if the page is retained. Like other pages from the same editor, probable COI and possible UPE. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Archaeology, Biology, and Poland. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons given. The page claims that she is in the Stanford University list of top 2% scientists, but curiously the link given is to a page in Polish (which I can't read). Why not give a link to the list itself, at https://topresearcherslist.com/Home/ ? Searching for her name yields "no matching result found", however I write her name. It finds scientists I know with no problem, so it's not that I don't know how to search it. Athel cb (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Athel cb Maybe the link you linked to above is a different list, with another methodology, not the same as the Stanford one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  PS. Corrections. First, it's the same list, second, I see her name in https://topresearcherslist.com/Home/Search?AuthFull=Gutarowska . For some reason, it's listed twice... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I do wonder if being head of the department does not meet "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." NPROF criteria? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I think being in the Top 2% is enough for NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Piotrus,

  1. Please see the discussion of the Stanford list. By concensus it does qualify.
  2. Being department chair falls under WP:NPROF#C6 and does not qualify. It is an administrative position, not a merit award.

  Ldm1954 (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

David G. Lewis

David G. Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is nothing here to indicate that he would pass WP:NPROF. I did not find anything with a simple Google search or a search for reviews in JSTOR. Has a low h-index on Google Scholar. Could been WP:TOOSOON. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. For this field WP:AUTHOR is a more likely form of notability than WP:PROF but I only found one published review of one book by him (, not counting a couple of reviews of a book for which he wrote the foreword), not even enough to make an article about the book and redirect his name to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:AUTHOR. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - I thought of this page as closer to WP:PEOPLE because his contributions to Oregon's ethnohistory are varied in form, from his involvement in bridge naming to his Oregon State University cluster hire to his book. The book release was covered by multiple sources ()()() and I found a few more reviews ()(). Also, WP:NPROF suggests using WorldCat for humanities research instead of Google Scholar. WorldCat says 68 libraries have the print book and 16 libraries have the Ebook. It looks like he has also written a fair number of peer-reviewed journal articles and other academic texts that I didn't include in the article - should I add those to flesh out notability? Braines123 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Braines123 that this article is close to meeting WP:PEOPLE. I've posted clippings from newspapers.com on the article's talk page, which contribute to coverage of Lewis' work on the origins of the name of "Oregon". His research is especially interesting to those of us in Oregon, and his bio will benefit from more independent, reliable, secondary sources. —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Sources that have been presented to date are somewhat lacking in terms of independence: interview with subject; exclusively based, and largely consisting of quotes from the subject: , , ; this review is from a site where you can pay $400 (!) to get your book reviewed, with the concerning note "(Sponsored Reviews are not marked in any way different than our general submission reviews when we post them on the websites or on our social media)". The newspapers.com articles linked on the article talk page are interesting but don't seem to offer SIGCOV of the article subject. To me this amount of coverage is entirely typical (indeed, perhaps less than normal) for an academic, and doesn't rise to the level of NBIO/NPROF/NAUTHOR, so I end up at Delete - Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - Does he not meet the three sources general guideline? I'm genuinely asking, please correct me if I'm wrong. Kotthu (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:THREE is just a suggestion (a very helpful one, but still), not a guideline or policy. My concern with the state of the sourcing is that almost all of it is either in unreliable sources (the book review), not significant coverage of the subject, or heavily reliant on WP:INTERVIEWs with the article subject. Without independent coverage, we cannot build a neutral, factual article. A good exercise to test this is: what can we find in those reliable sources when you ignore all quotes that are from the article subject? I would argue, here not very much.

  Compare a high quality magazine profile such as those from The New Yorker or a profile in a scholarly journal to these sources, and you will see that not all sourcing is created equal, though there is a wide spectrum between "terrible" and "great". The question at issue is where these articles end up. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, for the reasons already given. He clearly doesn't satisfy WP:NPROF. Athel cb (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Seconding DE's comment above. Jay-Wiki (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I also agree with David Eppstein's analysis that Lewis does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. However, Lewis has long been an "outsider" of Academic disciplines, and he has nevertheless found ways to publish his findings via non-traditional media (that Wikipedia does not value). I recommend delving into his blog, Quartux: A Journal of Critical Indigenous Anthropology, which he has continued to write, even after his faculty appointment at Oregon State. He has earned his reputation as a respected historian of the tribes of southern Oregon. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Shameem Hossen

Shameem Hossen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources are routine coverage of the 2025 DUCSU election, including campaign interviews, election reporting, statements made during the campaign, and the election results. The remaining sources are about his appointment and later resignation as a lecturer. While these show that he received media attention at the time, they do not appear to provide significant, in depth coverage needed for a SA biography.

Simply standing as a candidate in a student union election, particularly one in which he finished third, or later taking up a university teaching position, does not by itself establish notability. Based on the sources currently cited, this seems better suited to coverage within the article on the 2025 DUCSU election than as a separate biography. Wikipicked (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Since the nomination, I found additional independent coverage that is not limited to Hossen's 2025 DUCSU candidacy. In May 2026, Jago News24 covered his work as a teacher and his plans to publish five English-language books. In June, BD Today published an interview discussing his academic background, teaching, student rights, university politics and professional activities. In July, Jago News24, The Daily Campus and Desh Rupantor reported on his resignation from Northern University Bangladesh. Taken together, these reports show continued coverage of Hossen after the DUCSU election and cover aspects of his teaching, writing and professional activities. I think this coverage should be considered when assessing WP:GNG and whether WP:BLP1E applies.

Jago News24, "[‘রাজনীতি বাদ দিয়ে মাস্টারিতে’ মনোযোগী শামীম, আসছে তার লেখা ৫ বই]" (12 May 2026): https://www.jagonews24.com/m/education/news/1118644

BD Today, "[‘ভারতবিরোধীদের অনেকেই গোপনে লিয়াজোঁ করে বসে আছে’]" (15 June 2026): https://bdtoday.net/national/120816

Jago News24, "[নর্দান ইউনিভার্সিটির চাকরি ছাড়লেন ঢাবির সেই শামীম]" (14 July 2026): https://www.jagonews24.com/education/news/1137438

The Daily Campus, "[নর্দান বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় ছাড়লেন সেই শামীম]" (14 July 2026): https://thedailycampus.com/private-university/263811

Desh Rupantor, "[নর্দান বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় ছাড়লেন সেই শামীম]" (14 July 2026): https://www.deshrupantor.com/704023 Rayhan Ahmed Tamim (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rayhan Ahmed Tamim (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

The additional sources don't really change my concern. The BD Today piece is an interview, and the July articles are all reporting the same event which is his resignation from Northern University. The Jago News24 article is mainly about his plans to publish books. They show that he has continued to receive some media attention, but I don't think they amount to the kind of substantial, independent coverage generally expected under WP:GNG. Wikipicked (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand the point about the July reports covering the same resignation. I have since found additional coverage that is not about that event. There are also reports discussing Hossen's work as an English educator, his teaching platform and his activities outside the DUCSU campaign. More recent coverage in 2026 shows that he continues to receive media attention for his teaching, writing and professional activities.

I agree that these sources should not simply be counted as separate articles to establish notability. My point is that the overall coverage is broader and more sustained than coverage of a single DUCSU candidacy would suggest. I think that is relevant to the question of whether WP:BLP1E applies, and the sources are worth considering collectively under WP:GNG.

Prothom Alo, "[ডাকসু নির্বাচন: কেউ ‘আহত’, কেউ ‘সন্তুষ্ট’]" (10 September 2025): https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/rfblz199gc

Jago News24, "[ডাকসু নির্বাচনে কোচিং 'ফ্যাক্টর': আবিদ-সাদিক-শামীমের 'ভোট ব্যাংক']" (7 September 2025): https://www.jagonews24.com/campus/news/1049925

Somoyer Konthosor, "[ডাকসু নির্বাচন: শীর্ষ দুই পদে আলোচিত প্রার্থী যারা]" (24 August 2025): https://www.somoyerkonthosor.com/post/2025/08/24/68ab13846799e

Kaler Kantho, "[রাজনীতি করলে ছাত্রদল বা ছাত্রলীগ করতাম : শামীম]" (9 September 2025): https://www.kalerkantho.com/online/campus-online/2025/09/09/1574922

Jugantor, "[কত ভোট পেলেন স্বতন্ত্র প্রার্থী শামীম]" (10 September 2025): https://www.jugantor.com/campus/1001275

The Daily Campus, "[ডাকসু প্রচারণায় ১০ অভিনব স্টাইল]" (September 2025): https://thedailycampus.com/universities/216069 Rayhan Ahmed Tamim (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rayhan Ahmed Tamim (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

One more example of coverage published after the nomination: on 13 July 2026, Jago News24 reported on Hossen's call for the education minister to resign, based on his public comments about the education sector. This was unrelated to either the DUCSU election or his resignation from Northern University. NPB also published a separate report on the same statement.

I agree that this coverage alone would not establish notability, but it is another indication that media attention around Hossen has continued beyond the events discussed above and has included his views on education and public affairs.

Jago News24, "[শিক্ষামন্ত্রী মিলনের পদত্যাগ চাইলেন ঢাবির সেই শামীম]" (13 July 2026): https://www.jagonews24.com/education/news/1137093

NPB, "[শিক্ষামন্ত্রীর পদত্যাগ চাইলেন ঢাবির সেই শামীম হোসেন]" (13 July 2026): https://npbnews.com/social-media-news/38364 Rayhan Ahmed Tamim (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rayhan Ahmed Tamim (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect: to 2025 Dhaka University Central Students' Union elections#Candidates. It does not even meet WP:BASIC, mainly because of failing WP:SIGCOV. No source in the article (or those presented above) seems to satisfy it. Most of them are about statements made by the subject or just passing mentions. Nothing to merge either. — Raihanur (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails both criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. There is no WP:SIGCOV (As said above, most of the sources are about statements made by the subject (WP:PRIMARY) or just passing mentions). -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Rht bd (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Seconding Raihanur's comment above and আফতাবুজ্জামান's comment above. Jay-Wiki (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per GNG... Aqsis Bey (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Kenneth Baer

Kenneth Baer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Has placed some op-eds, but is a mid-level political appointee and roving spokeman in U.S. politics. Provides cookie cutter quotes to news media on behalf of his clients. Lacks the WP:SIGCOV or impact to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, England, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I was doing a search for sources and discovered that we are two degrees of separation, which isn't surprising because I was a Democratic committee person for over a decade. Therefore as is my practice I won't "vote" on this matter, and will trust the process. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Bearian This isn’t close enough to be a COI in my opinion Longhornsg (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Tell that to the random new users who have flamed me over the years. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

*Weak Keep Profile seems notable, have few notable news sources too, yet i want more editors to cast theiur vote to make the clarity.Rainfixer (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is a passing mention in an op-ed from 20 years ago. The other WaPo source is a photo. The other sources are a marriage announcement and a geneology website. None of these are WP:RS that establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete sources are OPEDs and not used for proving notability HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep. While he may not meet WP:NJournalist, but the coverage generated by his published work shows enough depth to establish notability Brodska213 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• weak keep More than a few reviews for the "Reinventing Democrats:" book, , , , although the book might be more notable than the author. A redirect to the book perhaps might suffice? Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The book may be notable per WP:NBOOK, but the author isn't. So we could delete the author page and have one for the book. Longhornsg (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - He is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and I think in general as well. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as we haven't kept anyone as notable for one book. His book might meet notability criteria, but he fails WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:NJOURNALIST. DylanMReed (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep: Subject appears to meet the third criterion of WP:AUTHOR due to cofounding and editing Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. The sourcing on that article is itself suspect, with one of the five sources being the journal's own about page and two being articles by Baer himself, but that's another discussion that needs to be had first. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 16:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Chet Jordan Ragusett

Chet Jordan Ragusett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am finding very little about this academic and nothing that would indicate that they are likely to make WP:NPROF. If more sources are found, please ping me. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - based upon the creator's username and editing history, this is probably an autobiography by Bipolargay. More than ever, autobiographies are disfavored because they almost always have original content, and autobiographies and original material are being used as an excuse to take away Wikipedia's foundation's charitable status. Everybody should know that we have never published original research. If the subject was obviously notable, then we could excuse it, but passing the professor test is unlikely. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - also user did a duplicate AfC as part of the minimum changes to become autoconfirmed before moving this user sandbox draft to mainspace. Lacanic (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I found and added some sources under his former name. I found enough to make me think he can meet notability due to his role as provost and dean. However, the article needs to be moved to that name, as there are no sources using the new name. Rublamb (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specify the sources, please, so that they can be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Best sources would be 4, 5, and 7. There are now 12 sources; there were 4 when I started adding. Rublamb (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for adding to this piece. A group of graduate students have been putting ideas together for this and creating the page. Bipolargay (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Seconding Bearian's comment above. The autobiography issue could be partially solved if Bipolargay could go through our Conflict of interest policy and file through a disclosure, as is required if they are the subject at issue. When considering , this seems to indicate that. Notwithstanding this, just a cursory look of the subject's Google Scholar page reinforces that the subject's academic impact is more-or-less on average with a regular professor, or possibly less. Jay-Wiki (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

• Vid Simoniti (via WP:PROD on 5 August 2026)