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 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. 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.

Purge page cache

watch

Jerome F. Keating (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 of the article lacks the widespread coverage in independent secondary sources required by WP:GNG. He is best known for a blog, but there is very limited coverage of that in any significant sources.  GuardianH  05:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Transportation, Taiwan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulasi Acharya (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)

Reason why we are here is altogether 7 articles made back to back in row about this person and his books. None of the books are notable and most of them are either nepali/ english or english/ nepali translation. Author is hardly known in Nepalese context, though he has some media coverage. The context is indicating that articles are being created for promotional purpose. My speedy deleteion tag was declined and suggested to go for AFd. Here are the other articles created Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) , mirty diary, Sex desire and Taboo, Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, Mochan, Running from the Dreamland Tulsi Acharya.

Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Disability, and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following external links added after the suggestions. Thank you for the insights and such a wonderful supportive community here:

External links

[edit source]

Acharya, Tulasi (2017). Nepal Himalaya: Women, Politics, and Administration. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 18(4), 197-208.

Available at: https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol18/iss4/14

Acharya, Tulasi (2016). Unheard melodies are Sweeter than Heard Melodies. Public Voices.

Acharya, Tulasi (2020). Disability and sex.

Acharya, Tulasi (2023). Employing Professional Standards Through Policy Reformation. Routledge.

Acharya, T., Dhungana, G. K., Traille, K., & Dhakal, H. (2023). Senior Citizens in Nepal: Policy Gaps and Recommendations. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/23337214231179902

Acharya, T., & Dhungana, G. K. (2024). Impact of technology in classrooms in the colleges of Kathmandu: Challenges and policy recommendations. International Journal of Higher Education, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v13n4p10

Acharya, T. (2024 December). Flood. MSU RoadRunner Review, Winter 2024, 7th issue. The Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Acharya, Tulasi (2022). Emerging Nepali Writers. The Kathmandu Post.

Paudyal, Mahesh (2020). When Americans Dreams Shrug off. The Gorkha Times.

^ {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)

^

^

^ {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |doi= (help)

^ {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)

^ {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)

^

^

^ Traillek (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: hard to find book reviews, this was all I could find: [1], but seems to be a prolific writer in journals, would they pass academic notability? Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also see a lot of book reviews of the books by Tulasi Acharya and the discussion of the author when I Google his name.

  For example here. 1. https://kathmandupost.com/books/2025/02/15/secrets-of-a-suppressed-desire

  2. https://kathmandupost.com/books/2023/05/27/tugging-at-your-heartstrings

  3. https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2022/07/07/emerging-nepali-writers-in-english

  4. https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2023/10/19/losing-faith-in-the-system

  5. https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2022/04/16/the-nepali-literary-environment

  6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500782.2023.2217804 (his book "Running from the Dreamland" has been mentioned in this article too)

  7. https://risingnepaldaily.com/news/19146?fbclid=IwAR0ZfWBGkZzw2rmP8P3XW2MQf52Ilh6Q6TXzVgs03oyZBhkRsVOKV4THzSQ

  8. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11&q=Tulasi+Acharya&btnG= (Here I see a lot of peer reviewed journal articles by the author)

  9. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/review-mochan-more-than-emancipation

  10. https://risingnepaldaily.com/news/37196

  11. http://lifeandlegends.com/tulasi-acharya/

  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10272673/

  13. https://risingnepaldaily.com/news/57105

  14. https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/51865/

  15. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/unveiling-south-asias-paradox-on-sex-desire-and-taboo-6794c0c680ccd.html

  16. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/accept-the-criticisms 168.20.179.63 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you provide feedbacks or participate in discussion, better do it from account, otherwise editors here may suspect something else. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. You are right. Thanks for your advice. 168.20.179.63 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is also a draft, Draft:Tulasi Acharya. If this article is kept, the draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, the draft should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment. I see little sign of the kind of academic impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF, in particular, the articles of the subject do not appear to be highly cited. WP:NAUTHOR is still somewhat plausible. Most of the links provided by the IP editor above are not reviews, OTOH, but articles by the subject here, which do not contribute to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: As the admin who declined the earlier speedy deletion request mentioned in the nomination statement, don't take my decline as any kind of endorsement. My decline was based purely on the article not meeting the (intentionally very restrictive) WP:G11 criteria; it doesn't change the fact that this particular walled garden of articles constitutes some of the most blatant COI promotion I've seen on Wikipedia for a long time. ‑ Iridescent 17:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is a good discussion. The only reason why I provided with so many references was because I was suggested by one of the editors here in the community. They suggested I should support each and every statement. I found all those sources/resources from the author's website: www.tulasiacharya.com. I think it is good to keep or delete depending on the reliability of the sources. Traillek (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Edwin Hoyt (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)

Biography of a civil engineering academic, not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria for civil engineers or academics. As written, this just states that the subject existed as a professor of civil engineering, without documenting anything whatsoever about the significance or impact of his work, and cites only a single staff directory self-published by his own employer, which is not an independent or notability-assisting source. Just existing is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just a single primary source for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tagged the article for notability with pretty much the same reasoning as Bearcat, but I was willing to let the original editor try and improve it as the article is currently only 1 day old. Since it has been nominated I have to vote delete since I cannot see anything to make it notable. Of course if the original editor finds something I could be persuaded to change my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: an article by the employer of an academic that verifies the position of an academic is an RS for that, and also any other important notability indicators such as being a Distinguished Professor. They are RS because the university has to state these accurately or there are serious consequences. This is standard in WP:NPROF, and has been discussed in WT:NPROF. However, in this particular case it does not appear to make him notable particularly since it appears to only contain a physical letter of unknown (to me) contents. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search of Google books easily finds his obituary in the Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. However he doesn't meet WP:NPROF as what today would be an adjunct professorship - a successful professional engineer teaching part time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There's another obituary in MIT Technology Review [2] but they are almost the same as each other so I don't think they count as multiple independent sources. Another shorter obituary in Engineering News [3] is less in-depth and may be summarized from the same material. But we do at least have one in-depth source so we're some way to passing WP:GNG. I don't think WP:PROF is particularly relevant for someone of that time who was mostly a working engineer rather than an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can only see snippets of the obituaries mentioned, so can't see details of his career. From Newspapers.com obits and a few articles I have so far found, I see that he was elected president of the Technology Club of Rochester in 1914, was a special consulting engineer of the New York Central lines from 1900, represented the US at a railroad congress in Europe in 1913, and helped his father build Fort Constitution at the mouth of the harbour of Portsmouth, N.H. He was also local secretary of the Society of Colonial Wars, and their year book appears to have an obituary, which I can't see all of [4]. Not enough SIGCOV yet to meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Engstrom (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 TheLongTone (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A university president is usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Montana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. President of a major university fulfills NPROF C6. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep WP:SK3, inadequate nomination. Perhaps the nominator could explain why they think the many in-depth news stories about him easily obtained by searching his name in Google News do not count towards WP:GNG, why we should only consider GNG when WP:PROF is separate from it and relevant, or whether they even tried WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SK3. No indication as to why this individual is non-notable by the nominator, considering that they were president of a major state university and thus fulfilling Criteria 6 of WP:NPROF. Article needs fairly substantial expansion and cleanup, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. nf utvol (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article may be a stub, but this person definitely seems to be notable, with them having been president of a large university (meeting the guidelines of WP:NPROF) and having significant coverage in at least one reliable secondary source. Article expansion would be preferable to deletion. ApexParagon (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion 6, with the presidency sourced. I should note that most people who would qualify under WP:NACADEMIC wouldn't be able to meet the GNG for want of sourcing. Researchers, professors, and university administration doing their jobs don't generally warrant a mention in the back pages of a newspaper. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof on citations as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. Second AfD nomination in a month for a page created by this new Wikipedian that's destined to close as a WP:SNOW keep. Let's keep WP:BITE in mind before these kinds of nominations and the discouraging effect it has on new editors and their contributions. BBQboffin^{grill me} 05:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which was the first one? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep: Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC C6. I added some sources to the article, but article could certainly be expanded further because it seems like there was a lot happening during his tenure at UM. There's lots of basic news coverage as well as columns of people analyzing his administration: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Zzz plant (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Vaezi (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)

A7/ The notability of the individual needs to be reassessed. The sources are not particularly relevant to the person and are merely news coverage. Persia ☘ 20:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Islam, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Zarov (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or general notability (perhaps on the basis of hospital administration); the references don't seem to be independent of the source or their employer. Scopus search shows only two publications. Created by a single purpose account. Klbrain (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Friedland (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)

No indication of importance Fredyd (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I definitely agree that there is no indication of importance on this article. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails the notability criterion despite the efforts of two kamikaze accounts who have rolled an avalanche of citations on us.

Forensics: We have lame irrelevancies such as this about two companies of one of which our man is a director; papers co-written by our subject, e.g. this one; a bunch of group interviews, like this; fodder for the References section, like this link, this, this, and more; important-looking sources such as The New York Times from whom we only get, unfortunately, yet another irrelevancy about "photos that reveal secrets"; plain and routine press releases, such as this which, strangely, informs us that our subject has been replaced in some "leadership"; and a grave of dead links such as this. No matter how many zeros we add up, the result does not change. -The Gnome (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kozhiyalam Satagopacharya (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)

Kozhiyalam Satagopacharya in my opinion meets Reasons for deletion 7 and 8. It fails WP:N and WP:V.

I have made as thorough of a search as I can and followed WP:BEFORE. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and India. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dasia Taylor (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 a high-school student who added dye to sutures to indicate a wound infection, and was written up in a few sources. While this is interesting, it is not close to any of the notability criteria. Article was created directly in main by students in Clovis College English 1aH Honors Reading and Composition, then draftified as a standard part of WP:NPR by the nominator as failing notability criteria. Article was submitted to AfC by Brianda (Wiki Ed), and declined by Thilsebatti (also a new page reviewer) as failing notability guidelines.

Without any detailed explanation, extended confirmed user Suriname0 decided to override both WP:NPR draftification and WP:AfC declination. The criteria for notability are well established. It is not normal for decisions by two new-page reviewers to be reverted without first attempting to reach concensus, or explain why notability exists. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Illinois, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject of the article meets WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in multiple sources independent of the subject. Thus, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about the subject. As cited in the article, the subject has been covered in a BlackPast.org entry, a Smithsonian Magazine article, a Des Moines Register article, and a The Gazette article. If Taylor's only coverage was local, I would be concerned about notability, but Taylor's national-level coverage indicates to me that they meet WP:GNG. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One process comment: I don't believe the article was created in main space by student editors. Rather, it was moved to mainspace in this edit and subsequently cleaned up by User:Brianda (Wiki Ed), who is a WikiEducation staff member. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. [...] and was written up in a few sources (from the nomination statement). If those sources are a couple of blogs, that's one thing. But when those couple of sources include a 1400-word article about the subject in Smithsonian Magazine in March 2021, a 6-and-a half minute segment on PBS News Hour about her in July 2021, an 1100-word article on CNN.com in April 2021, 1500 words in the The Des Moines Register in March 2023 about her being named as one of USA Today's 2023 Women of the Year, linked to from the USA Today page [12], I think the subject easily meets WP:NBIO. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think we have to be very careful about WP:TOOSOON, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E. The writeups are about the sutures, not really about her. Sutures which changes color with pH is cute, but is it notable? For certain a single patent (if she receives it) is not enough for notability in science, unless it is at the core of a multi-million (billion) technology. Many scientists invent things and/or have patents, it is part of the job (WP:MILL). It will be years for FDA approval, and for true notability I would want to see evidence for significant commercial use or at the very least testing in less developed countries (where she suggests it would be relevant). For certain an article on just the sutures would be severely questioned without this backup. Even if the sutures become notable, that does not automatically transfer notability to her. Also, please note that in WP:NPROF#C2 there are specific statements that academic student competitions are not considered notable. Similarly we don't consider things like "30 under 30" for scientists as true demonstrations of notability. She has made a good start to her academic career, but I do not see enough as yet which is why it was both draftified and now AfD'd. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum A quick search indicates that the idea is not new, see for instance this patent. I have to ask whether there would have been notice if she was 27 or 37 -- I doubt it. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't actually matter whether we think she "deserved" the media coverage. What matters is whether she got it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of WP:SIGCOV (just added some additional citations right now). The sources describe how Taylor founded a medical device company and is working on bringing her invention to market, all evidence of commercial use as well. CaptainAngus (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Morgan (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)

Per WP:BLP1E. While there are few reliable sources covering her crowdfunding efforts for education, other sources are either self-published or not independent such as[13], [14], [15] etc. Herinalian (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Canada. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I removed the 3 self-published sources and the promotional lines they pointed to. I equally toned down the page to suit WP:NPOV and removed the tone tag. I also did a further deep search in Googlenews and found extra 5 WP:RS and added them. I believe the subject now meets WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Furthermore, I carried out a source assessment to further check each of the 15 sources.Maltuguom (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the table as given below:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/23/toronto-woman-goes-from-homeless-harvard-with-help-crowdfunding-site/28Q3rfjitQtf1YjmnEsWqM/story.html	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/homeless-to-harvard-toronto-dropout-accepted-to-ivy-league-school/article_d06525a5-4f31-51ef-8a8f-0a97f678700e.html	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tonika-morgan-once-homeless-now-harvard-bound-seeks-funding-for-tuition-1.3035908	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://thestarphoenix.com/entertainment/from-homelessness-to-harvard-university	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/04/15/former-homeless-woman-invite-teens-from-jane-and-finch-to-harvard/	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://globalnews.ca/news/1945257/once-homeless-toronto-woman-crowdfunds-more-than-60k-for-harvard-tuition/	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.ethics.harvard.edu/files/%5Bvsite%3Asite-purl%5D/files/2016_17ar_live_cg_v4.pdf?m=1526319187	~ Harvard Ethics PDF doc	~ Harvard Ethics PDF doc	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2015/05/13/homeless-to-harvard-crowdfunding-education.html	Online news media	Online news media	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/communityrising/people/toni-morgan	~ Harvard Project link	~ Harvard Project link	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://www.torontomu.ca/news-events/news/2016/02/a-brave-new-harvard-chapter/	~ Online news media	~ Online news media	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/harvard-student-s-invitation-proves-the-power-of-a-role-model/article_58c60c51-3180-5653-b4eb-85c69fbca687.html	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://goodblacknews.org/2015/05/26/toronto-native-tonika-morgan-goes-from-homeless-to-harvard-graduate-school-thanks-to-crowdfunding/	~ Online news media	~ Online news media	focused on the subject	~ Partial
https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/reach-out-and-change-the-story-869816	~ Online news media	~ Online news media	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://www.nsb.com/speakers/toni-morgan/	~ Online news media	~ Online news media	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://accessinpractice.ca/speaker/	~ web platform	web platform	focused on the subject	? Unknown
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}}.

• Note - The source assessment table above clearly reveals that the subject passes the notable test. Also the discussion nominator partially agreed that there are reliable sources cited Maltuguom (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I removed some more language that I felt was blatantly promotional. Also, since this is listed under educators, I want to point out that she does not meet the WP:NPROF criteria - the awards are insufficient. No opinion on WP:GNG. Qflib (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. It is still the case that the only sources in the article that contribute towards GNG (reliable, independent, and with in-depth coverage of her) are about a single thing (the crowdsourcing campaign for going to Harvard). The 2018 tbnewswatch source is not in-depth, and the remaining sources are self-written profiles on speaker's bureaus promoting her work as a speaker and a source from Harvard itself; they do not count as independent and reliable. I am not convinced that this article passes WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaya Keller (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)

Reason: WP:COI: The author, user:Neriah, is (Redacted). Please see 1, 2: 1. image author and uploader, 2. Nathan (Chaya's husband, a full professor in the Biu) - the same author and camera, a different date; image was taken at home: no Torah books at the math dept. in Biu, and (Redacted).
Neriah does not have a WP:PMR permission, but moved the article without leaving a redirect.
WP:NACADEMIC: Neriah raised criteria 1,2: Krill Prize and a solution of the Ringel's problem.
There is no secondary international source, like the CNN or The New York Times, for example.
The solution of Ringel's problem was made with additional four colleagues. There is no Wikipedia article about this problem.
Chaya Keller is an associate professor, not a professor. Loeweopta (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Mathematics, Computing, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Loeweopta: Are you arguing that Neriah is related to this professor just because Neriah took her picture? This doesn't really follow. Neriah was able to suppress the redirect because of their global rollback permission. International sources are not required to satisfy notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted). Loeweopta (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. As Helpful Raccoon has pointed out, international sources are not required to prove notability, and an alleged COI is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I'm unsure of whether the subject passes WP:NPROF, but I think she probably does pass WP:GNG on the basis of coverage like [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. Her team's solution to Ringel's problem also got some press coverage, such as this article in Haaretz [37]. Maths isn't my area and I'm not too familiar with the sources that covered her so I'm very open to changing my mind here, but my sense is that her publications and awards aren't quite significant enough to meet WP:NPROF, but that the other coverage is probably enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, per WP:TOOSOON. The best argument for notability I see is the Krill prize. Looking at the other recipients, I see a fairly prestigious early career prize, which I do not think meets WP:NPROF C2. (I think it indicates likely future notability.) The media coverage I see is so tightly tied to the Krill prize and localized in time that I think falls under WP:BLP1E. Watching in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete. Agree with Russ Woodroofe. This is a mid-career mathematician doing very strong work. In 5-10 years they probably will be more widely recognized and cited. So if we delete, I recommend it be done without prejudice towards a new page if WP:NPROF is met someday. I don't think her citation rate hits C1 yet. Like Russ, I could be swayed if better evidence is found. Qflib (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I agree she is not there on academic impact (WP:PROF#C1) yet; I think among the Ringel circle conjecture crew, only Shakhar Smorodinsky has a case for notability that way. The only plausible avenue for notability for Keller is the Krill Prize (maybe WP:PROF#C2) and the ensuing publicity (maybe WP:GNG) but I think that the prize's focus on "promising researchers", its national-level focus, and its "numerous recipients" [38] make it too low-level to demonstrate clear notability and that the publicity for it falls short of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is sufficient SIGCOV here to meet the GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I think that there is enough notability for this article to be kept. Admittedly, the article is not massive, but there is enough content for it to be kept. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails the notability criteria while naked assertions that "Of course, she is notable" or "Certainly, sources exist!" do not hold water. Suggestions to the contrary are supposed to bring forth, instead of assertions, sources -- numerous, significant, and non-primary. Whether deletion should be soft or not would be up to the closer. -The Gnome (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem (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)

Despite major improvements since it was moved to mainspace I see nothing here to show she passes WP:NPROF in particular nor WP:BIO / WP:GNG more generally. I am unable to return it to draft unilaterally under WP:DRAFTOBJECT. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE I checked all the criteria for WP:NPROF and I don't see how she meets them. At first glance this seems impressive but when I check her university page, despite being chair of philosophy department in humanities at University of Pretoria, I am not seeing anything like an endowed chair, chief editor of a major journal, any standout prizes or honors, and very few academic papers.--FeralOink (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Although not the chief editor, she is an Associate Editor Science and Engineering Ethics (Springer) 2021-

  I believe her inclusion in the list of 100 Brilliant women in AI ethics can be regarded as an honor.

  Can she assessed to check whether she passes WP:BLP?

  Thanks Etowusu (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Etowusu: I've reverted your move to draft, because you cannot move a page while it is subject to an AfD. Please do not move this page again. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Philosophy, South Africa, and Finland. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: H-index of 6 is pretty low even in a low-citation field like psychology, and I can't find any GNG. However I think she could meet WP:NACADEMIC C3 via full membership in the International Academy for the Philosophy of Science (AIPS).[39] InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete: Not enough impact for C1 of WP:NPROF. The 100 brilliant women award does not satisfy C2. C3 is closer; I confess that I had never heard of the IAPS, but it looks like it was founded by a group of giants in this field and its members are elected (see here). However, I cannot determine whether or not membership is truly prestigious, and I see that she is a corresponding member - that may not be as prestigious as being a full member. Since I can't tell, I am using it as one indicator of academic notability but not as fully satisfying it. C4-C6 don't apply. Her work for UNESCO and for GC REAIM indicate at least partial satisfaction of C7 of WP:NPROF but I think it's not enough. Editorial board membership, or service as an associate editor, is not the same as actually being the editor and does not satisfy C8. I think this is a strong faculty member but I am not yet seeing their work as being broadly impactful in the field. Perhaps in 5-10 years the situation will be different on one or more of the criteria, and I think that if the page is deleted it should be done "softly." Qflib (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just double-checked because I thought I remembered she was listed as a full member in AIPS, and we're both right because there's a discrepancy: her profile on the AIPS website says she corresponding, but the AIPS membership list says full. I can't find any reliable independent sources which could clarify one way or the other. For what it's worth, it looks like corresponding members are non-voting but elected in the same fashion. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just wanted to note that the page was moved to draftspace by the author while this AfD was ongoing. I've reverted their move and restored the article's original title. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur D. Yaghjian (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)

Nominating for deletion on behalf of the article subject per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:GNG. The article subject believes he is a nonnotable person who should not have an article on Wikipedia. See VRTS ticket # 2025012410006294. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete coverage appears limited to scientific publications. We should honor the wishes of the subject in this case. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Tagging Myxomatosis57. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Seems a pretty clear pass of WP:PROF to me and the article looks uncontroversial. Is there a particular reason given for the subject to request deletion? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @Espresso Addict, his awards are a clear pass of WP:NPROF#C3 and his citations pass #C1 since he is sole author on many. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. IEEE Fellow ("Life Fellow" but that just means fellow+older) is a clear pass of WP:PROF notability. The subject's modesty is virtuous, but not a convincing reason to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you David. However, the Wikipedia article is not an accurate representation of my personal or professional biography. I tried to revise the article but Wikipedia would not allow me to do that. Therefore, after great effort to figure out how to do get in touch with the deletion editor, I requested that my article be deleted. Please do not try to prevent my article from being deleted, as well intended as you may be. Arthur Yaghjian Arthur D. Yaghjian (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not particularly arguing either way here, but one possible solution would be for someone with relevant expertise, perhaps David Eppstein or Ldm1954, to action Arthur D. Yaghjian's edit request, as an alternative to deletion. Looking at the edit history, it looks as if the edits were primarily rejected on copyright grounds rather than for conflict of interest. I have noticed that the editors responding to COI edit requests of late have become less and less inclined to honour even the most vanilla of changes and I can see why this might lead the subject of an article to request deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I might suggest to ADY that (from my experience as the subject of a Wikipedia article) it generally works much better to suggest (on the article talk page) the facts that should be updated, rather than suggesting the wording of how to present those facts. Doing so sidesteps both the issue of copying copyrighted text that seems to have tripped up the requests in this case, and the issue of promotional rather than encyclopedic wording that often arises in other cases and is difficult to avoid when writing about yourself. One might also, following Burns, take the existence of an article describing how one appears to others as a blessing, rather than insisting that only one's own view of oneself can be presented. It does not make me sympathetic to a deletion request like this one to see a subject who would be happy for Wikipedia to host an autobiography but is unwilling to allow a biography to be edited and worded by others. Every once in a while I look at the article about myself, shake my head at its haphazard state, and speak to myself the magic incantation: someone else's problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like David, I look at the article on me and shudder at some of the errors, then move on. While I am a sympathetic to the desire to have an accurate version, since those prior edits are blocked (for me) I can make no comments about what might be improved. Notability is very clear as I voted before. Can someone make the prior history more available. (It seems it might have been a copyright violation from https://2024.apsursi.org/master_class.php, that page being very peacocky.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear WP:PROF pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Although I'm sympathetic to the subject's WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, he clearly passes WP:NPROF. We can honour his wishes by reviewing the article and correcting the errors he identified.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's impossible for "normal" editors to assess what's wrong with the existing article because all of Yaghjian's edits have been revdelled, and the talk-page request doesn't say explicitly what's wrong with the article. The aim of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is to respect the privacy wishes of people whose wiki-notability is very borderline. We can't apply it willy-nilly, because we'd lose all articles about modest engineers who are embarrassed to have an article, and also all articles about un-modest engineers who won't tolerate an article that's not on their terms (I'm absolutely not commenting that either category applies in the current case). It's already hard enough to document engineers and engineering here, because they don't attract as much media attention as Social Influencers and Bollywood movies. I would prefer not to delete without pressing reasons, and I'd much prefer to see discussion of how to ensure the article is accurate and reflective of his career, than to delete it. We just shouldn't delete as an alternative to fixing the content, which is what this feels like. Elemimele (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Listen, I've had enough of this crap. I, as the person in question, want the article, which I never agreed to, deleted. Just do it. What are you running, a Siberian Gulag? Arthur D. Yaghjian (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Elemimele: if you want to compare what Yaghjian wants the article to say with what it does say, you can still see a web page containing the same copied text as his version, https://2024.apsursi.org/master_class.php — it was revdelled as a copy from there, although I have no reason to believe that to be the original copy of the same text (similar text also appears at https://ethw.org/Arthur_D._Yaghjian for instance). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Then I think we have to keep. Publications, degrees, professorships and awards are all simple matters of public record. Very little of this article intrudes on the subject's personal sphere (maybe his date of birth?). I'm sympathetic to correction of errors and addition of sourced material where stuff is missing at the moment. Elemimele (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also sympathetic. The edit request was simply "change the article back to my version" rather than listing out what is incorrect/needs to be changed with accompanying sourcing, but the request was simply shot down instead of explaining the COI edit request process so that at the very least corrections can be made via a new request. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In general we don't create or delete articles just because someone asks for that to happen. The subject's permission or lack thereof isn't the issue here,at least with respect to policy. The question I always ask myself in this kind of situation is: is this a private person? If so, we can "respect the privacy wishes of people whose wiki-notability is very borderline," as Elemimele stated, and delete the page. But looking at the article, the subject does not seem to be a very private person. He's published tons of papers, accepted an honorary doctorate in front of a crowd of graduating students, accepted professional awards (his photo is seen the moment you Google his name), worked as a visiting professor at three universities...those are activities of a public person, not a private one. See here: WP:LOWPROFILE. Clearly WP:NPROF is met, so there's no question of notability. This is one of those situations where WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply, seems to me - this subject is not "relatively unknown," not to other electrical engineers. Qflib (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if an editor created this article on their own initiative without any connection to the subject that only further points to the subject being notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With his awards (an honorary doctorate, IEEE award and life fellowship), he does not appear to meet the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE criterion of being a relatively unknown, non-public figure. His Scopus and Google Scholar results indicate he is widely cited and influential in the electrical engineering discipline, passing WP:NACADEMIC on that and other criteria discussed above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• E. K. T. Sivakumar (via WP:PROD on 20 February 2025)
• Laurie Burgess (via WP:PROD on 13 February 2025)