Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

This listing is for biographical articles on academics. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles in general and WP:ACADEMIC for the widely-used notability standard for academics. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools for deletion debates about educational institutions.

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academics and educators. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators

Christopher Amato

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

Paid promo page on a robotics/AI associate professor. Based upon his co-authors he works in a high-citation field, so while his citations of 8K and h-factor of 43 is reasonable for an associate professor, it is too low for WP:NPROF, it is WP:TOOSOON. His awards are junior starter grants, not peer reviewed and the Stanford 2% is not notable by existing concensus. No SIGCOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Artificial intelligence, and Computing. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is almost entirely based on primary sources, no indication that it meets WP:NPROF. No sources found which could count towards WP:GNG. Lovelyfurball (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Soumyendu Shankar Ray

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

Most of it are primary sources, or directly linked to the individual. A simple google search revealed that there are not much sources that offers significant or in depth coverage of the Individual, so def is not notable. Do let me know if I missed any source, but so far does not seem notable Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Architecture. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Coverage is also primary, routine, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Muhammad

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

Nonotable Malaysian historian. The creator of the article appears to have close connection with the subject and also appears to be an angry vandal. --Altenmann >talk 13:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Januarius Jingwa Asongu

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

I don't see enough independent sources that discuss Januarius Jingwa Asongu. The refs in the article do not confer WP:N, and my Google searches lead to mostly mirrors of this Wiki article. Angryapathy (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Cameroon, Academics and educators, and Businesspeople. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, England, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Olaide Sheba

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

vandalism by user , re-create this article again Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an unsourced BLP as well as WP:A7. nf utvol (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hosea Nelson

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

Professor of chemistry at Caltech with an h-factor of 26, 3K citations and no major peer awards. He works in a medium citation area, so these low numbers fail WP:NPROF by some distance; I confess that his citations and record is surprising for a full prof at Caltech. The Packard Foundation lists some starter grants such as Sloan but also nothing major. No SIGCOV beyond routine announcements of talks etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Chemistry, and California. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A promising career, but he's not there yet. Nearly all of his well cited publications have more than three authors, so his personal contribution is hard to assess. The awards mentioned are the sort of thing one mentions when there is nothing more impressive. Athel cb (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads more like a job Résumé, The only indication I see of his age is, "He was a finalist for the 2021 Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists"— Maile (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aysegul Timur

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

While sources do exist, her only notability is related to her position as FGCU administrator, which isn't enough by itself; not otherwise notable. Electricmemory (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Electricmemory (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Turkey, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination that fails to consider the relevant notability criterion, WP:PROF. Under WP:PROF#C6, being head of a major university (president of Florida Gulf Coast University) is in fact enough by itself for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysinghrao Pawar

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

nothing substantial to merit an article. There are barely any sources about him, and only a few mention Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did this from the red link of 'Recent Deaths' page. Usually only people who pass WP:Notability are added to this list: Death in 2026. I trust this passes GNG, as there are more than two detailed articles only about him in reliable, secondary newspapers, multiple Marathi news outlets like Loksatta, Maharashtra Times, Lokmat, TV9 Marathi, MahamTB have carried detailed news and features. And many references acknowledge him as an established historian on Maratha and Kolhapur, not just passing death obits. There is also a detailed publisher biography, mentioning over 25 books and umpteem research papers. Have also added a couple of more sources.. I feel this definitely passes both GNG and WP:notability. Davidindia (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hey David, thanks for the heads up, I am withdrawing my nomination. Did not see the marathi sources, and thought most of it is routine! Best, Adrian~~
Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, renowned historian, author, director at Shahu Research Centre in Shivaji University. Sufficient reference are added, if not satisfied, just add {{citation needed}}. -Santosh 02:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will let people get to a consensus, so striking off my withdrawal comment. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Just getting some coverage upon death does not make person notable. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 10:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NBIO. Sources do not provide significant coverage necessary for an article. Rzvas (talk)
Delete - Apart from some recent coverage about his death, there is nothing. Lorstaking (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like all my three friends above have missed the point that this red link is taken from the "Deaths in 2026" which lists only those who pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. That apart, it passes WP:GNG 's all four imp point: SigCov and all sources are Reliable, Secondary and Independent of the subject, the four GNG points. Also, it passes WP:NACADEMIC... which says: failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline if "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"... in this case many mainstream notable, secondary, independent sources acknowledged his authority on the history of Marathas and Kolhapur. This source, is written about 8 years before his death, and it is a feature article. So the coverage is not just death news. Four stand alone special articles, only about the subject, in depth, with more than 800 word articles, are definitely WP:SigCov... I remain! Davidindia (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper sources (especially a local coverage from Lokmat) are not indicative of scholarly authority nor is it enough for establishing GNG.

You have not demonstrated his academic influence , mere assertions are not enough. Zalaraz (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly local newspaper sources ar covering his recent death, they do not count towards GNG. There is no indication that he was significant or he had a remarkable influence in academia. Zalaraz (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to humbly submit that they were six detailed articles only about him, all before the death dating from 2017 to 2023 in various reliable acclaimed Media outlets like The Week, Free Press Journal, Loksatta, Sakal and Lokmat, which difinitely passes GNG. A close look at the articles clearly indicates, his significant contribution to the academia as per WP:NACADEMIC as suggested by an editor above who is an admin in Maratha Wiki. I rest my case!Davidindia (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. It seems like there are enough foreign sources to support an article, but based on the current state of the text, it fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. If no one is going to improve the copy, then it should be deleted. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Significant coverage outside local coverage is entirely missing. Agletarang (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Surier

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

Does not pass WP:GNG with current sourcing. Has been in existence for 6 months with no improvements. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Peters (psychologist)

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

Non-notable per WP:NACADEMIC. All three refs seem to be about the same secondary data analysis study of data from a prior, BBC internet survey. The study focused on left-handedness correlates (sexual behavior, health, etc.) and was published here (not linked in the WP article) in 2007. All three refs quote Peters (or the other author) from interviews reporters must have done with the authors about the study. Here is a summary of the refs, along with first mention or typical mention, and some stats. The first two are newsy, pop science accounts of fun facts from the report, with quotations from interviews with Peters (and other authors). The third is a BBC fact sheet about Sex ID; a bit more sober, and limited to one finding (mental rotation ability).

ref 1. McIlroy (2006) – pop sci report on left-handedness; (skip paywall via View page source, search-on-page for 'Peters'). e.g., "...a number of studies have suggested that southpaws are more likely to be homosexual, or to suffer from certain illnesses and disorders. Not true, according to University of Guelph psychology professor Michael Peters." 17 occs of "Peters" incl 6 occs of "Dr. Peters said".
ref 2. Chung (2008) – e.g., "Some researchers have suggested lefties are more likely to be schizophrenic, dyslexic, stutterers, and suffer from allergies, asthma and breast cancer. Never mind that Michael Peters, a professor of neuropsychology at the University of Guelph, published a study in December 2006 debunking many of these claims." and 5 quotations by Peters.
ref 3. BBC (2014) – "according to new research by Professor Michael Peters, Dr Stian Reimers and Professor John Manning" + two quotations attributed to him.

Nowhere is there anything about Peters's life, career, accomplishments, views, awards, other studies, or anything else (not even a non-independent, first-person interview).

I did some searches to try to turn up more, and searching is tricky because of namesakes, starting with:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Note: this turns up better results than the top link)

Wikipedia has around a dozen Michael Peters. I managed to prune a lot of chaff with this web search with numerous negative terms, and nothing jumped out at me. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, the article is feeble and pretty much useless in its present state. On the other hand his Google Scholar record (h = 54) indicates that he is sufficiently notable, and a recognized expert on handedness, to be worthy of having an article, and if someone who knows enough about him would like to modify the existing article very thoroughly, then why not? So delete for now, but maybe revise the decision in the future. Athel cb (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have nominated it solely for poor sourcing in the article, as that is fixable if good sources exist. I nominated it after attempting to find better sources and failing, leading me to believe that the sources currently in the article are the best available. Can someone comment on the applicability of 'h' index as a factor in notability? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also add the reference proving my editorship of the Journal Neuropsychology on which I had served as member of the Editorial advisory Board until 2011. Will do likewise for my serving as editor of Laterality from 1996 to 2007.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393206004817 ~2026-18386-95 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that this temporary account is operated by the article subject per discussion on their talk page. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer 💬(they/she) 21:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has a reasonably high citation index, which is an acceptable criterion per the guideline, The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work. Editorship is relevant for WP:NPROF#8, the journal is relatively major as we have a page on it. His research has also received coverage in the press, in addition to the one mentioned above, he was quoted regarding the connection between brain size and intelligence. The lack of sources is an issue for all academics, so their biographies are usually written based on their CVs, I don't see why this person should be an exception. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the guideline again, I found this comment:
Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied.

It's not clear to me if he is highly cited or not. I used Web of Science's highly cited researchers tool, and didn't find him listed there. This Afd is about Peters, and how other articles do it plays no role here. But since you raised it, I don't understand how one can base any biographical article on a CV (outside the most basic info) as that seems like a hands-down violation of WP:INDEPENDENT, and may be a violation of WP:PROMO also, depending who's doing it. If he was chief editor of Laterality, then that probably clinches it. Do we have that? The Neuropsychologia editorship doesn't count, as he was one of around fifty others. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant by the sentence you quoted is that some fields have extremely high citation rates and editors should be cautious about that. In practice, the h-index is regularly used in AfDs to assess notability. Looking at the titles of his works, Peters' work is related to mental rotation, which doesn't look like a subfield that has papers with thousands of citations.
Other articles are relevant because AfD participants should take into account wider community norms, which are partially reflected in what happens to other articles. In general, a subject can receive a page via passing GNG or SNG. The latter category exists for subjects which editors want to include, but for which no readily accessible GNG-passing coverage is available. Academics are one of such groups of subjects, so non-independent sources are regularly used to write biographies. These are not an example of articles that Plenty of articles exist that probably should not as the essay puts it.
Regarding editorship, the journal lists 11 people over a 30-year span, so it is reasonable to assume he was somewhat influential in deciding what is being published there. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having trouble understanding your point. Is there some confusion about what this Afd is about? How the article is currently written is irrelevant. And whether non-independent sources are regularly used to write other biographies is irrelevant. This is about whether the topic is notable, and the keep/delete decision will be made based on that, so that is what we should concentrate on, and not on how other biographies are written. WP:Notability is policy, and bullet five excludes CVs from consideration in assessing notability. Once the notability threshold is achieved, one can raise the issue of how other biographies are written (on some other page, not here), in order to influence how this article ought to be written, but you cannot use a CV (or any non-independent source) to establish notability. That is basic. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established via WP:NPROF#1,8. The guideline also says that it is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. Regarding the journal, it is 90 out of 218 journals in the General Psychology category in Scopus and labeled as a Q1 journal by SCImago. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While the H index and citation rates come with quite a few problems, I note that my most highly cited paper - while nowhere near super highly cited papers - still puts it in the 97th percentile of all published papers.

Similarly, the H index ( H 54 Google Scholar) which, again, is nowhere near the highest you can find, still puts me solidly in the region above the 95th overall percentile of all published authors.

Regarding editorship and "11 editors over a 30 year span" comment, I was Editor for 11 years (1996 to 2007).

The journal uses a system of co-editors, mostly three at a time.

So, yes , I did have an influence. Still, I am impressed by the thoroughness with which the Wiki folks are approaching this and grateful you take the time. Having said this, I never had anything to do with the original Wikipedia posting for me (Michael Peters, Guelph, psychology) and just tried to make some factual changes without taking the time to properly look at the "edit" rules. So, yes, go ahead and delete the entire entry. I have donated to the Wikipedia for years and will continue to do so. The people in the field (laterality, brain size and spatial ability -mental rotation-of visual images) know me and that is good enough. Lefthandcaligula (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds promising, and the article should be kept upon verification of that fact per WP:NACADEMIC point 8. I just edited Laterality (journal) and tagged the first citation as failing verification (meaning, it was cited as backing up content in the Wikipedia article about Laterality editors, but it does not back it up). Lefthandcaligula, would you be so kind as to find a source that does, and ideally, add a citation to it to the article? Otherwise, just linking it here would suffice. (Note that an assertion about who was editor is a basic fact, and need *not* be independent, per WP:ABOUTSELF.) That would help move this forward. If you want to go the extra mile, Laterality (journal) could use some additional citations, as the sole valid citation there now is non-independent, so notability is in question there, as well. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., just noticed that IntoThinAir (talk · contribs) created both Michael Peters (psychologist) and Laterality (journal) and may wish to comment. Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I edited Laterality (journal) to remove a PMC ID that was for the wrong article, and also removed the "failed verification" tag, because the correct article does in fact confirm the content cited to it about Peters replacing Bryden as EIC of that journal after the latter's death. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Akintoye Akindele

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

Per WP:SOAP, this significantly fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search didn't reveal anything useful or encyclopaedic. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Akinsola

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

No evidence that this subject passes WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and a cursory search does not reveal useful sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Law, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that the subject does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Dead astrologer (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His h-index is only 8. A total citation is only 173. Nohow he meets WP:NACADEMIC. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yih-Teen Lee

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

A somewhat borderline case, but I don't think that WP:NPROF is met here. No named chair; full professorship in a European university, but with a Scopus H-index of only 11. Other features in his career are typical for a higher education profesor in Spain. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Management, Taiwan, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The IESE Publishing and IESE Insight pieces are good, but clearly not independent. Having peer-reviewed articles is WP:MILL. Has some edited books and book chapters, and if someone found significant reviews of those that would help with notability. Overall, he's doing good work, but I don't see how it passes the bar for WP:NPROF. For transparency, I note the creator of the article also emailed me to draw attention to this AfD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Mena

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

No significant coverage; mentions in the press are in passing and don't cover the in-depth coverage we need to have a bio. This has been unsourced since 2011. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is completely unsourced and appears to have been written by someone with a conflict of interest. I couldn't find any coverage of her besides a passing mention or an article from another wiki.🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 20:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everybody knows that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Helyeh Doutaghi

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

This seems like a classic WP:BLP1E article to me: the subject is a low-profile individual who does not pass WP:NACADEMIC; reliable sources only cover the subject in the context of her termination; and her termination was not a significant event. Astaire (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Education, Iran, Palestine, and United States of America. Astaire (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced; an associate professor at a law school has never survived AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable as academinc and the event does not have lasting consequences. --Altenmann >talk 16:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject satisfies WP:GNG since it got a vast coverage in reliable secondary sources during the backlash with Yale University and later during summer 2025 Israel-Iran war and later USA-Israel - Iran war in Feb and Mar 2026. So this is not one single isolate event that made the subject notable, but the event of the conflict with her employer, was an on-set for her to become an analyst commentator in different media outlets, including Aljazeera. Sattar (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E generally supersedes WP:GNG, and being interviewed about news stories isn't WP:SIGCOV of the subject herself. Astaire (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You wont be interviewed in well-established media outlets frequently and in different occasions unless you are considered a subject matter expert.

WP:BLP1E is just irrelevant here since the subject is not necessarily notable only for one event-that one event, was a starting point, but not the entire reason for her becoming notable. Sattar (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Wikipedia doesn't exist to republish accusations made against people.—BrechtBro (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taskin Padir

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

Paid page on a robotics professor with an h-factor of 26 and 3.5K cites, which is low for this high-citation area. No major peer awards; the page had promo and details on his funding, some of which I removed. Fails WP:NPROF and most of the coverage is routine press releases etc so fails WP:GNG. The trend of his citations/year is encouraging, but it will be 3-5 before he meets WP:NPROF, it is WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Computing, and Massachusetts. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low h-index, not meeting PROF. I can only find articles in Gscholar that this person wrote, nothing about them. Reads like a CV, PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons already given. Athel cb (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is a high-enough citation field (comparing his citations to those in [1]) that his record does not yet pass WP:PROF#C1, his local and early-career awards do not pass #C2, and I didn't see anything else. The article is also heavily puffed up, likely from promotional editing, and could use significant trimming if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low h-index. Since 2020 citations are not touching 3 digits. In my opinion he is WP:TOOSOON. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low h index fails WP:NPROF Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ali Sharifi Zarchi

AfDs for this article:

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

Was already deleted before, for failing WP:NPROF, I believe it still applies. Legendbird (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Legendbird (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although his credentials as a professor are not notable in and of themselves, his arrest and other dissident activities have received wide enough coverage for notability as a regular WP:BIO. Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly all of the references are in Persian. Surely to be considered notable for the English Wikipedia we need some evidence in English? Athel cb (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have no requirement that our sources be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom JLN2026 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. h-index is 23 and citations since 2020 is very poor. Not sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it's right to assess notability from the academic POV. Media coverage (and the article here) centers around his relationship to protests in Iran and the Iranian government, not his academics. I added a Financial Times article, Al Jazeera article, and BBC article that mentioned him recently. ~2026-19219-90 (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Syced (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF. Coverage in reliable sources is limited to a few paragraphs dedicated to a recent seizure of his assets, so he fails WP:GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply]
Regarding the comment about coverage only touching on the recent seizures, I don't think that's true? Just looking at what's already included in the Wikipedia article, he has appeared in the news for several events over the past few years. When he was fired in 2023 as part of a purge (covered in an Al Jazeera and Iran International) and reinstated in 2024 (covered in Iran International). More recently, when he chose not to return to Iran (covered in ITV; this one is perhaps less reliable, I'm not very familiar with it). And the coverage this March about the seizure of his assets (covered in BBC, Al Jazeera, and Financial Times). ~2026-19219-90 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding dismissal, I checked Al Jazeera and the BBC and considered them too brief to be relevant. But the coverage from Iran International[2] and from RFI [3] is reasonable. itv.com, however, doesn't look reliable enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

George Keduolhou Angami

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

This article does not fulfil the notability criteria for educators, academics, or administrators. Astra Travasso (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Astra Travasso (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nagaland and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Does he pass the #6 criterion of WP:NACADEMIC? If yes, then maybe we can save the page....? BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF#C6 is for heads of major research universities. He is head of something called a college, and my impression was that in that part of the world "college" largely referred to secondary schools. I do not think it is a major research university. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Parveen Azam Ali

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

I have searched in the newspapers and magazines of Pakistan and the UK but unfortunately there is hardly any coverage about her. It fails WP:GNG. I think as a nurse she fails WP:NPROF. BookishReader (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an academic in the field of nursing is absolutely eligible for WP:NPROF: that guideline covers teachers, researchers and administrators in higher education. That is not to pass any judgement as to whether this person passes that guideline, but being in the field of nursing is not an automatic disqualification. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say nurse academics are non-notable by default. I wanted to say "as a nurse academic she fails WP:NPROF." Sorry for this confusion. BookishReader (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be surprised if a professor at Sheffield wasn't notable. I note that Ali is EIC of International Nursing Review, which is definitely notable and may be 'major' per WP:NACADEMIC criterion 8. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"professor" is likely equivalent of "reader" at Sheffield Nursing department. There is no Reader on Nursing and Midwifery list. Cambridge also replaced Reader with Professor. According to #5 of WP:NPROF, only distinguished professors or chair professors at major universities are notable by default. BookishReader (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sheffield, like a lot of universities, seems to be moving away from the reader title, but that doesn't mean that professors are equivalent to readers. You're right that being a professor doesn't, alone, mean someone meets the notability criteria for academics, but that's not what I said; I said I'd be surprised if a full professor at Sheffield doesn't meet the criteria. In this case, it seems fairly(?) clear she does meet the criteria, since she's EIC of a journal (that, sadly, we happen to not have an article about...) that (per Sohom Datta below) definitely seems major. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a exceedingly weird nomination. There is no doubt in my mind that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC and being a nurse is not a disqualification from WP:NACADEMIC. Looking at [4] per folks above she and is the Editor in Chief of International Nursing Review, which should handily allow her to pass WP:NACADEMIC # 8 Sohom (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A major, well-established academic journal in their subject area - this needs to be established through third-party, in-depth references. We don't even have an article about this journal, so I'm not convinced she is notable. WP:BLP policy is quite strict, and we cannot write much about her using primary sources. There is little impact of her work AFAIK. Her only published book Gender-Based Violence: A Comprehensive Guide has not yet received any academic review.

Concerns have been raised about COI editing by the subject (or a colleague) and about notability - the only way to resolve these is through a discussion like this. It's how the process should work. BookishReader (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BookishReader We don't even have an article about this journal, this doesn't matter. Wikipedia's coverage can and often is poor in specific niches. What matters is that the journal is considered to be among the top 15 publications in Nursing on Google Scholar. It is considered Q1 by Scimago. Scopus ranks it 8th among all nursing journals. As a result, I disagree with your assertion: There is little impact of her work AFAIK given this context.

Concerns have been raised about COI editing by the subject (or a colleague) - WP:AFD is not WP:COIN and articles typically are not be deleted purely because of COI reasons. Sohom (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF says The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. (emphasis mine) A 15th-place rank on Google Scholar or a Q1 ranking on Scimago is not enough to say that it is a major journal. When we say a major power, we usually mean the top two or three, and the same applies here. It is certainly not among the top three and therefore cannot confer inherent notability. We have never had an article about any editor-in-chief of International Nursing Review before, and the journal's own notability is essentially nonexistent based on secondary sources. Note that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is now only an essay. BookishReader (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BookishReader, Q1 is explicitly a designation for "top journal in area" I don't see why it would not fit Wikipedia's bill for major journal, similarly, 15th in Google Scholar is still definitely still a "major academic journal", to draw a parallel to an area that I semi-regularly work on, the third entry for software engineering has a page on English Wikipedia which calls it the most prestigious conference within the subdomain of operating systems (a subdiscipline of software engineering). Sohom (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why this was even nominated. She has so many rare and notable awards, and is also a deputy director of Research and Innovation at University of Sheffield. Juju (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have mentioned you are offering paid editing services. Could you please clarify if this one is your client? BookishReader (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. I have not paid clients in the last 2 years for Wiki. Juju (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the above evaluation of Sohom, she meets WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on comment by someone who has created possibly UPE articles like INVNT, True Potential. What is your connection with the subject? BookishReader (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:NSCHOLAR. Professor at one of the world's leading universities and winner of prestigious awards. Svartner (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See Josh Milburn comment above: Professors are not notable by default. She has won Asian Women of Achievement Award only which is not a prestigious award. BookishReader (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Svartner, Z3r0h3r000, Jujucabana I know it is not a straightforward call, but as I said above, we do need third-party secondary sources that quote International Nursing Review as a major journal or well-established journal, as required by WP:NPROF The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. So far keep !voters are confering her notability based on her position as EIC in this non-notable journal.

Also, we haven't found anything about her in secondary sources and Wikipedia is WP:NOTMIRROR of university websites. There must be something in secondary sources to write about her so WP:BLP policy is not violated or specifically WP:BLPPRIVACY. i'd like more input from the AfD regulars who comment on academics. BookishReader (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misattribution for why I supported keeping this article. I supported it for C6 and C2 in WP:NACADEMIC.

C2: “The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.”

She is the recipient of the Mary Seacole awards from the Royal College of Nursing.
Emerging Nurse Researcher award from the European region of Sigma Theta Tau nursing honor society
Asian Women of Achievement Award

C6: “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.”

She is currently Deputy Director of Research and Innovation at Sheffield

Juju (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some more comment with respect to the BLP concerns of the nominator please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her h-index is 41 and citations are in triple digits. Wikipedia page says "an "outstanding scientist" would have an h-index of 40. So she passes WP:NACADEMIC. --SatnaamIN (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sohom. The debate has a clear Keep consensus, but since it was relisted, I will comment. She passes WP:NPROF#8 as the editor-in-chief of a journal which, per Scopus, is ranked 8 out of 143 in the subject area "General Nursing". There is no BLP-based reason for deletion. If such vague arguments are taken seriously, then WP:NPROF becomes completely inapplicable for determining inclusion, as most people covered by the guideline lack independent secondary coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir de Semir

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

I assume many of this page's problems migrated from the Spanish translation, however it is nowhere near the standard expected of Wikipedia pages. Perhaps the subject does meet WP:GNG, but the citations are absolutely unacceptable for a wiki page. This is a prime example of WP:TNT Wisenerd (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, and Spain. Wisenerd (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not up to standard per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Baril

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

This article is highly problematic because it presents this guy as some major, influential academic, but then behind this façade of seeming notability and extensive citations is a dressed-up résumé cited almost entirely to Baril's own works and completely failing to meet our notability guidelines for academics. The article has been flagged as an autobiography since 2020, and the sourcing problem has been flagged since 2019. Moreover, it fails to demonstrate that this guy is notable at all. There is a single two-page review of one of Baril's work's included among the sources, but other than that, there's nothing to indicate that he has any influence at all and not just a proverbial tree falling in a forest with nobody around to hear.

There are a couple of potential claims to notability in the article:

"Baril was the first Francophone trans person in Canadian history to be employed as a professor specializing in trans studies to teach on sexual and gender diversity in French." This is an absurdly narrowing set of qualifiers and we generally don't have articles for people whose main claim to notability is as "the first X to do Y" except in particularly historic circumstances.
"In 2025, Baril was awarded the King Charles III Coronation Medal for his contributions to Canada". This medal was awarded to over 30,000 people in Canada, so it's not that exclusive an honor, and is not "a prestigious academic award" as the academic notability standards would look for.
"Baril is described as one of the first trans researchers in Canada to publish work on trans issues from a transactivist perspective in the French language." The provided source is one of Baril's own works, so this is not a valid claim (and the weasel words attribution "is described as" is kind of sneaky and reflective of the whole article).
"Baril is the first person to create and define the notions of cisnormativity and cisgendernormativity in French" -- This is another somewhat deceptive claim. My first thought when I saw that was, "Oh, he came up with those concepts? I guess that's pretty notable, maybe I was mistaken." But no, looking at those articles indicates that they were coined by someone else, and he was just the first to use those words in French. We generally don't have articles for "first person to use this word in this language", so again this doesn't help.
* Coined various neologisms. Without independent sources to indicate that these terms have caught on with wider usage, this is basically just some guy shouting into a vacuum. Not a claim to notability.

It's certainly possible that Baril is actually an influential academic, but the current article completely fails to demonstrate that and instead comes off as one guy (or one of his students) sneakily trying to promote his works by passing them off as more impactful than they actually are. If he does actually meet notability standards, then I think the article needs to be redone entirely from scratch because the current one is very flimsy. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Disability, LGBTQ+ studies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His h-index is 24, so the citation count is too low. He is an associate professor, so fails WP:NPROF#5. Baril has published one notable book, but this is not enough for WP:NAUTHOR, for which the usual practice is to have at least two. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs a heavy rewrite, because yes, it is written promotionally, but that in itself is not a valid reason to delete it. I think he passes WP:NPROF. An h-index of 24 is high in the humanities, and there is WP:SIGCOV about him so he passes WP:GNG. A reviewer of his book writes Alexandre Baril was the first to put forward a concrete theory — suicidism — to identify the ways in which suicidal people have long been subject to various forms of marginalization, otherwise referred to by Baril as suicidist violence[5]. There is a feature article about him in the journal La Rotunde [6], another on ONFR [7], and he was personality of hte week on Radio Canada. [8] Lijil (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In general I agree with Kelob2678, but his citation rate has been increasing steadily since 2019, with 359 in 2925, and already 73 in 2026, which is not bad, and he may be more influential than the raw numbers suggest. Athel cb (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject passes SIGCOV and I found a new citation. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stacie Pettyjohn

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

Lacks evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NPROF and third party sources. WP:RESUME. Orange sticker (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United States of America. Orange sticker (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her h-index is 13, which is too low for NPROF. The reports may be considered books, but I don't see any reviews of them. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How do we evaluate the academic ranks of the Rand Corporation? Bearian (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I respectfully disagree with the deletion proposal.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

::Stacie Pettyjohn has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. During my research I identified a substantial number of published sources that discuss her work, public profile, and professional relevance in more than trivial or passing mention. Here are a few examples of content that I will use to further update the article:

The available sourcing shows sustained attention from independent outlets and provides enough depth to support a standalone article.

For these reasons, I believe the article should be kept rather than deleted.

CloudyLion (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the author of the article you should actually argue in your own words to keep it, not communicating that through an LLM. Please declare if any LLM usage was also involved in the creation of this article. Nathannah • 📮 20:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. You're right, I should have paraphrased. This is my first public discussion on Wikipedia, so I wasn't sure how to express myself. That's why I used an LLM to formulate my response. I would also like to clarify that I did not use an LLM to generate any text of the article. I only use it for research purposes only. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that Stacie Pettyjohn has received enough coverage to warrant her own article. I've found multiple sources proving this, and I'd like to use them to further improve the article:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/04/ukraine-drone-strike-asymmetric-future-warfare/

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2025/04/27/experts-on-russia-say-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-the-war-in-ukraine/

• https://www.npr.org/2024/12/16/nx-s1-5229630/there-is-still-much-to-know-about-drone-sightings-on-the-east-coast

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-15/biden-s-australia-uk-arms-deal-facing-pressure-over-delay-fears

• https://www.wired.com/story/china-taiwan-pentagon-drone-hellscape/

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-13/trump-sons-are-behind-a-750-million-push-into-drone-warfare

• https://www.lung.org/media/press-releases/2025-nj-sotc

• https://www.brookings.edu/articles/accept-reality-when-it-comes-to-hamas/

• https://www.fpri.org/contributor/stacie-l-pettyjohn/ CloudyLion (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The NPR source is an interview and is not about her. The FPRI source is a biography on the site of an organization she is affiliated with. Brookings is an op-ed by her. Lung.org doesn't mention her. The rest are media quoting her as an expert. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think article can be improved, but we don't need to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluribussin' (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Mehdi Ashraphijuo (via WP:PROD on 27 March 2026)
Ronald Izaruku (via WP:PROD on 24 March 2026)